No, no, no...
Charlie Black saying that a terrorist attack would help McCain has to based on some fairly complicated logic or a lack of integrity.
If there is a terrorist attack on this country won't it show that after all these years of grandmothers being frisked and illegal phone taps and putting panties on the heads of Islamic men we are not safe from terrorism?
We have had red alerts and orange alerts, we have had the administration telling us about this or that planned terrorist attack being foiled, attacks about which they were not free to elaborate for national security reasons. If there is no attack then McCain can say, "Hey, it's working, that's why I want to continue what Mr. Bush has started." So, if there is an attack he can say that we need to stay the course?
Seems to me that another attack shows the bankruptcy of the "war" metaphor, the proponents of which try to humiliate anyone who says it's a law enforcement problem (like the fist World Trade Center bombing--the perpetrators of which are where, now? Oh, yeah, in prison.)
Not that an attack would not work that way. It has worked like a charm in the Middle East. All the extremists know that any time a settlement is imminent all they have to do is attack one side, or the other, and the victim will throw over the settlement table--in fear of its own people who demand revenge and whose war mongers will say that they were right, that "going soft" invited the other side to attack them while pretending to be talking peace.
It even keeps the violence going when the "fundamentalist" Jewish guy kills the Jewish peacemaker--because it replaces Israel's peace guy with Israel's non-peace guy.
So, yeah, it probably would help McCain if there were another terrorist attack. It just shows that most of the American people don't get what's going on, here. If you think that winning a "war" against the United States is in your interest then do what is necessary to make sure that the people who want to fight you get or stay in office. To not attack makes the people who want to make peace with you stronger. And if you (we) are manipulated this way we end up giving up on peace and giving the people who thrive on this nonsense what they need to keep going.
Peace is in the interest of neither Al Qaeda or John McCain's election.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Madame Prosecutor and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
I dunno what Hillary wants to do.
She was my choice going in but I got Obama-ized very early by the echo of Bobby Kennedy I kept hearing in what he had to say, by the fact that his approach was more near to the Quaker approach that Hillary's was.
I wish her well and I really hope that somehow, someway, she could be named Attorney General. I can imagine her pursuing justice (and perhaps a little something on the side, for herself) in going after all the people who should be in the dock over what they have done in the last eight years.
I'd love to have Dick Cheney watch her argue to a jury, the jury called to hear the evidence against him.
One can dream.
She was my choice going in but I got Obama-ized very early by the echo of Bobby Kennedy I kept hearing in what he had to say, by the fact that his approach was more near to the Quaker approach that Hillary's was.
I wish her well and I really hope that somehow, someway, she could be named Attorney General. I can imagine her pursuing justice (and perhaps a little something on the side, for herself) in going after all the people who should be in the dock over what they have done in the last eight years.
I'd love to have Dick Cheney watch her argue to a jury, the jury called to hear the evidence against him.
One can dream.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
So?
The reporter asked the vice president--after he said the "surge" was generally acknowledged to have accomplished a great deal--about the fact that the vast majority of both the Iraqi and American people wanted the war over, wanted American troops to leave.
"So?" he replied.
She quickly asked "You don't care what the American people think?"
He pieced together a reply to the effect that one cannot guide policy by the changing winds of public opinion.
I would have liked to have seen the reporter let that "So?" hang in the air for a good long time, a silent civics lesson, a silence underscoring the vice president's frank and stark revelation of the essence of what's going on. Mr. Cheney is a practiced interviewee, he might well have sat the silence out, demanding the next question without a word. How great would it be, after a minute or so of silence if, not getting another question, he just stood up and left?
Of course, he might have elaborated on his rhetorical dismissal of the criticism implied in the question. The reporter's second question was, after all, just an elaboration of her first.
For a long time I have wondered about how the American people have turned against this war and yet that makes no difference. The rejection of the policy is apparent in public opinion polls and in the last election. It's been clear for quite a while, now. Yet the war goes on as though it still had high approval ratings.
