Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here — this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We’re going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That’s why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don’t make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.
This is just the “open source” version of Bush and Cheney’s policy — an illegal and unconstitutional government practice with some meaningless “checks and balances” grafted onto it. It moves us beyond the idea that the president is a monarch, but only to leap into a more democratized form of illegality.
The problem was never merely that the president was acting alone; the problem was that the president was acting alone and in violation of the law — and hundreds of years of jurisprudence. A pretty significant difference.
How can you imprison people for thought crimes? If the evidence you have is “tainted” (since it was gotten through torture) and will not hold up in a legitimate court of law you have to let them go. Blame the Bush administration for destroying all hope of trying these individuals in a legitimate legal framework. But you still have to release them. And yes, that might endanger us. It might make us less safe. But so does violating the foundational priciples that guarantee our liberty. For a laudible speech that argued we must return to our nation’s first principles, this idea is a gigantic detour.
Four men were arrested Wednesday night in what the authorities said was a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military planes at an Air National Guard base in Newburgh, N.Y.
The men, all of whom live in Newburgh, about 60 miles north of New York City, were arrested around 9 p.m. after planting what they believed to be bombs in cars outside the Riverdale Temple and the nearby Riverdale Jewish Center, officials said. But the men did not know the bombs, obtained with the help of an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were fake.
The arrests capped what officials described as a “painstaking investigation” that began in June 2008 involving an F.B.I. agent who had been told by a federal informant of the men’s desire to attack targets in America. As part of the plot, the men intended to fire Stinger missiles at military aircraft at the base, which is at Stewart International Airport, officials said.
I don’t know what the plans are for these vicious jihadi terrorists, but I stand with Harry Reid in proclaiming from the rooftops that it is UNACCEPTABLE to house them in the US prison system. Who knows what kind of catalyst for heinous evil they will become in the swirling cauldron of darkness that is our penal system. No good and decent American should have to live within sight of these pieces of human refuse. If the authorities insist on incarcerating these satanic maniacs, the only reasonable thing for us to do is to eliminate all funding for state and federal prison systems and force other nation’s to take these prisoners off our hands. After all, we’re Americans. We’ve already done so much for the world; the least they could do is take away our burden of criminal masterminds.
[O]ne often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.
–George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”
In the spirit of my colleague’s most recent post I offer this humble illustration of what I will call the Republican Dummy:
Plenty of people have accused Brit Hume of Fox News of being a right-wing hack. In a helpful gesture, Hume has now confirmed this fact for us. He did it while he was being granted the “3rd Annual William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence” by the conservative Media Research Center. To give you some context, the MRC gave its 2007 award to Rush Limbaugh. Yeah. That’s their idea of “media excellence.” Here’s Hume:
HUME: I want to say a word, however, of thanks, to [Media Research Center president] Brent [Bozell] and to the team at the Media Research Center and all the contributors who make that work there possible. Not just for this wonderfully - this wonderfully fine award in the name of someone as I say I admire so much, but also for the tremendous amount of material that the Media Research Center provided me for so many years when I was anchoring Special Report. I don’t know what we would have done without them. It was a daily, sort of a buffet of material to work from, and we - we — we certainly made tremendous use of it.
American International Group is giving its executives tens of millions of dollars in new bonuses even though it received a taxpayer bailout of more than $170 billion dollars.
AIG is paying out the executive bonuses to meet a Sunday deadline, but the troubled insurance giant has agreed to administration requests to restrain future payments.
The Treasury Department determined that the government did not have the legal authority to block the current payments by the company. AIG declared earlier this month that it had suffered a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history [bold added].
The revolution should start any time now. Aaaaany time now.
UPDATE:
Apparently, AIG isn’t giving out “tens of millions of dollars” in bonuses to reward its employees for screwing up royally. Because that would be ridiculous. According to the WSJ, they’re giving out hundreds of millions:
American International Group Inc. will pay $450 million in bonuses to employees in its financial products unit. That division was at the heart of AIG’s collapse last fall, which compelled the U.S. government to provide $173.3 billion in aid to keep it running.
Rick Santorum, noted expert on the "Islamic" language
On Tuesday, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), took on a new role - expert on Islam. (Seriously). He gave a lecture at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, in which he tried to enlighten his audience on the finer points of Islam, such as the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and so on. Predictably, he made an ass of himself.
