Flags

What the... look, I don't valorize the flag, but c'mon people, the guy is clearly either an idiot or doesn't believe any of the shit that comes out of his mouth:



... in other words, if Bush is going to metaphorically drape himself in the flag, the least he could do is display the fucking thing properly.

[Letters to the Editor] Parsing Letters

The DH opinion page is really aflame today. What it is about Monday and LTEs?

Just finished reading the one-sided article written by Diaa Hadid, who appears concerned about the barrier separating Israel from Palestine.

When a nation lives next door to a country that fires not only rockets into its cities but also sends suicide bombers in to kill their civilian population, they are confronted with no other choice but to create a barrier between them.

Mmm.... funny how the Israeli military occupation and military bombings are not mentioned. Nor the fact that a wall will a) have all sorts of other consequences, like preventing people from getting to work and/or school, or separating families and b) won't stop attacks.

Israel acquired their land through a World War II mandate from the British. Immediately upon occupying this land they were attacked by the surrounding Arab nations. Israel won that war and subsequent ones as well, thereby justifying its presence on the land.

I wonder if might would continue to make right if the US lost a parcel of land? For that matter, how is the original mandate from the British justified?

I believe that once the Palestinians learn to control the militants and permanently stop all this carnage, then not only will peace in that region ensue, but also, ultimately, some accord on the land issue as well.

It's just.... ah, fuck it.

Another letter:

I am writing this in regard to low-income families. Years ago Goodwill was a place to help the low-income people. When I go there now, I cannot afford their things.

I have heard tons of complaints about their prices. It is not right. They get their things for free. People who cannot afford school clothes or other items are supposed to be able to turn to Goodwill and places like that for those reasons.

Well said. I attribute Goodwill's increase in prices to a combination of things: College students who shop there but do not need to (especially in Corvallis, perhaps), rising gas prices, globalization/general economic strain, and the fact that the Goodwill CEO has made as much as $800,000/year. That latter has dropped (by a whole quarter!), but the fact that it was ever that high... yeah.

Oh, and don't forget #5: Capitalism. It's both a cause and consequence of the increased prices at Goodwill.

My favorite letter, at least when it comes to being delightfully short on reason, has to do with McCain and Obama:

McCain has a good idea on how to protect this country, having been in the military. His prisoner of war status gives him a good idea how our enemies think.

Wrong. Having been a POW does not automatically grant one insight into one's captors. This is not Rambo. Similarly, being in the military does not grant one special knowledge about the big picture. I know too many current and former military folks to believe that for a second. This argument might not totally suck if we were talking about a former general, but McCain? Seriously?

Obama has no idea how to protect this country and will be elected our next president.

Funny, I always thought that's what the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense, or possibly the National Security Adviser or National Security Council were for. Silly me. Not to mention that I'd argue with the claim as applied to Obama himself.

Over 60 percent of our population has no military experience and no idea of why the military even exists, other than it is traditional.

Even I don't believe the latter part is true. Of course people know the point of a military: To blow shit up. What, has the author never played Gears of War?

With Obama’s lack of knowledge, our military will become weaker after he pulls them out of the Middle East, setting us up like we were before World War II.

This is nonsensical. Also, the implied comparison to anyone in the Middle East and Hitler is ludicrous.

At or near Obama’s end of term the terrorists will have united the Arab countries enough that the Arabs will invade Europe. Nuclear bombs — probably smuggled in — rather than missiles will decimate cities of the United States.

Basis of these claims in fact? None. Amount of amazement I have regarding the fact that this sort of statement is not laughed out of the room? A whole freakin' lot. C'mon folks: "Obama as President = nuclear attacks on America" is just stupid, not to mention morally bankrupt. Of course "uniting the Arab countries" is about as likely as humans making to Alpha Centauri by tomorrow, but hey, when you're in a fact-free zone...

The terrorists may have learned not to start terror activities while a Republican is in office. Do their damage while a Democrat is in office, or before the new president can get a handle on what is happening.

Nice save of Bush with that last clause. I wonder of the author could explain this? For that matter, how does the author reconcile this with the "we are fighting them over there so we don't fight them here" claim, or the mere existence of the entire Iraq debacle?

To keep the U.S. out of the war as long as possible, hit U.S. cities before we can mobilize. While at the same time start the war in Europe, hoping to take Europe out before the sleeping tiger (the U.S.) can get on its feet.

Again, with what army? What nukes?

I am neither a Democrat nor Republican and spent 10 years in the U.S. Navy. I have never voted for a Democrat yet.

*sigh* Well, as far as I know, most people registered as independents consistently vote for the same party. At least this guy is not alone in that.

Whew. That last letter was amazing. It's kind of funny how the DH opinion page can pull the most entertaining people out of the woodwork. These letters even give EW a run for their money, though not quite in the same way.