It may well be due the fact that the executive branch controls the making of policy to the exclusion of legislative direction. Does "the president controls foreign policy" mean that the legislative branch--which is the policymaking, as opposed to policy executing, branch of government--have no power over the President in this regard?
Apparently Dick Cheney thinks so, as so does the President. They think so because they have the power, apparently, to keep going despite what anyone thinks, and because they think that they have the legitimate Constitutional authority.
I have no doubt that they really do think they have the authority, and they really do think they are doing the right thing for the country and for the world.
He claims to be creating a shining city, while standing amid the rubble, the mounting carnage, and then, when asked about the fact that few others see anything other than the smoke and the death, he replies "So?"
Imagine, during the 2000 election campaign, that he was asked "What would you say to the American people if the vast majority of them opposed a war that your administration was prosecuting and that had cost billions of dollars and almost 4,000 American lives?"
Would he even be vice president today if he had replied, then, "So?"
My follow up to "So?" would be...
Is what we are doing consistent with the values we espouse? Or do we cast those aside as idealistic and unworkable in this "real world" situation?
Is what we are doing creating an inclusive framework of relationships? Or are we building a world that leaves some people out?
Is what we are doing providing benefit to all from the system of which they are a part? Or are we exploiting some for the benefit of others?
Is what we are doing careful of what we have, using as little as needed to do necessary things? Or are we wasteful of resources or of lives, using them extravagantly in things of no lasting value?
Is what we are doing making people easy with one another? Or are we making people afraid of and angry with one another?
(Of course, the question is "is what we are doing" not "are we claiming/intending/hoping that what we are doing." The answer to the question is the result, not the stated intention.)
It's a good framework of analysis for most any political question, for any question. Integrity, community, equality, simplicity, peace. The Fruits of the Spirit. They all describe love; charity, mercy.
It's the faith and practice of Friends.
It's not so different, if different it is at all, from the faith and practice of most all spiritual traditions. It's just so different from how our cultures have conditioned us to actually live.
So?
"So?" he replied.
She quickly asked "You don't care what the American people think?"
He pieced together a reply to the effect that one cannot guide policy by the changing winds of public opinion.
I would have liked to have seen the reporter let that "So?" hang in the air for a good long time, a silent civics lesson, a silence underscoring the vice president's frank and stark revelation of the essence of what's going on. Mr. Cheney is a practiced interviewee, he might well have sat the silence out, demanding the next question without a word. How great would it be, after a minute or so of silence if, not getting another question, he just stood up and left?
Of course, he might have elaborated on his rhetorical dismissal of the criticism implied in the question. The reporter's second question was, after all, just an elaboration of her first.
For a long time I have wondered about how the American people have turned against this war and yet that makes no difference. The rejection of the policy is apparent in public opinion polls and in the last election. It's been clear for quite a while, now. Yet the war goes on as though it still had high approval ratings.
It may well be due the fact that the executive branch controls the making of policy to the exclusion of legislative direction. Does "the president controls foreign policy" mean that the legislative branch--which is the policymaking, as opposed to policy executing, branch of government--have no power over the President in this regard?
Apparently Dick Cheney thinks so, as so does the President. They think so because they have the power, apparently, to keep going despite what anyone thinks, and because they think that they have the legitimate Constitutional authority.
I have no doubt that they really do think they have the authority, and they really do think they are doing the right thing for the country and for the world.
He claims to be creating a shining city, while standing amid the rubble, the mounting carnage, and then, when asked about the fact that few others see anything other than the smoke and the death, he replies "So?"
Imagine, during the 2000 election campaign, that he was asked "What would you say to the American people if the vast majority of them opposed a war that your administration was prosecuting and that had cost billions of dollars and almost 4,000 American lives?"
Would he even be vice president today if he had replied, then, "So?"
My follow up to "So?" would be...
Is what we are doing consistent with the values we espouse? Or do we cast those aside as idealistic and unworkable in this "real world" situation?
Is what we are doing creating an inclusive framework of relationships? Or are we building a world that leaves some people out?
Is what we are doing providing benefit to all from the system of which they are a part? Or are we exploiting some for the benefit of others?
