Defending The Indefensible

President Bush's greatest trump card with his base has been the misconception that he's a straight talkin' dude, just layin' it out proper for the American people. That's complete garbage, of course, as Bush is just as much a political animal as any other in Washington. That's why it comes as no surprise that he's back out on the road again, trying to defend the war in Iraq, again. However, he's added a new attraction to his dog-and-pony show of political spin: defending his abuses of executive power.

Now, I've written about this before but, given my recent absence and the maddening inability of the "So-Called Liberal Media" to cover this issue with any sort of investigative prowess, it bears bringing to the forefront again. First, here is some of what President Bush is saying, most recently at a speech given at the University of Kansas, via The Ministry of Truth's website:

It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. After the enemy attacked us, and after I realized that we were not protected by oceans, I asked people that work for you -- work for me, how best can we use information to protect the American people? You might remember there was hijackers here that had made calls outside the country to somebody else, prior to the September the 11th attacks. And I said, is there anything more we can do within the law, within the Constitution, to protect the American people. And they came back with a program, designed a program that I want to describe to you. And I want people here to clearly understand why I made the decision I made.

First of all, it seems likely that Bush may, assuming he's telling the truth, be the only person of his generation that actually believed being "separated by oceans" made America safe from its enemies. The oceans certainly didn't seem to slow the British much, and that was 230 years ago. I'm a member of Generation X, and even I can remember the almost constant undercurrent of fear in the country that, at any moment, the Soviet Union might launch its nuclear arsenal and begin WWIII. Especially for those folks living in Alaska, where Siberia is practically next door. As I've noted before, the "Straw Man" logical fallacy is one of the Right's favorites; predictably Bush's protected-by-oceans straw man fails to stand any scrutiny. Further, if Bush really did exhort his staff to work out the domestic spying plan, then he really needs to downsize some staff. They are not the one's risking impeachment for violating FISA; the President is.

First, I made the decision to do the following things because there's an enemy that still wants to harm the American people. What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate. In other words, we have ways to determine whether or not someone can be an al Qaeda affiliate or al Qaeda. And if they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.

This addresses another charge lobbed at liberals frequently in the country, ie., that we don't understand the threat to the country. I say "au contraire"; I understand the threat to the country just fine. I remember September 11, 2001 with crystal clarity. I was one of the millions evacuated from the Chicago Loop by Mayor Daley and I can still remember watching people crouch in the street every time a jet flew over towards O'Hare, thinking the Sears Tower was next. I'll carry that memory with me until my dying day, I'm sure.

However, the reality of the 9/11 attacks didn't strip me of all reason and critical thinking ability, as it apparently did to a large chunk of the country. Unlike, say, our President, I actually understand the difference between religious terrorists and secular dictators. I also understand that the "price of freedom" that conservatives love to drone on about is often paid by innocent Americans. Sometimes our freedom costs us our lives and I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way. I'll die in a democracy any day before I live in a dictatorship.

Furthermore, the threat from religious fundamentalists and other fringe groups has always, always been a danger to the United States. The attacks of 9/11 were special for their theatrics, not their intent or their cause. It's a danger the U.S. will always face. However, I refuse to go into a pants-wetting paroxysm of fear every time some primitive Middle Eastern religious fundamentalist makes a new VHS tape. And I don't need Generalissimo Bush to strip the civil rights out of our society to make me feel better about the foreign religious nuts who want to kill Americans. Hell, we've had domestic religious nuts killing Americans for years, and the last time I checked, the country was still standing.

This is a -- I repeat to you, even though you hear words, "domestic spying," these are not phone calls within the United States. It's a phone call of an al Qaeda, known al Qaeda suspect, making a phone call into the United States. I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this program. You know, it's amazing, when people say to me, well, he was just breaking the law -- if I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?

It really incenses me further that our President seems to think that breaking the law is just a joke; a frat house prank that the popular kids are in on and the nerds are taking too seriously. Apparently Bush had the wrong kind of lawyers reviewing his work; perhaps even the strictly conservative monarchist type that believe in unitary executive power. Perhaps some other attorney's, such as the ACLU, might not have agreed with Bush's preferred view of Presidential authority.

Regardless of how the program was vetted, the facts remain simple and straight-forward. It is illegal to spy on American citizens without a warrant. Period. End of discussion, unless someone wants to start a bill in Congress to repeal FISA. Nowhere, not one place, in the Constitution is the President ever given the authority to ignore the law, for any reason. Nor is such authority ever implied anywhere, either in the Constitution or in the writings of those who wrote it. Eavesdropping on Americans' phone conversations without a warrant is illegal under FISA and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Bush continues to defend his law-breaking with the excuse that the NSA was only spying on those receiving calls from "the terrorists". A lie, plain and simple. If that were true, then the White House could have gotten a warrant from any court in the land. The fact that they did not can only mean that they knew or at least suspected that they could not get a warrant for those on whom they were spying. Some suggestions I've read have included journalists, such as CNN's Christianne Amanpour, or Leftist political organizations, such as PETA or Greenpeace. Regardless, the more Bush defends his domestic spying program with the "only spying on the terrorists" defense, the bigger the elephant in the room becomes.

Federal courts have consistently ruled that a President has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies. Predecessors of mine have used that same constitutional authority. Recently there was a Supreme Court case called the Hamdi case. It ruled the authorization for the use of military force passed by the Congress in 2001 -- in other words, Congress passed this piece of legislation. And the Court ruled, the Supreme Court ruled that it gave the President additional authority to use what it called "the fundamental incidents of waging war" against al Qaeda.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means. It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It's an -- you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how. And one of the ways to protect the American people is to understand the intentions of the enemy. I told you it's a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy. If they're making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why -- to protect you.

Again, more of the same misleading defense. Of course the President has the power to use surveillance techniques against foreign enemies; that's what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does! However, the President does not have the power to arbitrarily select the target of foreign surveillance. The President is required to take that request to the FISA court, demonstrate probable cause (which is the standard given in the Fourth Amendment for searches and seizures) and seek a judicial warrant. It's the separation of power that is key to our government structure. The FISA court has only denied 6 warrants since its inception in 1979. It is impossible to make a credible argument for illegally side-stepping the FISA court in the name of expediency. If the FISA court is too slow, then Bush can appoint more judges to the court. That actually is within the realm of executive power under the Constitution. Or Bush could go to any court in the land to get a warrant; establishing that they are calls coming from Al-Qaida is probable cause for surveillance.

The entire canard about the Congressional authorization for the use of force is complete garbage as well. The authorization does not, in any way, shape or form, repeal either the FISA or the Fourth Amendment. In fact, when asked why the White House didn't just take its surveillance plan to Congress, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez admitted it was because they knew Congress would deny the President that authority. They knew they were breaking that law and they knowingly continue to break the law. That must be grounds for impeachment under any reading of the Constitution.

For the curious, here is the text of the Fourth Amendment, since many, including Bush, Gonzalez and Former NSA Director General Hayden (via Atrios), seem confused about it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Finally, I completely reject Bush's paternalistic nonsense towards "protecting" me. Do you really want to protect me, Mr. President? Then how about bringing our National Guard back from your illegal occupation in Iraq? How about a single-payer national healthcare plan in case I lose my job or get hurt in a car wreck (a very real possibility in my recent life)? How about a comprehensive plan for protecting our ports, our chemical factories and our nuclear plants? Most importantly, how about respecting the laws and the Constitution that are the bedrock of the nation I love? That'll do, for starters...

[Mia culpa for the infrequent posting of late. I've fallen victim to a common affliction that all accountants are in danger of, called "fiscal year end". It's symptoms include loss of time, loss of higher brain function and a loss of temporal orientation. Generally, those afflicted recover after a time, as I have, or shake out of the industry to become landscapers. Fortunately, my lovely wife Gifted-1 has helped to fill in and this absence has left me with a whole lotta axes to grind.

"I'm full of piss and vinegar! I used to just be full of vinegar..." - Abe Simpson]

While the Cat's away...

The mice will play...