Santorum said he believes Muslims’ religious views cannot be changed or altered, so Middle Easterners reject American, democratic ideals.
“A democracy could not exist because Mohammed already made the perfect law,” Santorum said. “The Quran is perfect just the way it is, that’s why it is only written in Islamic.”
Hm. He thinks “Islamic” is a language, apparently. I always thought Islam was a religion. Well, who am I to argue? He’s the expert!
Hey, Rick - here’s something written in “Lapsed Catholic”: SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.
It appears that the government of the United Kingdom loaned George W. Bush a prized bust of Winston Churchill, and that W gave the statue a prominent place in the oval office. But when the British offered to let Barack Obama hold on to the bust during his administration’s tenure, the President declined.
Why, many wonder, wouldn’t the new President want to look to Churchill’s bronzed mug for inspiration as he governs our republic? Why wouldn’t he want to enjoy gazing upon the face of the legendary cigar-chomping Prime Minister?
Well, maybe it is because Churchill was an unabashed imperialist and hard-core racist.
Americans tend to view Churchill as a heroic wartime leader. And yes, he was impressive as Britain held off the Nazis in the Second World War. But Churchill also held abhorrent and inhumane beliefs. He threw around the word “savage” the way a college student says “like.”
Let’s have a look at some of Churchill’s thoughts throughout his career, shall we?
-On imperialism:
I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race has come in and taken their place.
Dog. Got it.
-On India:
Churchill, speaking of the Indian people, said that he had a difficult time dealing with “the humiliation of being kicked out of India by the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans.”
And he really didn’t like that Gandhi guy (you know, the way he wanted to be treated as if he were a human being and all). Churchill:
It is alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer of the type well-known in the East, now posing as a fakir, striding half naked up the steps of the Viceregal palace to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.
And, more to the point:
I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
-And on the Sudanese, whom he observed as they were gunned down:
The huge area contains many differences of climate and conditions, and these have produced peculiar and diverse breeds of men. The Soudanese [sic] are of many tribes, but two main races can be clearly distinguished: the aboriginal natives, and the Arab settlers. The indigenous inhabitants of the country were negroes as black as coal. Strong, virile, and simple-minded savages, they lived as we may imagine prehistoric men - hunting, fighting, marrying, and dying, with no ideas beyond the gratification of their physical desires, and no fears save those engendered by ghosts, witchcraft, the worship of ancestors, and other forms of superstition common among peoples of low development. They displayed the virtues of barbarism. They were brave and honest. The smallness of their intelligence excused the degradation of their habits. Their ignorance secured their innocence. Yet their eulogy must be short, for though their customs, language, and appearance vary…the history of all is a confused legend of strife and misery, their natures are uniformly cruel and thriftless, and their condition is one of equal squalor and want.
And on those Sudanese of so-called mixed race:
The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than the primitive savages.
-On his plan for forced sterilization of inferior types:
The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate… I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
-And, finally, much has been said about President Obama’s Kenyan heritage. Well, Churchill was in his second stint as P.M. when the British governnment began its brutal campaign to suppress the alleged “Mau Mau” uprising in Kenya, in order to protect the privileges of the white settler population at the expense of the Kikuyu and other indigenous people. About 11,00 Kenyans were killed and 81,000 detained during the government’s campaign to protect its imperialist heritage.
It is true that many of Churchill’s most offensive opinions were not uncommon. But they are also hateful and disgusting, and not the sort of thing that I think a twenty-first century president should seek to emulate. And yes, some of these thoughts, like those on the Sudanese, were expressed when he was young. But Churchill underwent no great enlightenment - his thoughts on Gandhi and India, for example, were expressed when he was quite old. Hence, his bigotry was a long-standing pattern in his life, not an aberration.
So if the Luftwaffe starts bombing Washington or New York, then maybe President Obama should look to Churchill for some inspiration and ask for that bust back. But until then, it’s OK with me if Obama chooses not to emulate Churchill.
The video at the bottom of this post is utterly astounding. I have included it just to make sure you don’t think I’m making this stuff up.
Michael Steele, who is chairman of the Republican National Committee, tells us that “not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job.”
The federal government employs over2,700,000 workersand hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation’s work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis [bold added].
So 2.7 million people get up every day, drink some coffee and grab a bagel, hop on the subway or get in their cars, and then go to their jobs that don’t exist? How simply bizarre!