By the way, this is post #805, or thereabouts. If I remember, I'll try and make note of posts #900 and 1000. I had intended to mark 800, but clearly I forgot =)

Digby on Bush

"...an anti-intellectual manchild with a mean streak a mile wide."

Yup.

[Hasso Hering] Give Him A Shovel, He Digs Unbidden...

I almost can't believe I'm blogging about this, but what the heck.

Hering (and I am, sadly, not making this up):

Interviewed on the CBS program “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said she liked Barack Obama. “I campaigned for him, I met he and his children ...”

The grammatical goof is easy to excuse. But the mistake is getting to be common. Why is it that so many people, including people in public life, including people educated at Yale, use singular personal pronouns in their nominative form — I, he, she — instead of the objective, me, him and her?

CBS News obviously knows grammar, and it is not above fixing it even in a direct quotation. On its website it reported that Clinton had said, “I met him and his children ....” This even though the video and audio portion of the interview confirms that she actually said “he.”

If Hillary gets to be president, the nation’s deteriorating patterns of speech are going to be the least of her concerns. But keeping that little gaffe in mind, and the off-key note that it added to what she meant to say, she might go so far as to direct some agency to launch a publicity campaign. The campaign would be aimed at getting Americans to use personal pronouns the way they are meant to be used. (hh)

This is immature and pathetic, even by my gutter-level standards. Certainly it's below Hering's beloved standards of "civility," no matter how he spins it. There's just no justifying the existence of this editorial in context.

All the stupid shit that's come out of GWB's mouth in the last eight years, and this is what you choose to write about?

You're not a newspaper editor. You're a hack. This doesn't pass the smell test, the laugh test, or the will-it-entertain-a-toddler test. It's excrement.

I can't wait for you to retire.



...for the record, while I think there's sexism in both the effect and in Hering's head, I don't think Hering was consciously being sexist when he wrote this. He was merely being grossly partisan - and therefore unprofessional in his capacity as a newspaper editor.

Seriously? He wants to make an issue of grammar errors made by Presidential candidates? F***, Hering. You're banking on the fact that you control the dialogue in your newspaper, aren't you - meaning that anyone who takes too much offense with your editorial is going to get shut out. I think we call that the bully pulpit - and it's not a compliment.

The Jena Six, or why Racism is Still a Huge Problem In America

I've been meaning to post about this for a few days, but the heat got in the way. The office gets absolutely miserable any time the temperature breaks 90 degrees Fahrenheit.

There has been a lot written about this issue already; I'm choosing to link to a post at Pandagon that offers a good summary of the issue. (More information can be found via Kevin at Slant Truth, who has been all over this.)

I am posting this now because I think it's important to remember that racism - the really ugly, overt, and conscious kind - is still nowhere gone from American society.

And furthermore, I think that the ridiculous bullshit perpetrated by the Bush folks at every level since 2000 really encourages this sort of response from police. How? By working to create new, limitless police powers; to encourage folks in authority to abuse their power; and to promote a vision of justice that's all about pain and retribution.

Sometimes I feel like I came from another planet, or that literally everyone has gone crazy except me. I mean, in my vision of a just world, if something like this happened, the public response would be huge (but not vindicative - just huge). Huge enough, in fact, to actually affect what's happening in Jena.

And for the record, I don't blame this on 'the South' or some such bullshit - it's a problem for white people everywhere. And besides, Oregon has a pretty nasty history of state-sanctioned and institutionalized racism that it's never really acknowledged.

Just A Reminder...

...of how stupidly corrupt the Bush Administration is. Because, you know, these things need to be pointed out periodically.

This NYT story, which has been blogged all over the place, reports on the testimony of Bush's former Surgeon General, Richard H. Carmona. Some excerpts:

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

Amazing. I have what I think are healthy self-doubts about how good of a person I am, and how moral my actions are, but when I read crap like this I just wonder how people learn to live with this sort of crap - not only the people enforcing it, but the folks who read this and have managed to convinced themselves there is nothing wrong. On some level, I just. don't. get. it.

Must be the Philosophy background.

Scooter Libby

Update: Jack and Jill Politics points out that Libby is white.

Many of the people whom Bush has not granted pardons or clemency to are not white.

I'm just sayin'.




I've been reading a lot about Bush's commuting of Libby's sentence. The liberal blogosphere is royally pissed off, maybe more than I've ever seen it, and in the last two days I think I've seen at least half a dozen calls for impeachment from folks who had previously counseled that impeachment was a bad idea. So it's safe to say that tempers are running a bit hot, which makes me wonder if people are going to retract their calls for impeachment once they cool down a bit. I hope not, actually.

Anyway, I wanted to lay out my own two cents on the topic, not because I think anyone reads this blog, but because I sort of want to try and organize my thoughts.