In honor of year-end activities happening in the realm of accounting, Sam is super busy... so, I have decided to have a little fun with the blog. It'll be a slight break from the political, social & deep religious articles of norm.
We can play some games... just to get people talking (or it could turn into an all out brawl, you never know)! So today name five:

Favorite Movies
Favorite Bands/Musical Groups
Favorite TV Shows (past or present)
Favorite _________ (you fill in the blank with your personal choice)

Happy 4th Birthday to our Baby Boy!

Liam turned 4 today (January 22nd)... I can't believe how much he's grown up!

We Do Dances, Brand New Dances...Like The Nuclear Bomb...

The revelation that Iran broke the IAEA seals on it's uranium enrichment facilities January 10th has sparked tough talk, across the region and across the world.

From The Capital Times:

Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.

[...]

Germany's defense minister said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options" should remain open.

[...]

French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

The players are all gathering in this drama, postponed but never cancelled some two years ago. Iran's challenge to the world on nuclear energy was an inevitability, and it seems unlikely that the claims of domestic power generation can be take with anything but a large grain of salt. The words, also, of President Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map" has virtually assured a tense stand-off across the Middle East.

The issue of the Iranian government building a nuclear arsenal is a thorny one for the western world. The United States, France, Germany, Russia and Israel (secretly), all maintain a nuclear weapons program. The unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the United States is certainly a contributing factor to a desire for the bomb in one of the nations labeled by President Bush as the "Axis of Evil". Certainly the fate of Saddam Hussein, while advantageous to Iran, also leaves the ruling mullahs very concerned over U.S. motivations in the region.

Nuclear proliferation is the most serious threat facing the world today, and any "War on Terror" that doesn't require a non-proliferation plan as a central key is only so much political rhetoric. Bush's belligerent foreign policy has effectively taken the United States out of the game where Iran is concerned. The U.S. has precious little credibility while the debacle in Iraq continues. It should make Americans very uncomfortable that the man who claims his job is to "protect Americans" has left us with very little practical defense against a new nuclear threat in the world.

The entire situation in Iran may turn out to be much ado about nothing. One more nation in the international game of nuclear brinkmanship may just keep the house of cards standing. But the growing danger remains. One cornered, desperate dictator or, worse, delusional religious zealot could end the game in a blinding flash of light. If only the United States had a responsible foreign policy, rooted in a sensible view of American power and American needs, then perhaps our nation could at least have a role in the drama unfolding. Sadly, the "Bush Doctrine" has left America backstage in the Iran showdown...

I'm now able to publish!

;)

Of Rats And Sinking Ships

Out of the dusky darkness of the Republican depths a dry, whispery wind has begun blowing. Carried on that malevolent breath comes the sour groaning of those ancient ancestors of today's American Conservative movement: the Paleo-conservatives!

From U.S. Newswire:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

"When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism."

Now, I would like to believe that the gross mismanagement of the country by President Bush has led to this sudden round of chastisement by the old guard conservatives. Sadly, I'm not quite that optimistic about the sudden feelings of civic responsibility bubbling up among the old anti-government crowd. After all, it's rather difficult to take these groups seriously given their silence over Bush's trampling of conservative ideals. Where were the conservatives when:

• Bush launched an unprovoked and illegal war in Iraq, based on selectively chosen intelligence?

• The Senate passed 99-1 (duly noted, Senator Feingold!) the USA Patriot Act, containing a vast expansion of government powers and curtailing certain civil rights?

• Bush fiscal policies caused record deficits in the federal budget and ballooned the national debt?

• Bush and the Republicans pushed numerous conservative religious social restrictions, forcing the federal government into the bedrooms, lives and even hospice beds of American citizens?

Their stony silence and lack of action on these and other issues makes their stance in opposition to Bush a little suspicious now. A principled stand? Perhaps. But more likely, a conservative movement that realizes its elected representatives are grossly out of step with the American people. Bush's approval ratings continue to dip below 40%, while Republican scandals grab headlines across the country. I suspect that Bob Barr and company have suddenly found their moral outrage because they realize 2006 mid-term prospects are looking very dim for the Republican party.

Still, it is nice to see that Bush's conservative base is crumbling apart. They finally seem to realize that this is not the man to lead them into the free-market feudalistic society of which they've dreamt for years. Enough of the shine has come off the man that even conservatives cannot delude themselves into believing he's a great president any longer. The Republican ship is listing badly, and the old conservative rats are heading overboard in a big hurry.

One other quote from the article:

"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

This is my favorite of the bunch, not because I give two shits what a lunatic like Grover Norquist thinks; he's proven himself beyond the realm of responsible public policy plenty of times. I like this quote because of what it signifies regarding the President and his party. If George W. Bush, the biggest tax-cutter to ever sit in the Oval Office, has lost Grover Norquist, then he has truly lost the country.

Poetry Corner From Malignant Vanilla

thought dreams


blinked eye

How pretty can you be
in a world so ugly?
it doesn't matter really
if it's what you believe.
How happy can you be
in a world that's just like me?
it doesn't care, really,
it just wants you to leave.
How faithful can you be
when you're so sick of me?
we're all pretending not to see


mourning memories

an ebondy glow
lifeless body parts draped over chairs
bloodless and numb
Calm words float from perfect lips
north winds slide up backs like a cold tongue
smoke entwines the listeners
as they fight for conversation
each word a touch of the brush of her art
each day a canvas
plain white til she rips the stitches
and lets me see again
why can i not speak of such things
why will you never know these thoughts
why do i always think of you
when i see this same ebony sky
and when i'm draped lifelessly over a chair
ugly and drunk
listening to old words
like cold wet pants
until i can't stand to ever hear it anymore
and i hate her for ripping the stitches
so she'll never know these thoughts
so she'll never know i'm thinking of her

theWing

A ride between the breeze,
to see them when they're silent.
Lost in thought of being alone
Slow droning seconds of needs
after years and years becomes philosophy.
An exploration of what we can see
with new machines becomes photography.
Do we even know, that which we claim to believe
Can these really be my thoughts that are haunting me
Are we content with what we're pretending to be
or are we merely playing for the fear of consequence
and suddenly the words leave me
and it feels like another ending

A Lone Voice In The Wilderness

It can often times be difficult being a liberal in Bush's America. After all, I opposed a war that conservatives had been dreaming of for 10 years. I don't subscribe to the Republican myth of supply-side, free market economics. I don't believe that tax-free capital is a good policy, since it grossly exacerbates the income gap in the nation. I'm not a Christian and I don't subscribe to the notion of America being better off with a weak separation of church and state. I think consenting adults should be able to marry without state interference in the matter. I am hopelessly out of step with the conservative Republican view of what American life should be.

Unfortunately for myself, and many like me, our representation in the political realm, including the media, has not been stellar lately. I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that the media is biased against liberalism per se. I believe the media is biased towards its corporate ownership, towards sensationalism and towards the easily digested 30-second soundbite, which has been the most effective ideological weapon the Republicans have had against liberalism. The nuanced foreign policy positions of a liberal realist cannot compete in the No Attention Span media era with "Fightin' 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here!" or "Mission Accomplished!". The Right has perfected jingoism, allowing the masses to receive tiny blerbs of political-sounding information, while imparting no real knowledge or policy of any kind. The Republicans have been able to either box liberal ideas into phony corners of ideological nonsense, or gotten them excluded from the public discourse altogether. It's no accident that exit polling after the 2004 presidential election demonstrated that a majority voting for Bush believed him to hold views on issues that were the opposite of what he actually campaigned upon. The media, so afraid of the dreaded accusation of "liberal bias" so prevalent from the Right, avoids all pretense of reasoned discourse on substantive issues, instead turning politics into a struggle of personalities and power ties.

The result of all this tends to be that true, intelligent liberal voices rarely get much of audience in the national media or, when they do, are mercilessly pot-shotted for the most inane, empty-headed reasons (anyone remember the "Dean scream"?). As a liberal, I begin to feel as though perhaps the country has changed too far for my particular ideals to have any place here. I begin to wonder if perhaps a majority of the country really does want women's rights taken away, really believes we're locked in a global holy war with Islam, really does believe that social welfare and taxes are evil. It makes the nation of Jefferson and Madison seem awfully far away when looking at a reality of unending war, unchecked executive power and unabashed privilege for the wealthy and incorporated. The America I and like-minded folks want to live in seems an ethereal pipe dream some days.