This next bit, however, is my favorite part. Steele says that he doesn’t like the stimulus package because it creates jobs that are temporary. Jobs created by government contracts, he says, aren’t real jobs, they’re just “work.” (What a fascinating distinction, Michael!) For example, Steele says “these road projects that we’re talking about have an end point.”
Yes. This is true.
Because, dumbass, all construction jobs are temporary and have an end point. Unless you’re building a stairway to heaven, your construction project will eventually end. While construction is going on, however, construction workers have jobs (or “work” if you prefer). Because Mr. Steele appears to be having a really hard time with this concept, we’ll explain it in simplest terms:
Imagine a construction project. Let’s say the government decides to spend money to put up a new building. Well, for a period of time, architects, engineers, project managers, carpenters, brick layers, pipefitters, plumbers, laborers, truck drivers, ironworkers, crane operators, sprinkler fitters, painters, and other people will be employed. Not unemployed. (Jobs!)
This is a good thing, you see. But there’s more to it. The government spending that creates this “temporary” project will be multiplied through the economy. This is called the demand multiplier effect. Those people working on the building will be making wages. You know - money. And they will save some of it. And they will spend some of it. They will buy lunch at the lunch cart, they will buy new work boots, they will have a beer after work, they will buy groceries, they will take their families out to dinner; maybe they will buy a car, or a boat, or perhaps they will renovate their kitchen. They can do these things because they have “work.” Therefore, the money spent on the construction project will not only effect the construction workers themselves, but also various other local businesses. And we didn’t even mention the other businesses that will benefit from this project, like the companies that supply all of the tools and building materials for this new building.
So government, in this case, has created jobs. And those jobs lead to wages, and to increased saving and spending - this is what we call “economic activity.” The result? The economy has been - pay close attention here - stimulated. The government will also see another kind of return on its investment, because the people employed on this job will pay income and payroll taxes.
Yes, Michael, eventually this project will “have an end point.” The building will be complete someday. That is the nature of construction.
So the government does create jobs, you see? It creates “government jobs,” but also other kinds of jobs. And when we are in a recession, and people are unemployed, they need jobs. Or “work,” if you prefer.
A US company claims to have received federal approval to market a 9-mm handgun as a medical device and hopes the US government will reimburse seniors who buy the $300 firearm. But the US Food and Drug Administration says there are currently no formal designations of the gun as a medical device.
Called the Palm Pistol, the weapon is designed for people who have trouble firing a normal handgun due to arthritis and other debilitating conditions.
“It’s something that they need to assist them in daily living,” says Matthew Carmel, president of Constitution Arms in Maplewood, New Jersey, which hopes to manufacture the Palm Pistol - now just a patent and specifications.
“The justification for this would be no more or less for a [walking aid] or wheelchair, or any number of things that are medical devices,” he says.
The sales information reads: “It is also ideal for seniors, disabled or others who may have limited strength or manual dexterity. Using the thumb instead of the index finger for firing, it significantly reduces muzzle drift, one of the principal causes of inaccurate targeting. Point and shoot couldn’t be easier.”
I wonder when they’ll start making the “clapper” version of this product?
Charlie Gibson’s interview with W is a stomach-turning tribute to the ineptitude of his presidency, and his lack of self-examination and reflection. As a handy service to our readers here at IHWYJS, I’ll translate.
Exhibit A:
Mr. Gibson: What were you most unprepared for?
Mr. Bush: Well, I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn’t campaign and say, “Please vote for me, I’ll be able to handle an attack.” In other words, I didn’t anticipate war. Presidents — one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen [italics added].
Translation:
Hey - I never said I could handle an attack or a war! I mean it isn’t like I was running for President or something! (Oh, wait…)
Well, anyway, the United States is like never involved in wars, so how could I have possibly anticipated one? I mean, we had the Barbary Wars, and a bunch of Indian Wars and such, and the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War, and the Two World Wars, and Korea, and Vietnam, and the Gulf War, and we’ve been involved in lots of other armed conflicts in the Philippines, and Grenada, and Panama, and during the Russian Revolution, and in Somalia, and Yugoslavia, etc., etc.
But how could I have seen it coming? I never said I could handle an attack, and I didn’t anticipate war!
Exhibit B:
Mr. Gibson: You’ve always said there’s no do-overs as President. If you had one?