Is what we are doing careful of what we have, using as little as needed to do necessary things? Or are we wasteful of resources or of lives, using them extravagantly in things of no lasting value?
Is what we are doing making people easy with one another? Or are we making people afraid of and angry with one another?
(Of course, the question is "is what we are doing" not "are we claiming/intending/hoping that what we are doing." The answer to the question is the result, not the stated intention.)
It's a good framework of analysis for most any political question, for any question. Integrity, community, equality, simplicity, peace. The Fruits of the Spirit. They all describe love; charity, mercy.
It's the faith and practice of Friends.
It's not so different, if different it is at all, from the faith and practice of most all spiritual traditions. It's just so different from how our cultures have conditioned us to actually live.
So?
Friday, March 07, 2008
Make sure half the voters in my state get their voices heard...
The Republican Govrnor of Florida wants the illegal primary results in his state to count and says he is fighting to make sure that the voters of his state have their votes counted, even if those voters are from the other party.
I wonder if he thinks that the voters of the other party in his state had their votes counted in 2000?
I wonder if he thinks that the voters of the other party in his state had their votes counted in 2000?
Friday, February 15, 2008
Oh, George II--oh, the rest of us
No matter how cynical I get it's just so darned hard to keep up.
The hope that dwells side by side with that cynicism, and is larger than it is (most of the time) pushes me back where I belong but sometimes I just want to dwell on it.
Now we have the President saying that if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not renewed now there will be a "gap" in our security because he won't accept any more extensions and he will veto any bill that gives the telecommunications companies immunity from civil suits.
Leave aside who it will that is responsible from any consequences from a lapse in the law if he uses his veto pen, at least for a moment.
No, let's not. One thinks of the hero of Blazing Saddles holding a gun to his own throat and threatening the crowd "One more step and the ______ gets it." When the crowd steps back, one of them saying "Wait a minute, Boys, I think he means it," our hero retires and asks how they can be so dumb. It's a question that reverberates through the decades.
But there will be no gap if FISA in its current form expires. FISA in its current form foresaw a future stalemate and, by its terms, its provisions remain in place until this summer even if it is not renewed.
So, who's so dumb here? Is it George in that he doesn't know this? Hmmmm. No. It's us because we don't know it. We're dumb because our news coverage hasn't been telling us this since Congress and the President started lining up for this game of chicken.
It's about the hero and the villain (you choose which is which) fighting on the brink of the canyon, where the river wends its way a thousand feet below. Except they really aren't on the brink of a canyon and the "below" into which one or the other will fall is three feet or so and there's plenty of padding to break the loser's fall. It just looks dramatic and dangerous because of the camera angle from which we are viewing it.
The hope that dwells side by side with that cynicism, and is larger than it is (most of the time) pushes me back where I belong but sometimes I just want to dwell on it.
Now we have the President saying that if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is not renewed now there will be a "gap" in our security because he won't accept any more extensions and he will veto any bill that gives the telecommunications companies immunity from civil suits.
Leave aside who it will that is responsible from any consequences from a lapse in the law if he uses his veto pen, at least for a moment.
No, let's not. One thinks of the hero of Blazing Saddles holding a gun to his own throat and threatening the crowd "One more step and the ______ gets it." When the crowd steps back, one of them saying "Wait a minute, Boys, I think he means it," our hero retires and asks how they can be so dumb. It's a question that reverberates through the decades.
But there will be no gap if FISA in its current form expires. FISA in its current form foresaw a future stalemate and, by its terms, its provisions remain in place until this summer even if it is not renewed.
So, who's so dumb here? Is it George in that he doesn't know this? Hmmmm. No. It's us because we don't know it. We're dumb because our news coverage hasn't been telling us this since Congress and the President started lining up for this game of chicken.
It's about the hero and the villain (you choose which is which) fighting on the brink of the canyon, where the river wends its way a thousand feet below. Except they really aren't on the brink of a canyon and the "below" into which one or the other will fall is three feet or so and there's plenty of padding to break the loser's fall. It just looks dramatic and dangerous because of the camera angle from which we are viewing it.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Say it isn't so, George
This begins with my 17 year old daughter who can keep a score book and explain the infield fly rule. I brought her up right.