Which is why, when a liberal intellectual finally breaks through the media's zone defense of pointless inanity, it feels like cool water in the desert. Such a moment came today, finally, on C-SPAN, with a well-timed speech by former Vice President Al Gore. Al Gore's loss in 2000 (even if questionable) was a wake-up call for me as a liberal. It really demonstrated to me that those supporting conservative causes place their ideology above all other concerns in an election. There is simply no objective measure by which George W. Bush could be considered better qualified to be President than Al Gore, and Bush's appointment to the Presidency in 2000 remains a stark indicator that conservatives would rather have their own incompetent ideologue as President than a superbly qualified and seasoned expert from the other side of the political spectrum. For conservatives today, "compromise" is synonymous with "surrender" and that is something they simply will not abide.

After reading the transcript of Gore's speech, I can only say that it was like manna from heaven hearing an intellectual of his stature confirm exactly what liberals like myself have been saying about Bush's activities of late. I care about the Rule of Law and the role of government under the Constitution, and Bush's belief in unchecked executive power during a contrived war flies right in the face of the ideals our country was founded upon. But don't take my word for it...

Former Vice President Al Gore, via firedoglake:

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."

Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.

The rule of law makes us stronger by ensuring that decisions will be tested, studied, reviewed and examined through the processes of government that are designed to improve policy. And the knowledge that they will be reviewed prevents over-reaching and checks the accretion of power.

This is why the Alito nomination is important to every American. A unitary executive that is all-powerful during a time of ongoing and never-ending undeclared official wartime has no check, no balance, especially given a Congress which has abdicated its responsibilities of any meaningful oversight. In this context, an independent judiciary becomes more important as a balancing mechanism -- and a judiciary which has been purposely packed with rubber-stamping ideologues cannot provide an adequate balance.

[Bolded comments are from ReddHedd at firedoglake.]

More, via AmericaBlog:

The President and I agree on one thing. The threat from terrorism is all too real. There is simply no question that we continue to face new challenges in the wake of the attack on September 11th and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm.

Where we disagree is that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable.

Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws...

The excruciating irony of Gore's speech is that it would have been met by thunderous Republican applause...if it had been given by Newt Gingrich in reference to President Clinton's impeachment. The Republicans pretended to be very interested in the Rule of Law and the limits of executive power then. How quickly their memories fade...

In the past few weeks, liberals have been subjected to Joe Lieberman's undying support of the President's invasion and occupation of Iraq, Joe Biden's scatalogical bloviating during the Alito hearings and Diane Feinstein's practical surrender on the Alito nomination. Not a very respectable showing for the party that liberals are generally forced to support for lack of a viable alternative. How spectacular it was, then, to see a true heavyweight like Al Gore thundering away at the depraved reality of Republican controlled government. It served as a powerful reminder that the Republicans don't own America and don't hold the license for patriotism. Perhaps a few more voices added to Gore's and Feingold's and Dean's, could help remind "Red State America" of why we Americans don't tolerate incompetent crooks in the White House and Congress.

Of course, I suppose the future of our nation really pales in importance compared to two men getting married, so I won't hold my breath.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. - April 3, 1968

In his own words, as relevant today as when first spoken:

I would turn to the Almighty, and say, "If you allow me to live just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century, I will be happy." Now that's a strange statement to make, because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars. And I see God working in this period of the twentieth century in a away that men, in some strange way, are responding -- something is happening in our world. The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled today, whether they are in Johannesburg, South Africa; Nairobi, Kenya; Accra, Ghana; New York City; Atlanta, Georgia; Jackson, Mississippi; or Memphis, Tennessee -- the cry is always the same -- "We want to be free."

And another reason that I'm happy to live in this period is that we have been forced to a point where we're going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demand didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence.

That is where we are today. And also in the human rights revolution, if something isn't done, and in a hurry, to bring the colored peoples of the world out of their long years of poverty, their long years of hurt and neglect, the whole world is doomed. Now, I'm just happy that God has allowed me to live in this period, to see what is unfolding.

[...]

Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher? Somehow the preacher must be an Amos, and say, "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Somehow, the preacher must say with Jesus, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to deal with the problems of the poor."

[...]

It's all right to talk about "long white robes over yonder," in all of its symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. It's all right to talk about "streets flowing with milk and honey," but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day. It's all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God's preachers must talk about the New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. This is what we have to do.

[...]

Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.

[...]

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

I can't help but marvel at the faith and vision this one man had, in the face of some of the grossest inequity ever devised by mankind. It makes so-called Christians like James Dobson and Pat Robertson seem laughably banal and impotent by comparison. It's hard to comprehend a universe where men like that become old and fat, reveling in their Earthly rewards, while this lean and hungry man of the people was taken from us so young. A terrible shame...

I hope my children will one day live in Dr. King's America.

Philosophy Friday: Creationism Class

One of my biggest complaints about efforts to incorporate "Intelligent Design" into the school curriculums in Kansas and Pennsylvania has been the stubborn insistence by Intelligent Design supporters that it belongs in biology as an alternative to evolution. In light of the devastating Dover ruling, however, it appears that perhaps the Creationists have stumbled out of one briar patch and straight into another.

From Americans United:

On Jan. 1, the board of trustees of El Tejon Unified School District approved an elective called "Philosophy of Design" that advocates "intelligent design" and other concepts of creationism. The course is now being taught at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec.

I have said in several posts here that I believe that Intelligent Design can be taught in public schools, as part of an overall elective on world religions. That's not to say that I believe anything useful can be learned from Intelligent Design; as far as creation myths go it's about as stimulating as the back of an aspirin bottle. However, in the free market place of ideas, there is room for discussion of everything and Intelligent Design is no exception. However, El Tejon USD walks right up to a good idea and tramples right on over it in its zeal to promote a fundamentalist Christian agenda.

A good call from the director of Americans United:

"There is a national crusade under way to inject religion into our public schools, and it must not succeed," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "Religious Right activists are looking for every opportunity to proselytize students into their doctrines. The so-called 'philosophy' course in Lebec is the latest maneuver in a long line of misguided schemes."

"This situation has nothing to do with academic freedom or teaching critical thinking, as school officials contend," Lynn continued. "This is a clear case of government promotion of religion, and it violates the U.S. Constitution. Public schools serve children of many faiths and none, and the curriculum should never single out a particular religious viewpoint for preferential treatment."

If only El Tejon USD had bothered to include a study of other creation myths, along with Intelligent Design, then I believe the class would have passed Constitutional muster. A better understanding of various religious beliefs, especially at a younger age, would go many miles towards easing interactions between members of different faiths, both within the U.S. and without. One of the biggest issues facing our country is how to deal with Muslim extremism and a good, comprehensive study of Islam could only benefit us as a nation. The same holds true for a study of Christianity and Judaism for countries that are majority Muslim.

The class description for this "philosophy" course is very telling:

The "Philosophy of Design" course description, which was given to students and their families in early December, stated that it would "take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid. Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions."

First of all, there is no other way to look at evolution other than as a scientific theory. Claims by conservative Christians that somehow evolution is a kind of pseudo-religious dogma is both wrong and insulting. It makes certain erroneous pre-suppositions about the religious beliefs of the scientifically informed, which of course run the entire gamut of belief systems. Science and religion, in the liberal mind, can and do compliment each other, not conflict. Further, such a view assumes that those who understand and accept scientific theories are just as inept as religious fundamentalists at telling the difference between science and religion; again insulting and untrue.

Second, again we see this notion of the "flaws" in evolution. No scientist anywhere in the world claims that evolution cannot be challenged; quite the opposite, in fact. The very nature of scientific discovery requires that our ideas be tested by new evidence. That's how scientific theories are created and modified. Some theories, and evolution is one, are so well proven and supported by evidence that the benefit of the doubt remains on their side. Now, reasonable people can disagree as to whether that's good policy but that doesn't change the fact that evolution is indeed "rock solid".