Mr. Bush: I don’t know — the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that’s not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.
Translation:
Everything is just fine! Oh, but I guess I wish the Iraq intelligence had been better. But hey - lots of people thought Saddam had WMD! You know - because we told ‘em he did! Dick Cheney and I kept saying that Saddam had WMD, and lots of people listened and believed us, so it’s their fault, too!
Exhibit C:
Mr. Gibson: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?
Mr. Bush: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.
Mr. Gibson: No, if you had known he didn’t.
Mr. Bush: Oh, I see what you’re saying. You know, that’s an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can’t do. It’s hard for me to speculate.
Translation:
Umm…duh…duh…duh…der… I don’t understand your question, Chuck!
Oh, right. I see. Well, hey, you know, it is what it is! There’s no use crying over spilled milk. I mean, dude - you’re asking me to be reflective and to think about the consequences of my actions and decisions. That’s nuts! Sure, as a result of my colossal blunders, exaggerations, and lies, thousands are dead and wounded. But I can’t be thinking about stuff like that. I stick to my guns. No do-vers! No take-backs! Jinx - owe me a Coke!
I imagine it has been a tough week in the halls and offices of Fox News. Those poor bastards seemed determined to do their best to keep a Republican in the White House; alas, good sense prevailed on November 4th. Big time.
Harold Myerson’s WAPO column today is a letter - a letter of thanks - to Roger Ailes and his team of ghouls at Fox. Myerson writes:
During the campaign just completed, you guys [at Fox News] focused on Barack Obama’s allegedly Muslim and alien roots and socialist ideology; meanwhile, in the real world, unemployment rose, foreclosures soared and Wall Street went flooey. Over the past eight years, you beat drums for such causes as state intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. You demonized undocumented immigrants (okay, CNN’s Lou Dobbs gave you a run for your money on that one). You fed the Republican base with a steady diet of bile — and now that bilious base is the biggest impediment to the Republicans’ repositioning themselves so that they can win elections again.
Reach out to Latinos — the inescapably growing segment of the American electorate that voted overwhelmingly for Obama after four years of GOP immigrant-bashing? Not if Fox viewers have anything to say about it. Not after you’ve drummed into their heads that the Latino immigrant population is some looming terrorist threat.
Modify that opposition to stem-cell research? Tone down the ridicule of people in public life who have advanced degrees? Call off the Republican war on science that kicks in whenever science runs counter to right-wing fundamentalism in religion or economics? Not if the Hannity faithful can help it.
You’re not alone in reinforcing those beliefs that marginalize the Republican right, of course. You’ve got plenty of help from Rush and all the little Limbaughs who dominate talk radio. But together with your allies, you haul truckloads of troglodyte garbage to your flock.
Given Obama’s landslide victory, it would appear that Fox and its most enthusiastic viewers are moving farther from the mainstream of American political life. Perhaps the lesson for future Republican leaders is this: instead of trying to tap into the Weltanschauung of “Hannity’s America,” you might want to focus on the real problems that real voters care about. Like this guy did.
Man votes to authorize the torture of individuals in clear violation of international law, causing the humiliation, suffering, madness and even death of human beings in US custody.
Then man jokes in a prepared speech that a candidate running for president has ads so boring that they’d be considered torture under the Geneva Conventions.
All of the McCain campaign’s rhetoric about “socialism” and “redistribution of wealth” obscures the truth about the American economy. The fact is that we already have undergone a significant redistribution of wealth since the Reagan presidency. In the past 25 years, inequality in both wealth and income have grown, and wealth has been redistributed significantly from the majority of Americans to the very rich.
As the new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) demonstrates, the U.S. has the third highest level of inequality and poverty among the 30 OECD nations (only Mexico and Turkey are worse). This inequality has grown since the mid-eighties, and grown even faster since the beginning of the George W. Bush administration.
Conservative economic rhetoric greatly distorts the issue of income redistribution. Such rhetoric suggests that the economic policies of the “left” (Obama, in this case) redistribute wealth, while conservative principles - low taxes on the rich, deregulation, “small government,” etc. - do not “redistribute,” but are somehow the “natural” state of economics.
The facts clearly show otherwise. The OECD report shows that “Income inequality and poverty [in the U.S] continue to increase, especially since 2000.”