She's also smart. Being able to keep a book and explain esoteric rules is not an indication of intelligence. A survey of people who can do those things makes clear the difference between knowing what one is talking about regarding baseball and possessing intelligence. Take any one of a number of baseball commissioners, or managers, or fans, for that matter--as a subset, to save yourself time--in doing that survey.
She began her senior (high school) thesis a couple of months back and she chose to compare the baseball steroid investigation with the Red Scare of the fifties.
The aptness of that didn't hit me until yesterday when I listened to sports talk radio in response to the Mitchell report on steroids and baseball.
The people doing the show, and almost all of the callers, assume that all the players named in the report are guilty of using steroids. At one point, one of the hosts of the show said that he didn't need any proof to know that a certain player used steroids; all he had to do was look at the guy, the way he acts, and his performance.
I know what he meant, and I understand perfectly what he meant. He is putting together circumstantial evidence (which is a completely valid kind of evidence, by the way) and drawing his own conclusions based on what he knows and believes to be true.
Fine. But having been a lawyer and dabbled in being a judge I have learned that this can be darned dangerous and that before we do anything other than talk about stuff, we need do do something other than this kind of "proving."
I don't want to defend any of the players, here, because I don't know what they did or did not do.
I want to defend the players' right, however, to have some kind of due process before we go putting asterisks after their records or deciding they should not be in the Hall of Fame.
The sports talkers say there is plenty of evidence for us to consider the charges true. Good. If it's so easy to prove then let's prove it. Baseball should set up some kind of a process--with the cooperation of the player's union--and present the evidence to a fact finder, with the players involved having the chance to defend themselves and to confront the witnesses against them. (Saying, by the way, that they declined to speak to the Mitchell investigation--in essence, that they refused to talk to the prosecutor before the indictment was handed down is not the same thing). If it's so obvious, let's do that.
Due process, of called a "legal technicality" by many who have never deprived of it.
What is so like the red scare is not just the rush to judgment against people who are accused of something that everyone is in a hurry to say they are against.
Some of the players are accused on the basis of some hard evidence (receipts for payment of steroids, for example) while some are accused (as some were accused during the communist witch hunts) on the basis of statements made by people who, themselves, stand accused of illegally providing steroids (a controlled substance) to players; they are accused of being, in essence, "drug dealers."
Does that sound like people who are in jeopardy for being communists naming people as communists to save their own skin? The name Ronald Reagan, head of the Screen Actors Guild, who provided names to the McCarthyites comes to mind.
Maybe the players accused solely by unsavory types are guilty. Maybe the unsavory characters, in addition to trying for lenient treatment (if that's what's going on, and I don't know that it is), are telling the truth.
People's lives were ruined when, with no proof other than allegation, labels like "communist" or "fellow traveler" were attached to their names. People's lives are also ruined, in more subtle ways, when they attach such labels to others with no proof beyond allegation.
I also want to know more about what George Mitchell, part owner of a baseball team, means when he talks about the player's union as a source of the problem, here. And I am a little concerned that someone who is a part owner of a team is the investigator, here. There are all kinds of aspects of this that I think need to be on the table (again, I don't know that there's anything going on here, but we owe it to players accused and to ourselves to examine this aspect of the situation). Could it be that the agenda here, at least in part, is to advance the owner's cause in the constant struggle between the union and the owners? Can we be sure that Mr. Mitchell did not protect Red Sox players because he has a stake--emotionally and financially in that team? I know Senator Mitchell has credentials--but America is not about credentials and, as a former prosecutor and judge he knows the way that the appearance of impropriety can undermine an investigation and prosecution. Why, then, did he agree to do it?
Again, I don't know; we don't know. We owe it to ourselves and to everyone involved, here, to find this stuff out before we go asterisking records or trashing the union.