As for the claim that "physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting that the earth is thousands of years old", that's just an out-and-out lie. There is no such evidence. Even if the class was not a blatant attempt to indoctrinate public school students on the taxpayer dime, it should still be banned for its lack of educational merit. No school, public or otherwise, should be allowed to teach blatant misinformation and errors to its students intentionally.

So, who penned such a course for the El Tejon USD? Sadly, someone whose professional ethics were thrown completely out the window by doing so:

In its complaint seeking to block the high school from teaching the course, Americans United noted that teacher Sharon Lemburg proposed the course for overtly religious reasons. Lemburg wrote the course description and also prepared a course syllabus showing that intelligent design would be the primary topic of discussion. ID maintains that life is so complex that an intelligent entity, likely God, must have created it.

For example, Lemburg's syllabus asks why ID is "gaining momentum" and why it is "so threatening to society, the educational system and evolutionists." The original syllabus for the class listed 24 videos for potential use, all but one of them produced by religious organizations and centered on attacking evolution and advancing intelligent design. One video, called "Chemicals to Living Cells: Fantasy or Science," is produced by a Christian ministry called Answers in Genesis.

I have much respect and admiration for teachers, and it saddens me to see one involved in such a misguided venture as this. Ms. Lemburg's proposed course may be perfect for a Sunday School class at whatever church she attends (assuming she attends), but it has no place in a public school and a teacher should know that. This was not a case of skating close to the line of church/state separation. It would be very possible for a good, qualified teacher to innocently slip close to that line, as the line of separation in public schools is not always crystal clear. But this course leaves little doubt as to Ms. Lemburg's intentions for her students and that's really a shame. She has not only likely ended her teaching career but has also been a lackluster witness for her faith. Mendacity and misdirection is a poor way to win hearts for Christ, even with the best of intentions.

It's instructive to see, in the El Tejon case, exactly where the Intelligent Design movement is heading next. The Dover ruling has largely insured that future attempts to undermine science education with Creationism have been largely stymied, though it's always possible that such a case could reach the increasingly conservative Supreme Court and be decided another way. Elective public school classes teaching comparisons of various religious beliefs are a good idea as religion is one of the most powerful forces shaping our world. But the role of advocate for a given religion is not given to taxpayer-funded institutions under our Constitution, and further attempts to side-step this by the Christian Right only exposes the weaknesses of their cause.

Getting By With A Little Help From His Friends

Looking over the itinerary today for the Alito Republican coronation/Democratic judicial hearing, I couldn't help but notice that one of the witnesses on the docket for today jumped right out at me. Peter Kirsanow is scheduled to testify in support of Alito today, so I thought it would be interesting to review a little bit about Mr. Kirsanow. The Republicans are counting on Alito gaining some favor with the ultra-conservatives by associating with an ideologue like Kirsanow, since you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep. So what can we learn of Judge Alito by looking at his friend? Plenty.

First of all, a little background on Mr. Kirsanow is in order:

When Peter Kirsanow was appointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by President Bush in December 2001, the Commission's Chairperson told the White House that it would take federal marshals to seat Mr. Kirsanow. The majority on the Commission fought his appointment all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justice Department prevailed in its lawsuit to seat Mr. Kirsanow, and he became a member of the Commission in May 2002.

Kirsanow was a recess appointment (big surprise, coming from Bush) and was an egregiously poor choice for the position. Appointing Kirsanow smacked of more Rovian political tactics; appoint a an extreme rightwing ideologue to a commission safeguarding civil rights. Given Alito's writings in opposition to women's rights and the rights of individuals to seek redress against business interests, Kirsanow seems an appropriate character witness. Kirsanow has been a vehement opponent of organized labor, women's reproductive rights and affirmative action.

Here is Kirsanow, in an interview with Citizens For Individual Freedom, a conservative activist group supporting the Alito nomination. He's speaking with Renee Giachino, general counsel for CFIF:

GIACHINO: Let me ask you about one other article that I recently read. This one by Cynthia Tucker, who is also a well-regarded columnist. She recently wrote an article titled "Civil Rights in danger if Bush is re-elected." Recognizing that you are not speaking on behalf of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, but that you are one of the Commissioners, what is your opinion of what she has written, that being that the fate of the U.S. Supreme Court, which we all know to be the case" that is that at least four of the Justices could retire during the next term or face some other unfortunate event, and she writes that if President Bush is re-elected "his Court could turn back the clock on the individual rights Americans take for granted." Do you agree or disagree?

KIRSANOW: I disagree vehemently. With all due respect to Ms. Tucker, who I think is very well respected, that is just tremendous hyperbole. I have seen that in a lot of other places and using the fact or the term "turning back the clock." If anyone is a historian of the Court, I would like to see under what circumstances, other than perhaps Dred Scott and a few others, where any clocks have been turned back. And, in fact, I think we have a court system, a legislative system and executive branch that are all committed to civil rights, and, in fact, we have a multi-billion dollar apparatus in place to insure that civil rights are protected. All we see and have seen for the last 50 years is an expansion of those civil rights and the protection thereof. I think it verges on irresponsible to make a comment like that.

While Kirsanow may be right that no "clocks have been turned back", I think that plays right into the heart of why conservatives want a Justice like Alito. They want the clock turned back on issues such as women's rights, affirmative action and separation of church and state. It's true that we've seen an expansion of civil rights over the past 50 years but that's because of liberal activism and ideology, in spite of conservative push-back. In terms of the power of the Executive, I agree also with Kirsanow that we haven't turned back the clock, nor do I believe that Alito on the Supreme Court will do so. An Alito Court will take Executive power somewhere it's never been; a radicalization that bears little resemblance to the Executive defined in the Constitution.

Finally, the issue of detainees from the "War on Terror" is one that Alito is likely to face as a Supreme Court Justice. Kirsanow, this conservative testifying for the character and judicial philosophy of Alito, had some interesting things to say about civil rights in a time of war.

[Kirsanow's] response to the testimony in Detroit from Arab-American representatives [who were complaining of civil rights violations following 9/11] was to argue they should support Bush's anti-terrorism program and stop complaining on the grounds that another terror attack linked to Arabs or Muslims would result in far harsher measures.

Should terrorists carry out another attack, he told the meeting, "and they come from the same ethnic group that attacked the World Trade Center, you can forget about civil rights."

Setting aside what a fascist and obtuse thing that is for a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to say, this clearly illustrates the conservative mind-set towards the War on Terror. They believe this is a global crusade of American Christians against Arab Muslims, and collateral damage doesn't even enter the picture. This is why such conservative luminaries as Michelle Malkin feel comfortable writing in favor of the Japanese interment camps. They believe stripping American citizens of their rights is an acceptable practice. If such a man as Kirsanow is willing to say so, and he's being called to represent the views of Judge Alito, then it is impossible to infer other than that Alito believes the same, along with the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

People are often judged by the company they keep, and if Peter Kirsanow is any indication, then Alito is clearly not fit for a seat on the highest institution dedicated to protecting American liberties.

The Ministry of Truth: Decoding The Bushspeak

President Bush today gave another of his famous fake townhall meetings, this time in Kentucky. Another nice, pre-screened audience of fervent Bush supporters turned out to hear yet another repetition of the White House's choicest talking points.

As a public service to those in the reality-based liberal community, I will now correct the record a bit, to reflect what the President is really saying in his latest attempt to flog his flagging poll numbers.

Via the Ministry's website:

What I thought I'd do is maybe make some opening comments and answer any questions you got. I probably can't stay here all day since I've got a job to do, but I'm interested in your opinions and your point of view.

First of all, it's getting just a little tiresome having a President whose grammar is at a 6th grade level. Didn't this guy go to college or some such? As for cutting through the propaganda, well it isn't necessary here because he's telling the truth. He's always interested in the opinions and point of view of a room full of pre-screened Republican supporters. Oh, and I, for one, would not mind if Bush spent the entire rest of his presidency doing nothing but giving stump speeches. He's less dangerous when he's out doing what he does best: shilling for his party.