Some of the report’s highlights:
-Rich households in America have been leaving both middle and poorer income groups behind…nowhere has this trend been so stark as in the United States….
-The distribution of earnings widened by 20% since the mid-1980s which more than most other OECD countries. This is the main reason for widening inequality in America.
-Redistribution of income plays a relatively minor role in the United States. Only in Korea is the effect smaller. This is partly because the level of spending on social benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits is low - equivalent to just 9% of household incomes, while the OECD average is 22%. The effectiveness of taxes in reducing inequality has fallen still further in the past 10 years.
-Social mobility is lower in the United States than in other countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Australia.
-Wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% control some 25-33% of total net worth and the top 10% hold 71%.
The economic lesson here is that income redistribution works. Generally speaking, and assuming economic growth, if you employ conservative economic principles, income and wealth will be redistributed to the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. If, however, you employ social democratic (”big government”) principles, the result will be a more egalitarian society and less severe economic stratification - in other words, a much healthier “redistribution” of wealth.
Despite Republican rhetoric, it has been the Bush administration that has been redistributing America’s wealth.
Oily McWar, ever the master of all things relating to foreign affairs, enjoys listing the four five former Secretaries of State who support him (or at least the ones he can remember).
This really inspires confidence in the man, doesn’t it?
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, “impetuous” Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier,” the message said. “Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.”
I’ve been dismayed by the after-debate interviews of the “undecided voters” performed by the low-level grunts of the various television networks. You know what I’m talking about. Typically, a group of these reluctant individuals recline in some plush stadium seating and are filmed clutching those absurd, pseduo-scientific Luntzian pleasure dials as they watch the debate. After, a reporter will thrust a microphone into the doughy face of some overstuffed slob and ask them what they thought.
The moment of truth.
Invariably they say something like “I didn’t hear any specifics from the candidates” or “I wished the candidates had talked about their views on X.”
Take this guy, Winston Quezada, and his response to the recent town-hall debate for example:
“To me it was like a boxing match that went 12 rounds, and it was kind of a split decision. I was looking for a knockout,” the financial analyst said.
Topics each of the campaigns still need to address with specificity in Quezada’s view: withdrawal from Iraq and energy policy.
“For me a timetable is going to be critical,” Quezada said of the ongoing war.
As far as energy policy, the still undecided voter said he hasn’t heard much more than rhetoric from the candidates, while feeling his wallet continually squeezed by the price of gas.
“Give me some meat. Not just, ‘We need energy independence.’ Of course we need energy independence, but give me some more,” he said.
Why is it that the “independent voter” is only capable of speaking in metaphors involving meat and violent sports?
Listen, Winston, there isa candidate with a clearly expressed view on the topic of withdrawal from Iraq. He even has a timeline. And over at his website there are nuanced and specific — I mean “meaty” — policy positions on everything under the sun, from Civil Rights to Women. Why don’t you put down the Nintendo Wii controller just long enough to figure out the answers to your own questions?
When did we forget that we each have a basic civic duty to do our own research on these candidates? Aren’t we responsible for investigating how each candidate measures up to our values and ideas and hopes? If there are issues that are important to you, shouldn’t you be willing to spend some time reading the candidate’s position papers, doing independent research, and investigating their records? How is it that we got so lazy and incurious that we expect a televised event of dueling soundbites to provide substantive basis for decision-making?
I think that the so-called “undecided voter” isn’t the fussy and meticulous political animal that they imagine themselves to be. The truth is that there are no such things as an “undecided voters,” only unintelligent ones.
Can we make an amendment to the Constitution so that people who are unable to pronounce the word “nuclear” are disqualified from holding high office?
It’s the shibboleth for the retarded and the incompetent:
Here’s the transcript of Palin’s rambling, non-responsive answer:
Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.
Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that’s a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.
But for those countries — North Korea, also, under Kim Jong Il — we have got to make sure that we’re putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons. It is that important.
In the wake of last night’s V.P. debate , a distressing number pundits and columnists are all-too eager to declare Sarah Palin’s performance a success. At the Boston Globe, for example, J.J., is postiviely gushing. After saying that Joe Biden was ”in fine form,” he adds:
But Sarah Palin was incredible! She turned in a performance that would have done any vice presidential nominee proud - and she did it after less than six weeks in national life, and having never before debated in front of a national audience. She was strong, well-spoken, intelligent, an obvious quick study, and not in the least intimidated by her opponent’s decades of experience.