Libby was sentenced to 30 months in jail plus a $250k fine and some probation. I think there were four counts of perjury and/or obstruction of justice. To be honest, I didn't follow the details of the case that closely since I believed - and believe - that the legal part was going to be undercut by the politics the whole time. And lo and behold, it was.

Very soon after an appeals judge decided that Libby would have to go to jail pending appeal, Bush commuted the jail time. According to Josh Marshall at TPM (and a bunch of other folks), this allows Libby to pursue his appeal against the convictions, the probation, and the fine. It also allows him to plead the 5th in the future (though I don't know the mechanism behind this). It sounds like a pretty good deal, actually - there's a possibility that Libby will get off scot-free if he wins on appeal. Now, I'm aware that the appeals judges are very conservative, but the two judges that have convicted Libby thus far have been Republican appointees, so I hold out a sliver of hope that the legal system will function in a rational manner in the remainder of this case.

Having covered the legal fallout, what is the political fallout from Bush's decision to commute the sentence? I think there are a couple of pieces:

(A caveat - it appears that many of the mainstream media folks and many Republicans don't think this case should have ever gone to trial in the first place. So that's where they are coming from on this one.)

1) Media folks and Republicans everywhere get to do what they love to do - talk about what a great compromise this is. The argument will go like this: Libby's 'crime' wasn't really that bad, but he was convicted, so GWB is just making things right by commuting, but not pardoning, the guy. It's a great political argument (and especially great political cover for media operatives who are on Libby's side) because it allows the person making it to appear to play fair, even to claim neutrality on this one, when in reality Bush's commuting of the sentence is the worst kind of self-serving power-play.

2) It raises the possibility of anyone who opposes Bush's action being seen as an ideologue, not a team player, or someone who is simply partisan with no regard for 'reason.' Utter bullshit, of course, but that's what the TV is for, right?

3) This isn't strictly political fallout, but it's a Libby advantage. The fine and probation are no problem - he's not likely to do anything that will actually land him in jail anyway, and the fine will probably be paid by rich friends etc. There's been a pretty annoying attempt to paint this as a big blow to Libby's status, but given that many Republicans appear to think the trial never should have happened, then Libby's status among his own people is untouched. Raised, even, since he 'survived' an encounter with the enemy. Again, it allows both sides of the fence to be played - Libby gets a nice cushy job somewhere behind the scenes for awhile (the equivalent of leaving town until the heat is off), and Republicans and media folks are allowed to wail and cry over what a damaging blow this is to poor ol' Scooter Libby...who happens to be sipping margaritas at the Heritage Foundation.

4) Oh, and the Democrats? It's like they're not even a part of this. Yeah, all the candidates and party leaders released statements, but at this point, they've got the collective cajones of my neutered cat. They're not going to do anything - that would rock the boat. Or worse - it would actually have an effect and they would have to keep playing offense. Let's face it: Most of the Democrats in power at this point are political cowards as beholden to the same forces Republicans are, both monetarily and culturally.

There's also the claim being bandied about that this amounts to 'obstruction of justice' on the part of Bush. Certainly that's true politically, though I have no idea if it holds as a legal claim in this case. What it does raise is the issue of the invulnerability of the Presidential Pardon: Is it subject to the law of the land, or is it the equivalent of a parent putting their foot down? That is, is it an absolute power or not?

Finally, I'll also say that yes, Bush's decisions makes a mockery of the existing justice system, which isn't that great anyway. But, and perhaps more importantly, it reveals a little bit more about how much of a sociopath the man appears to be. Remember, this is the guy who a) hasn't really granted clemency to or pardoned ANYONE yet in his presidency; b) saw ~130 executed when he was Governor of Texas, a number that led the nation (and probably most of the world); c) openly mocked a woman who was on death row and later executed when asked if he had any plans to pardon her.

From the Wikipedia entry on Karla Faye Tucker:

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.

And yet, there is something scarier than all that: the fact that so many people, especially media pundits who know all of the above, think he'd be a great guy to have a beer with. What does that say about what our media thinks is acceptable moral behavior?


Update: The best line about the whole Scooter Libby thing, hands down: If I run out of vomit, can I borrow some of yours?

Making a Statement

Apparently 50 high school students, all part of the Presidential Scholars program (whatever that is), presented Bush with a signed letter the other day asking the President to place a ban on torture and human rights violations.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh, because the idea that Bush would listen to these folks is ridiculous on its face, or cry because they had the guts to do it - guts that are in very short supply these days.

My, um, favorite part:

"The president enjoyed a visit with the students, accepted the letter and upon reading it let the student know that the United States does not torture and that we value human rights," deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

I love/hate how Bush always just repeats his lines like he's the smartest one in the room, or that what he says goes because of his status. I associate that trait with, well, a massive lack of awareness about the world. Hm.