We got an economy that's going good, and perhaps you want to know what we're going to do to keep it growing.

Translation: "All you have to do is believe that until 2008. Oh please, oh please." Look, the economy is not doing all that well. It took until just last week for the Dow Jones Industrial Average to return to the level it was at when Bush took office. The Federal debt is growing quickly and China has recently announced it intends to shift its debt holdings away from dollars going forward. Bush is still running a huge budget deficit, which he has pledged to cut in half by 2008. Of course, it was a surplus when he took office. Bush is still on track to be the first President in the modern era to record a net loss of jobs during his tenure in office. Oh, and real wages and employee benefits have fallen while all major price indices have risen. As Holden would say, "Where's my Bush Boom?"

Let me -- I wish I didn't have to say this, but we're still at war. And that's important for the citizens of this commonwealth to understand. You know, no President ever wants to be President during war. But this war came to us, not as a result of actions we took, it came to us as a result of actions an enemy took on September the 11th, 2001. And I -- (applause) -- and I vowed that day, starting when I was in Florida and got on the airplane to head across the country, that I would use everything in my power -- obviously, within the Constitution -- but everything in my power to protect the American people. That is the most solemn duty of government, is to protect our people from harm.

Bush is sorry to say we're at war, eh? Not according to this quote, via TomPaine.com:

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief." And he said, "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it." He went on, "If I have a chance to invade..., if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." - George W. Bush in 1999

Any claim by Bush that he regrets being at war is suspect at best.

It's also quite interesting that on his claim to do "everything in his power" to protect Americans, he seems to acknowledge the Constitutional powers of the Presidency as a subset of his official powers. Seems like King George let slip how he really feels about the power of his Presidency, but then throws a little bone to his supporters present so they can pretend that having a king is constitutional.

Secondly, after September the 11th, not only did I vow to use our assets to protect the people by staying on the offense, by defeating an enemy elsewhere so we don't have to face them here at home, I also said that if you harbor a terrorist, if you provide safe haven to a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. And I meant it. And the Taliban in Afghanistan -- a barbaric group of individuals who suppressed women, suppressed religious freedom, suppressed young girls -- had harbored these terrorists; they provided safe haven.

While the invasion of Afghanistan is at least defensible, I don't believe for one second that that's the war to which Bush is referring. Yet another lame attempt to link 9/11 with Iraq, a link that makes no sense and has no factual basis. The entire "fighting them in Iraq so we don't fight them here" is both incredibly disrespectful to the Iraqis, who may not like having their home turned into a wartorn hell for the U.S.'s battle against Al-Qaida, and dishonest, as though huge boatloads of Al-Qaida terrorists are sailing this way ready to invade. Bush's "War on Terror" is a joke, designed to invoke a paranoid fear of imminent danger from some shadowy menace, a tactic popular with military dictators everywhere. Newsflash for Bush and his supporters: the U.S. has always faced the threat of terrorism. That comes with being a free country rather than a police state. And even if we could "fight them over there to avoid fighting them here" that still wouldn't save us from home grown terrorists like Timothy McVeigh.

That's quite enough of Bush's garbage talk for one evening. His administration is played out, its rhetoric stale and its initiatives failed. All that's left for Bush is to appeal to the Republican base as much as possible, in hopes of avoiding a Republican bloodletting in November.

A vain hope, I pray...

Framing The Abortion Debate

As the Alito nomination hearings roll on, it becomes more and more clear that perhaps I was wrong about the intentions of the GOP. I've long held that Roe vs. Wade was probably safe from the Supreme Court, if for no other reason than because it makes for such a great "get out the vote" issue for the Right. However, Alito's unwillingness to acknowledge Roe as "settled law" is rather, well, unsettling.

The abortion issue is a tough nut to crack because it repeatedly gets misconstrued by both sides into areas that have little to do with the established law. Arguments about when life begins, trimester restrictions, fetal viability and so forth, are relevant questions when discussing the moral implications of abortion. But they don't have much impact on the legal debate.

In spite of what conservatives claim, the central question that Roe vs. Wade answers isn't whether or not American women should be allowed to have abortions. Rather, the question it answers is "who shall be allowed to decide whether or not American women may have abortions". That's a key distinction and I think it has gotten lost so far in the Alito hearings.

Roe vs. Wade protects the right of women to be free from government interference in their personal medical and reproductive decisions. The freedom of choice is the key, not the act itself. The issue that makes Alito such a dangerous nominee to the Supreme Court is not his moral objections to the act of abortion. Nearly all conservatives have some range of moral objection about the act of abortion itself, ranging from a general unease that abortion is not limited enough to a visceral hatred of the act that defies all attempts at reasoned discourse. The problem with Alito is his apparent belief in the need for greater limitations on civil rights. The legal issue of how far the rights of the individual go is what strikes at the heart of Roe vs. Wade. It's clear from his writings and his legal decisions that Alito supports a more powerful government role and seems unlikely to support Roe vs. Wade as a matter of individual rights trumping government control.

Roe vs. Wade is predicated on a right to individual privacy; a right, I might add, that many conservatives don't believe Americans have. Thus far, the Supreme Court has maintained the position that Americans do, in fact, have a right to personal privacy. However, a swing rightward by the Court could bring the existence of that right into doubt, which would radically change the face of American culture in very short order. Such a weakening of civil liberties fits hand-in-glove with an assertion of strong executive power, another Alito position. Both are characteristics shared by fascist nations, an authoritative (and perhaps authoritarian) government able to strip the power of personal choice from its citizens. The right to make a persona choice about abortion speaks to the progressive civil liberties that make the United States a free country. There can be no liberty without personal liberty.

The morality of the act of abortion is moot in a discussion of Roe vs. Wade; it's a red herring tossed in by religious conservatives to poison the well. The reality is that if you don't support the right of an individual to choose whether or not to have an abortion, then you believe that the government has more power than the governed. Such an America shares nothing with the ideals upon which the country was founded.

Out Come The Wolves (And The Sheep)

In the new grand tradition of all Supreme Court nomination hearings, both sides came out with fightin' words for the other today. Samuel Alito is the line drawn in the rhetorical sand this year; the line between liberals and conservatives. A Roberts' Court with Alito on board is just not something we liberals are willing to accept gracefully. Many on the right have been talking of the "Culture War" for many years. Well, the battle may be joined in earnest tomorrow.

In his various writings over 15 years on the bench, Alito has made it clear that he's a social conservative's dream. Any question of his stance on Roe vs. Wade is laughable; obviously, he's Anti-choice to have gotten a nomination from Bush. Alito brings grave concern with his views on the rights of women, the role of the Executive branch and, indeed, the federal government at large. Given that the press is finally admitting that Bush hasn't enjoyed much popular support for quite some time, the atmosphere for a Democratic initiative is ideal.

Out come the Democratic wolves, via The Capital Times:

"In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

"You give the impression of being a meticulous legal navigator, but, in the end, you always seem to chart a rightward course," added Chuck Schumer of New York.

Leave it to Ted Kennedy to cut right to the heart of the mattter, followed by a little reality check from Senator Schumer. There is nothing more embarrassing than a conservative idealogue who pretends to reasonableness. Every liberal in the country understands the conservative vision for America and, for all their talk of "taking it to the people", they are only too happy to have an activist conservative court do their dirty work. Liberals know what's in the offing: One Nation under Protestant God, with Repressed Sexuality and Limited Civil Rights for all. Of course, we also realize that social oppression is just a red herring in this, and all, conservative political campaigns. Nothing brings the conservative plebes out to support their divinely-inspired leaders like a good threat to Roe vs. Wade. However, it's the fine print that really matters.

Alito's stance on the power of the Executive branch is especially relevant, given George W. Bush's gross abuse of such. It's hard to imagine that, in 2006, a reborn Monarchist movement would grip the formerly conservative Republican party. I confess that I don't understand in the least why anyone would want to elect the posterboy for failing forward to the most powerful position in the land (twice), let alone grant him limitless power. As I've said before, I suspect that belief in an authoritarian religion breeds acceptance of authoritarian government. Many on the Right want a powerful father-figure to talk tough and tell them "Everything will be alright, dearie", though there simply must be some Republican somewhere better qualified for that role than Bush.