Well-spoken.
Seriously.
And for her own part, Palin declared that she was happy to have the chance finally to talk to the American people, without the filter of the mainstream media. Palin - the candidate who has been largely hiding from view (and earshot!), the candidate who shows no inclination even to hold a press conference - says she is happy that the American people finally heard her in her own words.
Her own words are worth examining. From the transcript of the debate, here are Palin’s comments on three rather important issues: education policy, climage change, and the Middle East.
On education policy:
Say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I’m glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he’s a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here’s a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate. Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It’s not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it’s near and dear to my heart. I’m very, very concerned about where we’re going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.
On climate change:
Yes. Well, as the nation’s only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it’s real. I’m not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts? We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that. As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We’ve got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an “all of the above” approach to deal with climate change impacts.We’ve got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don’t care as much about the climate as we do, we’re allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it’s all the more reason that we have an “all of the above” approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.
Responding to this question from Ifill: “Has this administration’s [Middle East] policy been an abject failure, as the senator says, Governor?”
No, I do not believe that it has been. But I’m so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Sen. Biden. I respect your position on that. No, in fact, when we talk about the Bush administration, there’s a time, too, when Americans are going to say, “Enough is enough with your ticket,” on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game. There have been huge blunders in the war. There have been huge blunders throughout this administration, as there are with every administration. But for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there’s just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that’s where you’re going. Positive change is coming, though. Reform of government is coming. We’ll learn from the past mistakes in this administration and other administrations. And we’re going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side of the people and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside. That’s what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers. But I know, Sen. Biden, you have respected for them that, and I respect you for acknowledging that. But change is coming.
Eight hundred and nine words. And she hasn’t said a thing.
Self-proclaimed “hockey mom” Sarah Palin had a private tanning bed installed in the Governor’s Mansion in Juneau, Alaska, Usmagazine.com confirmed on Monday.
“She did. She paid for it with her own money,” Roger Wetherell, chief communications officer of Alaska’s Department of Transportation and Public Facilities told Us.
The Narco News Bulletin first reported on the former beauty queen’s penchant for a bronzed body.
“It was done shortly after she took office [in early 2007] and moved into the mansion,” Wetherell told the Narco News.
According to Wetherell, the tanning bed was purchased used, from a health club.
Tanning beds can cost up to $35,000 to install in a home - not including the cost of parts, Color Me Tan manager Erin Weise told the Narco News.
“I don’t think it’s normal for people to have a tanning bed in their house, ” Wiese, who is based in Fairbanks said. “It’s expensive.”
US Magazine (Yeah, I linked to US, bring it on latte sippin’ elitist haters)
Talk about a waste of $35,000! Everybody’s knows that Alaska gets 20+ hours of sunlight during the summer. That’s enough for the whole year. But that tan does feel oh-so-good after a tough day of crushing your enemies and installing high school classmates in state administration.
And most importantly, this is the kind of thing that all good small town Americans can appreciate because they too believe in the god-given right to look like you’ve been on a vacation when you really can’t afford one.
I don’t think it’s going to happen. But I really hope that Oily McWar (71) picks Joe Lieberman (66) as his running mate.
Because they would so lose.
Stephanie Kirchgaessner reports in the Financial Times that Lieberman is being vetted, and that Oily digs him:
Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s campaign.
Mr Lieberman, who has campaigned for the Arizona senator, has long been considered an unconventional but plausible choice for Mr McCain.
Although Democrats have rejected Mr McCain’s image as a maverick politician, Mr Lieberman’s support for the presumptive Republican nominee has, much to the chagrin of his former colleagues, helped to boost Mr McCain’s reputation as a bi-partisan legislator with friends on both sides of the aisle. Mr Lieberman, a staunch supporter of Israel, could also help Mr McCain win over Jewish voters.
“[McCain] loves Lieberman. And he is on the [short-]list because Lieberman has never embarrassed anyone, never misspoken. The first rule is, don’t take someone who costs you votes,” said one McCain adviser.
I think it is a lovely idea. Lieberman would do nothing to help McCain shore up or energize the base. Lieberman would also attract very few crossover votes from Democrats (Democrats think he’s a dick).
But most of all, those two old war-mongering farts farting around the country might even be less exciting and inspiring than Dole-Kemp ‘96 (admit it - you almost forgot about that ticket already, didn’t you? Exactly).