Alito's stance on the rights of businesses to trump those of the individual really gets to the meat of what the Republicans really want. All that posturing about the "Culture of Life" and "moral values" is great for the little people, but the real players are interested in power and money. Alito gives them exactly what they want: a Justice who'll support getting the people out of the way of commercial excess. After all, a return to those good old days of unregulated business certainly isn't going to hurt the investor class. The Republicans have worked so hard to drive our culture of science and reason back to the 13th century; a little free market feudalism will feel right at home.

So what does the Party of Their People have to say about their new Supreme Court annointee?

"Sam is a dignified person. And my hope, of course, is that the Senate brings dignity to the process and gives this man a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor," said the president...

Well, it's good to know he's dignified; the Court could scarce stand another screwball jokester like Sandra Day O'Connor. As anyone whose been watching him for long is likely aware, the President really has no ability to express any thoughts that aren't scripted for him. Whether that indicates a lack of such in his mind or merely a stark fear in his advisors of what does lurk there, Bush merely broke out the same exhausted rhetoric he's used countless times in the past. What he's really saying, of course, is "The Democrats should roll over and play dead because my political capital account is overdrawn". Bush is a big fan of up or down votes, accept when he's not. Case in point: the gaggle of recess appointments he made only last week. In any case, Bush wants one thing and one thing only: a judge who will exonerate Bush's abuses of Executive power and, unfortunately, he appears to have that in Judge Alito.

Which is why the Democrats must take a stand against the Alito nomination. This is not the kind of person we want making judicial decisions that impact our society. The U.S. said "No" to monarchy over 200 years ago and we don't intend to change our minds now. If the Republican sheep need a strongman to follow, they can feel free to emmigrate to Iraq; a new one should be on the rise there any day now. As for the rest of us who actually love and respect the ideals our nation was founded upon, rather than just the symbols thereof, it's time to make this a very, very long week for Judge Samuel Alito.

Out come the wolves...

Poetry Corner From Malignant Vanilla

creativve writing

a sulfur stench
burned bright, then quickly died
it served it's purpose
had a job and did it well
but noone remembers how it fell
except for me
the swaying flame
dancing like a dying dame
lives without a name
but never complains
no, i'm not insane
i'm just different than them
i'm from a different place
a link in a different chain
I envy the match
i'm thinkin up an epitaph
some more of them words i'm lookin for
some of them i used before
maybe a few new ones
i'll slip em in when noone's lookin
words for the match
in a glass casket filled with ash
curled and fetile
forgotten like a mediocre meal
or that sulfur stench
that burns bright, then quickly dies

Little Lia Rose

Our sweet little Cecelia is getting so big! She is now 4 months old!


Posted by Gifted-1

Cruise Director On The Slow Boat To Hell

God really needs to police His fan club, starting with this guy:

From JTA:

The Rev. Pat Robertson said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was punished by God for dividing the Land of Israel.
Speaking on the "700 Club on Thursday, Robertson suggested that Sharon, who is currently in an induced coma following a massive stroke and cerebral hemorrhage, and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated by an Israeli extremist in 1995, were being treated harshly by God for dividing Israel.

"He was dividing God's land," Robertson said. "And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'"

Ariel Sharon is 77 years old, has suffered from heart problems for years and just recently left the hospital because of a stroke. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to wager that age, weight, poor diet and possibly stress may be what has really afflicted Mr. Sharon. Plus, when was Robertson appointed God's property manager? Of course, why let good sense and medical science get in the way of a good Jonathan Edwards-style rant...

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Ariel Sharon. He's been on Amnesty International's watch list for many years and has quite a number of things to answer for from both his military and political career. I'm no expert on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but I do know that Sharon and his former party, Likud, have rarely been good partners in peace for the country. Never the less, no man deserves to have the indignity of being cursed by God's most punch drunk holy warrior while on what is likely to be his deathbed.

My biggest problem with Robertson, and this applies to all other radical rightwing Christians like him, is their complete hijacking and perversion of what can be a beautiful faith. Robertson, Phelps, Reed, Terry, Falwell and Dobson, just to name a few, use their positions of prominence to twist Christianity into a religion of narrow-minded bigotry, superstition and hatred. They've tried to replace the Republican elephant with Republican Jesus and their efforts have served to turn a spiritual faith into a battle cry for theocratic fascism.

These men, Robertson and Phelps especially, strike me as fearful bullies, willing to strike out at any set of values that don't conform to theirprimitivee authoritarian morality. Their's is a faith of spiritual warfare; of attacking those whose beliefs and lifestyles are different. They hate the sinner and glorify the sin as some sort of spiritual, visceral catharsis. They mock and insult the downtrodden, disadvantaged and dead for political and monetary gain.

How many days has Matthew Sheppard been in Hell, Reverend Phelps? I'll bet your website says. How many innocents did your God kill with Hurricane Katrina, Pat? I guess America didn't hate gays enough for God to spare them this year. How many children would Jesus beat into meekness, Dr. Dobson? At least they'll inherit the earth. Have you slandered any other loyal husbands publicly, Mr. Terry, or is Michael Schaivo alone in that club? I guess his marriage wasn't so sacred to your kind after all.

The Slow Boat to Hell is boarding and you bastards have luxury cabins waiting.

The Madness Of King George: Cronyism

One of the hallmarks of any modern dictatorship is the appointment of close friends and political cronies to positions of power. This insures that the dictator's power remains well entrenched and uncontested, as the people are left out in the cold. Normally, here in the U.S., we have a Senate confirmation process that prevents such questionable practices. Unfortunately, it's not fool proof, as King George demonstrated yesterday.

From The Ministry of Truth:

President George W. Bush today recess appointed the following individuals:

Floyd Hall, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the AMTRAK Reform Board.

Enrique J. Sosa, of Florida, to be a Member of the AMTRAK Reform Board.

Nadine Hogan, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation (Private Representative).

Roger W. Wallace, of Texas, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation (Private Representative).

Gordon England, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Benjamin A. Powell, of Florida, to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Ronald E. Meisburg, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.

Julie L. Myers, of Kansas, to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

Tracy A. Henke, of Missouri, to be Executive Director of the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness at the Department of Homeland Security.

Arthur F. Rosenfeld, of Virginia, to be Federal Mediation and Conciliation Director at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

Ellen R. Sauerbrey, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of State (Population, Refugees, and Migration).

Dorrance Smith, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs).

Robert D. Lenhard, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.

Steven T. Walther, of Nevada, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.

Hans Von Spakovsky, of Georgia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission.

Peter N. Kirsanow, of Ohio, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board.

Stephen Goldsmith, of Indiana, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service.

So much for "advice and consent" and "an up or down vote". Many, if not all of these folks, have never been granted hearings for their appointments. I realize that recess appointments are legal, but they were not intended as a way to side-step legislative review. They are supposed to be used for emergency situations where a position is too important to be left vacant and the Senate is not in session. Certainly every member on this list could have waited until after the Senate's winter break. Yet one more example of King George trying to eliminate even the pretense of accountability for his actions.

Anyone remember Michael Brown of FEMA, arguably the most incompetent crony appointment in recent memory? Clearly Bush doesn't really warrant the benefit of the doubt on his appointees. This current crop of bureaucrats contains some rather questionable names.

From DailyKos:

Hans von Spakovsky is probably best-known here already. He has been involved in all sorts of "voter integrity" issues on behalf of Republicans that would give many here pause, to say the least, plus the Texas redistricting.

Steven Walther is a lawyer based in Reno whom Sen. Reid strongly recommended. He represented Sen. Reid during a recount of the vote after his narrow reelection victory in 1998, but does not appear to have campaign finance law experience.

Robert Lenhard is an attorney for AFSCME. While there, he helped challenge the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in the courts. His wife, Viveca Novak, is the Time Magazine journalist most recently involved in the Rove-Libby situation, but he was mentioned for this slot months before that all happened.

As noted in Adam B's diary at Kos, none of these individuals had any sort of hearing or public disclosure prior to Bush's appointment yesterday. It's entirely possible that they may not turn out to be any sort of problem, though given the contentious nature of our last three national elections, I think the public deserved to see these three vetted by the Senate.

The issue I have with this is that, similar to Bush's violation of the FISA Act, this is nothing more than the President asserting executive power just to show that he can. It eliminates the possibility of any discussion on the appointees and assures that Bush need not weather any contrary opinions. But worst of all, it deprives the American people of any knowledge of the government functionaries involved in critical aspects of our democratic process. One has to ask: is this the act of a President supporting democracy and freedom, or the act of a coward trying to hide from accountability?

We can't afford another "Heck of a job, Brownie"...

The Madness Of King George: Spying, Now Torture

Now that President Bush has been forced to publicly embrace his self-ordained role as Commander in Chief of the entire U.S., he is much more forthcoming about enumerating the powers of his newly-minted military dictatorship.

From The Boston Globe, via Americablog:

After approving the bill [containing the McCain anti-torture amendment] last Friday, Bush issued a "signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

"The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach "will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

I added the bolded emphasis. Essentially what Bush is asserting, again, is that he has the power as Commander in Chief over the entire United States, to ignore or suspend any law he feels might hamper his ability to "protect Americans" from terrorism. Once again, Bush's interpretation of executive power has no justification in the U.S. Constitution.

From Article II, Section II of the Constitution:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

This gives Bush the power to command the active military, the National Guard and the Reserves. It does not, in any way, shape or form, give the President the power to command civilians or to ignore laws passed by Congress. Bush's role as Commander in Chief begins and ends with the military and when he asserts that it does not, he is asserting the power of a de facto military dictator.

Further, from Article II, Section III:

[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed;

With regard to the laws passed by Congress, this is the only power the President has. He is required to insure that the laws are faithfully executed. He is certainly never charged with "keeping the people safe", else, again the President would be able to assume a huge array of powers reserved for the Legislative. Neither President Bush, nor any other President, has the power to suspend the laws of the United States without facing the repercussions of his actions.

One example that seems to keep popping up among Bush supporters is Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus rights during the Civil War. But this example does not fit the Bush paradigm. First, Lincoln was suspending the right as an emergency provision, while the nation was fighting a war on its own soil, in order to preserve the Union. The Civil War was an immediate danger to the Republic and required extraordinary measures. While Bush and his supporters may claim the same danger to the Republic from the "War on Terror", such assertions ring very hollow. As long as the United States remains a nation of civil rights, the risk of terrorist attack is ever-present. It's unrealistic to imagine that all danger from terrorism can be mitigated, especially with a broadly-defined and open-ended war against such. The amorphous threat of terrorism is not sufficient grounds for President Bush to claim extra-legal powers in the manner of Lincoln. The threat of terrorism does not rise to the level of a threat to the Republic, unless, of course, the fear of such allows the executive to claim unlimited power. By doing so, Bush is actually giving Al-Qaida the victory they seek by destroying our way of life.

Back, then, to Lincoln who, by virtue of a law passed by Congress in 1864, was able to legally suspend habeas corpus rights. The Supreme Court would, in 1866, severely restrict this power, but Lincoln's actions were legalized all the same. While the President does have the responsibility to assert extraordinary powers during a national crisis, he certainly cannot grant himself immunity from the consequences of those actions. Whether or not Bush's actions have "kept Americans safe", he knowingly and repeatedly broke the law and unless Congress retroactively changes the FISA law to legalize Bush's behavior, he stands culpable for his actions. Nothing in the Constitution allows the President to escape accountability for breaking the law while in office, even in a time of crisis (Lincoln's assassination left the question moot for his Presidency). Resignation or impeachment is the sacrifice a President is expected to make in such an instance, because our nation and rule of law are more important than the fortunes of one man. Bush and his supporters clearly think that, not only should Bush be allowed to break the law as he sees fit, but he should also escape any culpability for his crimes. Again, that is the very essence of a dictatorship; it raises the acts of one man over the laws that govern the whole country.

Back to the ban on torture:

"Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. "We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."

Once again, the President does not have the authority to ignore the law in the course of conducting his responsibilities as Commander in Chief. The President has no constitutionally-granted authority to act as a second Legislative branch. This is a defining wall between those two branches of government and allowing the President to breach that wall has very grave consequences. If the President is allowed to ignore the FISA Act and then ignore the torture ban, what next? How far beyond the law is it acceptable for the President to go, once domestic spying and torture are allowed?

Whenever Bush apologists are approached with questions about his fascist tendencies of late, the answer is always the same: "It can't happen here. Liberals are just over-reacting." Are we? Because if the President is asserting the power to ignore the law in order to combat terrorism, then it already has happened here.

Mirror, Mirror

The scandal concerning the secret NSA wiretaps, or, as Pat Buchanan put it roughly yesterday, extractions (the communications may have been wireless, you see), has brought to light a very interesting defense by the President. Essentially, he has openly admitted to giving such orders to the NSA in clear contravention of the law. The President has asserted the power as Commander in Chief under the Constitution to basically ignore any law Congress passes so long as Bush believes it helps aid in the never-ending "War on Terror". Several on the Left have begun pointing out that this really amounts to Bush declaring himself a military dictator, which, while correct, has produced scoffs of disbelief from Bush supporters. So, I thought it might be instructive to compare President Bush to another military dictator and see if the Left's case holds water.

The problem came with deciding whom to compare with Bush. Castro seemed a likely candidate, being so close to home here. But then, Castro's been in power an awfully long time and, while Bush may be many things, he's certainly not a Communist. Then I thought perhaps Kim Jong Il of North Korea. A Communist, or, more correctly, a Stalinist, as well, though on a bit bigger scale than Castro. Again, the fit just didn't seem right. Then, I happened upon the ideal candidate. An ally of the United States and a partner in the "War on Terror". A military general that seized power only six years ago, with a somewhat liberal (by the standards of his local geopolitical climate) bent to his philosophy. I chose, for my experiment, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

Each criteria will be judged on a scale 1 to 10, with 1 being a Pat Robertson/Hugo Chavez man-date and 10 being a George/Pervez DoubleMint commercial on the horizon. Feel free to re-score any of these in the comments. Let the games begin!

Background

Musharraf was born in India, the son of two middle class, college educated professionals. He attended Forman Christian College and then went on to several Pakistani and British military academies.

Bush was born in Connecticut to a very wealthy, politically-connected family and is the son of a former President. He has degrees in business from Harvard and Yale.

Similarity Score: Not much in common, though both are, on paper, well-educated. I say a 4.

Military Experience

Musharraf fought in wars against India in 1971 and 1987 as an artillery and armored division commander. He was promoted first to Major General and then Lieutenant General in 1995. He helped initiate the Kargil War, in which Pakistani soldiers under his command infiltrated the Indian army in a dispute over Kashmir. Musharraf remains Army Chief today, after refusing to relinquish military power when becoming President.

Bush was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard in order to work on a Bush Family associate's political campaign. He went to Iraq once to hand out a fake turkey and posed on the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln to declare "Mission Accomplished" a year into the Iraq war.

Similarity Score: Well, at least Bush didn't have five deferments like Cheney. Score: 2.

Attaining the Presidency

Musharraf became de facto ruler of Pakistan in 1999, following a bloodless coup d'etat. In a nifty bit of political gamesmanship, Musharraf then ordered the Supreme Court to require him to hold elections by 2002, in an attempt to give his Presidency, assumed in 2001, legitimacy. Musharraf held a referendum vote in 2002, designed to grant him 5 more years as President, which garnered a less than 30% turnout and was widely criticized as fraudulent.
Musharraf was later able to build a majority in parliament by promising to step down as commander of the military, a promise on which he later reneged. He pushed parliament to pass the 17th Amendment to the Pakistani constitution, which legalized the Musharraf coup. In 2004, Musharraf won a very slim electoral vote of no confidence, thus legalizing him as President until 2007. Musharraf essentially rules Pakistan as a dictator, using the parliament to legalize his decrees.