In short, a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be rather short on Joementum.
In fact, a McCain-Lieberman ticket would almost certia…n…ly… zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
It is only a matter of time before Barack Obama is seen driving with a baby on his lap, or releases a home-made sex tape. And, just like Britney and Paris, Obama wants to raise your taxes!
The Italian left Bush Administration pulled no punches during the recent G8 conference on climate change, setting the record straight once and for all on the record of Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (born 1936) is one of the most controversial leaders in the history of a country known for governmental corruption and vice. Primarily a businessman with massive holdings and influence in international media, he is regarded by many as a political dilettante who gained his high office only through use of his considerable influence on the national media.
Oops! Picture the scenario. Intern X is charged with circulating a short biography of G8 leaders for a White House press release. Like any other red blooded 21st century American scholar, she hops online and nabs the first thing that looks authoritative, cuts and pastes, and voilà, the job is done.
Hated by many but respected by all at least for his bella figura (personal style) and the sheer force of his will, Berlusconi has parlayed his business acumen and influence into a personal empire that has resulted in Italy’s longest–running government ever and in his becoming the country’s wealthiest man. Bursting onto the scene with no political experience in 1993, he campaigned—using his vast network of media holdings—on a promise to purge the notoriously lackadaisical Italian government of corruption. He won appointment to the office of prime minister in 1994. However, he and his fellow Forza Italia Party leaders soon found themselves accused of the very corruption he had vowed to eradicate.
This is an extremely sloppy mistake for an administration that has been so disciplined in distributing its version of reality. Did someone at the White House forget that Berlusconi and Bush are good personal friends that go way back? Ah, who can forget the good times they had together after September 11, 2001? But why, oh why do they always leave the best parts out?
He released a CD in 2003 of Neopolitan love songs. The prime minister prefers to spend his spare time at his 70–room villa in Sardinia named “Arcore,” whose amenities include a private park, a movie theater, and walls of large–screen televisions.
Bush is just jealous I guess.
Call me old fashioned, but it might be a good policy to actually write the things published under the guise of official government communications. It’s easier to stay on message that way and cuts down on the written apologies, not that it’s necessary to apologize for speaking the truth every now and then.
Today the FISA bill passed and every meaningful amendment designed to protect our civil liberties was defeated.
A Democratically-controlled Congress just aided in the cover-up of at least 30 federal crimes committed by George Bush and Dick Cheney.
As an added bonus, we no longer have a meaningful 4th Amendment to the Constitution or any protection against government intrusion into our “private” communications:
UPDATE:
The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation vow to challenge the FISA bill on the basis that it is an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment and that it further usurps the Judicial branch of government.
WASHINGTON—The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.
Is it just me, or has nobody in Congress read the Constitution?
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—Crowds in Arkansas came for the lure of cage fighting and $1 beer, but police say what they got instead was men ripping each others’ clothes off and kissing — a stunt suspected of being orchestrated by Sacha Baron Cohen of “Borat” fame.
It seems that George Bush has had a taste for torture for quite some time. In 1967, the New York Times reported the following story about the DKE fraternity at Yale:
NEW HAVEN, Nov. 7–A Yale fraternity accused by the student newspaper of burning its initiates with a brand will have its fate decided Friday by student fraternity leaders.
The fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, could face the temporary closure of its house and a $1,000 fine resulting from alleged violations of rules previously passed by the Inter-Fraternity Council, which consists of Yale’s five fraternity presidents.
The charges against Delta Kappa Epsilon were made last Friday in a Yale Daily News article that accused campus fraternities of carrying on “sadistic and obscene” initiation procedures.
The charge that has caused the most controversy on the Yale campus is that Delta Kappa Epsilon applied a “hot branding iron” to the small of the back of its 40 new members in ceremonies two weeks ago. A photograph showing a scab in the shape of the Greek letter Delta, approximately a half inch wide, appeared with the article.
A former president of Delta said that the branding is done with a hot coathanger. But the former president, George Bush, a Yale senior, said that the resulting wound is “only a cigarette burn.”