Bush became President in 2000, after a heavily-contested electoral battle in the state of Florida. In an unprecedented act of judicial activism, the Supreme Court voted along party lines to halt the recount of Florida and effectively grant Bush the Presidency. Bush's re-election in 2004 was by a bit wider margin, though it, like 2000, was fraught with allegations of vote fraud and relatively low turnout (the low 50% range). Bush essentially began trying to rule as a dictator, by asserting nearly limitless rights as Commander in Chief in a time of war. The Republican-controlled Congress has thus far largely supported this view.

Similarity Score: Both needed the Supreme Court, but Musharraf definitely took the longer road. Both claim nearly limitless power, though Bush tries to justify it under the Constitution. I gotta go with a 5 on this one.

Religion

Musharraf has a public policy of being against Islamic extremism in Pakistan. In reality, he is allied with Jamaat e Islami, a militant group with ties to Osama bin Ladin. Musharraf is also allied with Maulana Samiul Haq, a militant extremist known as a spiritual mentor of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Islamic Fundamentalist groups have practically unfettered reign to act, recruit and indoctrinate within the borders of Pakistan.

Bush has a public policy of being against religious extremism anywhere in the world. In reality, he is closely allied with the House of Saud, a known supporter of militant Islam. Bush has also expressed support for the goals of Christian fundamentalist groups in the United States, including the denial of civil rights to gays, the denial of reproductive rights to women and the teaching of religion in place of science in government-funded public schools. Christian fundamentalist groups have practically unfettered reign to act, recruit and indoctrinate within the borders of the United States.

Similarity Score: Only Timothy McVeigh's, Erik Rudolph's and Paul Hill's lack of access to commercial aircraft keeps this from a perfect score. 9 it is.

Popularity

Musharraf was welcomed by most Pakistanis as a change for the better, after years of ineffectual governments. However, his lack of domestic policy results and his support for the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have eroded his support considerably.

Bush was welcomed by about half of all Americans as a change for the better, after years of peace and prosperity but, regrettably, some poor sexual indiscretions. Bush's popularity spiked after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, due to...well, no one really knows why (the "Ground Zero" photo-op, perhaps?), but his popularity did spike. However, his lack of domestic policy results and his unwavering support for the occupation of Iraq have eroded his support considerably.

Similarity Score: Arnold and Danny. A 10.

In the final analysis, Bush probably hasn't risen quite to the level of military dictator yet, though his declaration of unlimited power came only recently. It seems clear that Bush had no intention of disclosing his Nixonian view of executive power, and only the New York Times' better-late-than-never reporting forced him and his advisors to play the "Commander in Chief of the U.S." gambit. Whether Bush continues to assert extra-legal powers under his role as head of the military remains to be seen, especially in light of the 2006 mid-term elections. A Republican bloodletting could be in the offing.

In all seriousness on this tongue-in-cheek post, Bush has attempted to take our country somewhere it was never intended to go. The laws he sees fit to eschew, for no better reason than to dodge accountability, were enacted for the very purpose of restraining this sort of executive power-grabbing. The President has no Constitutional authority to assert his will contrary to the law, in any role he may play. The Commander in Chief has no power over civilians in the United States, and the assertion of power under that guise amounts to a de facto military dictatorship. Even more worrisome, most within the President's party and its supporters seem unfazed by this, given their belief that it will protect them from the shadowy threat of terrorist violence. No laughing matter...

More Evidence Of The Obvious

A new book released by New York Times columnist James Risen offers yet more proof that the case for the Iraqi invasion was weak.

Via JS Online:

A new book on the government's secret anti-terrorism operations describes how the CIA recruited an Iraqi-American anesthesiologist in 2002 to obtain information from her brother, who was a figure in Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.

Dr. Sawsan Alhaddad of Cleveland made the dangerous trip to Iraq on the CIA's behalf. The book said her brother was stunned by her questions about the nuclear program because - he said - it had been dead for a decade.

[...]

In all, the book says, some 30 family members of Iraqis made trips to their native country to contact Iraqi weapons scientists, and all of them reported that the programs had been abandoned.

Of course, at the time, the CIA believed that all the Iraqi scientists declaring the weapons program dead were lying. In an Intelligence Estimate released in October 2002, the CIA reported that it believed Iraq was working to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. The subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States has shows that perhaps, the White House should have considered the words of the Iraqi weapons scientists (and U.N. inspectors) more carefully. Of course, that assumes that any solid evidenciary case against an invasion would have swayed the Bush administration, which seems very unlikely.

None of this is news to anyone who's been paying attention for the past three years, of course. A cause of war based on weapons of mass destruction was basically cast aside by the White House several years ago. It has since morphed into a mish-mash of anti-terrorism and faux humanitarian concern, with a nearly indecipherable end game strategy. The Iraq occupation has essentially gained a sort of inertia now, which almost guarantees its continuation for years to come.

Nothing new here, sadly, but it's worth remembering the phony case for war based on WMD's, especially as we enter a new year hot on the heels of another scandal in the White House. Just like his political capital, President Bush has spent all of the benefit of the doubt any rational American should have about his policies. No President since Nixon has more completely demonstrated the need for checks and balances between the branches of government. The very checks and balances, I might add, that Bush and his supporters think should be done away with in the interests of fighting the "War on Terror" more expediently. It's a matter of trust, and, as the case for WMD's reminds us, trust in the Bush White House is a risky proposition.

Nothing Changes On New Years Day

It's been a long and interesting year, to say the least. We've had numerous scandals under investigation, several indictments and an ongoing war. I predict we'll see at least one more scandal investigation in 2006; that which concerns the "secret prisons" network in Eastern Europe. I also predict that we'll see at least one more indictment from the Plame Case (Rove) and a whole handful of indictments from the Abramoff administration. It's always been the contention of Republicans that government causes more problems than it solves and, with them in power, that has certainly been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In light of this, I think it's time for our politicians, both locally and in Washington, to make a few New Year's resolutions. I can think of a few I would like to see...

1. I, George W. Bush, along with my staff, resolve to stop blaming all of the failures in my administration on Bill Clinton. I've now been President for 5 years and the statute of limitations has passed for dodging responsibility for my lack of competency. Bill Clinton had his own successes and failures as have I and I will no longer confuse the two.

2. I, Hillary Clinton, resolve to stop aligning myself with pointless conservative social policy in a misguided attempt to emulate my husband's success at political triangulation. For all his faults, Bill was one of the most skillful politicians in U.S. history and I can't really play his same game. Naughty language in music and violence in video games is not a pressing national issue when the deficit is out of control and we are at war in two countries. No matter what I do, everyone on the right side of the political spectrum thinks I'm the "Liberal Anti-Christ" and nothing I can say or do will change that. I will win with a liberal base or not at all.

3. I, Russel Feingold, resolve to stop jerking the chains of my liberal backers and announce my candidacy for President in 2008. I am one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, well-spoken and liberal members of the Senate and the United States deserves a man as qualified as I to lead us out of the Bush Dark Ages.

4. I, Mark Green, resolve to stop backing every loony rightwing social engineering bill that comes across my desk. I will stop my unquestioning support of both Pro-Life Across Wisconsin and the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin. I will publicly admit that there really is no War Against Christmas, that the nation was not designed to be a Christian theocracy and that Intelligent Design Creationism is not science. I will instead concentrate on relentlessly attacking my gubernatorial primary opponent, Scott Walker, who is clearly not as down with Jesus as I.

And, finally:

5. I, Samurai Sam, resolve to take my political views beyond my blog and get more active in the community. Too many of the victories that we liberals have taken for granted are on the verge of being rolled back, and I don't want to live in a country where I'm forced to follow the religious beliefs of others or where women have second-class rights compared to men. I resolve, also, to be completely unapologetic about my beliefs, no matter what others may say about them. I would rather be in a moral minority than a sleepwalking majority.

Happy New Year, everyone, and please feel free to leave your own resolutions below.

[Note to remmymetro: the title of this post is all for you, baby!]