Citing their free speech rights, three tour guides in Philadelphia filed a lawsuit this week challenging an ordinance that will require them to pass a history test and get a license. Mayor Michael Nutter signed the measure into law in April amid concern that some guides were perpetuating gross inaccuracies, including the false claims that Benjamin Franklin had 69 illegitimate children and that Betsy Ross, a three-time widow, killed her husbands. But the three guides, Ann Boulais, Michael Tait and Josh Silver, backed by a public-interest law firm, argue that the city has gone too far. The tests will be required beginning in October.
Lee Greenwood is famous for his 4th of July masterpiece, “God Bless the U.S.A.” One thing has always bothered me about it. It’s this line:
And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.
What the hell does this mean? Does Lee Greenwood actually live on another American citizen? Or has Lee so confused the land he loves with himself that they are cognitively inseparable for him?
If so, hats off, Lee Greenwood — your patriotism runneth over.
The Boston Globe reports that the first habeas petition that hit the federal appeals court system has gone against the government:
In the first Guantanamo Bay case to be reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.
The appeals court directed the U.S. military to release Parhat, to transfer him or to hold a new proceeding promptly in light of the appeals court’s ruling.
Considering that this man has been held at Guantanamo Bay for six years, this seems like pretty poor evidence:
Parhat never fought against the United States and the government concedes there’s no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network.
Government attorneys say he can be held under the law authorizing military force against anyone who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” of 2001.
Seriously, that’s it? A guy whose enemy is Communist China just spent 6 years in a hole and the government admits that he never attempted, nor desired, to attack the US or our allies?
And before anyone in Congress starts wailing that a bunch of incense-burning, sitar-crazed, liberal judges were “legislating from the bench,” they should check out who the judges were:
Sentelle is an appointee of President Reagan, Garland was appointed by President Clinton and Griffith was appointed by President George W. Bush.
The current trajectory of wealth distribution in America must certainly be making this man proud. For the rest of us, The Nation has devoted its June 30 issue to the growing problem of profound inequality.
The handy “guide” to extreme inequality is filled with useful links.
And the piece titled “The Rich and the Rest of Us,” by John Cavanagh and Chuck Collins, is on the money (bad pun intended):
Over the past three decades, market-worshiping politicians and their corporate backers have engineered the most colossal redistribution of wealth in modern world history, a redistribution from the bottom up, from working people to a tiny global elite.
Indeed. And part of the problem is about changing the discourse:
To reverse this reckless course, we need to change our nation’s dominant political narrative and restore faith in the critical role that government must play to protect the common good. But we can’t stop there. We need to confront directly the threat posed by this inequality.
That won’t be easy. Too many Americans see the enormous concentration of our nation’s wealth as a symptom of a sick society, not a cause. Indeed, most of our politicians and pundits refuse to treat it as any sort of problem at all. They may sometimes bewail particularly unseemly CEO paychecks. They may twitter occasionally about the latest bilious billionaire extravagance. But that’s it. The Senate couldn’t even manage to eliminate a tax loophole for gazillionaire hedge-fund managers last year. And even progressive wish lists tend to call only for a return to pre-George W. Bush tax rates, a step that would undo a mere one-sixth of the rise in income inequality we have experienced since the late 1970s, according to the Brookings Institution.
(I seem to recall some other dude striking similar notes recently).
In any event, we best address our nation’s economic woes quickly. That way, we can get back to tackling the really serious issues, like the War. On Christmas.
This tells you all you need to know about the Military Commissions down in Guantanamo Bay:
The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.
The government has stood behind the evidence for years. Military review boards relied on it to justify holding hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charge. Justice Department attorneys said it was thoroughly and fairly reviewed.
Now that federal judges are about to review the evidence, however, the government says it needs to make changes.
The decision follows last week’s Supreme Court ruling, which held that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in civilian court, not just before secret military panels. At a closed-door meeting with judges and defense attorneys this week, government lawyers said they needed time to add new evidence and make other changes to evidentiary documents known as “factual returns.”
Attorneys for the detainees criticized the idea, saying the government is basically asking for a last-minute do-over.
The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn’t the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers.
It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials.
The Supreme Court now has struck down many of their legal interpretations. It ruled last Thursday that preventing detainees from challenging their detention in federal courts was unconstitutional.
The quintet of lawyers, who called themselves the “War Council,” drafted legal opinions that circumvented the military’s code of justice, the federal court system and America’s international treaties in order to prevent anyone — from soldiers on the ground to the president — from being held accountable for activities that at other times have been considered war crimes.