I am saying that the American way is to prove allegations like this in a certain way when life, liberty and property/the pursuit of happiness is on the line. And, for these players, those things are on the line. Their reputations--their ability to use their status as major league players for whatever advantage they can, their chances of getting into the Hall of Fame, their ability to live their lives beyond the reach of innuendo--are at risk.
Ours are, too. Is it going to be that any or all of us can be brought down this way? Is it going to be that any or all of us are going to bring people down in this way?
The possibility is that the herd--we--are being stampeded, here. What's wrong with a little due process to make sure that's not true?
It's the difference between and indictment and a conviction. We say we respect people's rights and that we want people to get a fair shake. Integrity would indicate, then, that we prove things about people before we punish them with asterisks and bans from the Hall of Fame.
So, does our response to this show our integrity? Or does it show we really don't care about innocent until proven guilty? Does it show that we are willing to give people, when we disapprove of what they are accused of doing, less than a fair shake, less than the kind of shake we'd want to get?
Another aspect of this, getting back to my daughter, is that she is a San Francisco Giant fan (there is no accounting for choices kids make, sometimes) who dislikes Barry Bonds. She is personally convinced he is guilty of steroid use. She saw the innuendo and the potential for slander of this whole steroid thing months ago even though she would be among the last people on earth to apologize for or defend Barry Bonds. I am pleased to see that she wants to make sure that even people she doesn't care for, even people she believes are guilty, get their day in court and are not unfairly brought down by the court of public opinion.
That's integrity.
That's--ahem-- my girl.
I don't know if she got that from me or not, so although I'd like to repeat, at this point, that I brought her up right, I'll confine myself to saying that I am as pleased with the way she is growing up as I am concerned about the way that most people seem to be showing a lack of integrity, here.
She's also smart. Being able to keep a book and explain esoteric rules is not an indication of intelligence. A survey of people who can do those things makes clear the difference between knowing what one is talking about regarding baseball and possessing intelligence. Take any one of a number of baseball commissioners, or managers, or fans, for that matter--as a subset, to save yourself time--in doing that survey.
She began her senior (high school) thesis a couple of months back and she chose to compare the baseball steroid investigation with the Red Scare of the fifties.
The aptness of that didn't hit me until yesterday when I listened to sports talk radio in response to the Mitchell report on steroids and baseball.
The people doing the show, and almost all of the callers, assume that all the players named in the report are guilty of using steroids. At one point, one of the hosts of the show said that he didn't need any proof to know that a certain player used steroids; all he had to do was look at the guy, the way he acts, and his performance.
I know what he meant, and I understand perfectly what he meant. He is putting together circumstantial evidence (which is a completely valid kind of evidence, by the way) and drawing his own conclusions based on what he knows and believes to be true.
Fine. But having been a lawyer and dabbled in being a judge I have learned that this can be darned dangerous and that before we do anything other than talk about stuff, we need do do something other than this kind of "proving."
I don't want to defend any of the players, here, because I don't know what they did or did not do.
I want to defend the players' right, however, to have some kind of due process before we go putting asterisks after their records or deciding they should not be in the Hall of Fame.
The sports talkers say there is plenty of evidence for us to consider the charges true. Good. If it's so easy to prove then let's prove it. Baseball should set up some kind of a process--with the cooperation of the player's union--and present the evidence to a fact finder, with the players involved having the chance to defend themselves and to confront the witnesses against them. (Saying, by the way, that they declined to speak to the Mitchell investigation--in essence, that they refused to talk to the prosecutor before the indictment was handed down is not the same thing). If it's so obvious, let's do that.
Due process, of called a "legal technicality" by many who have never deprived of it.
What is so like the red scare is not just the rush to judgment against people who are accused of something that everyone is in a hurry to say they are against.
Some of the players are accused on the basis of some hard evidence (receipts for payment of steroids, for example) while some are accused (as some were accused during the communist witch hunts) on the basis of statements made by people who, themselves, stand accused of illegally providing steroids (a controlled substance) to players; they are accused of being, in essence, "drug dealers."
Does that sound like people who are in jeopardy for being communists naming people as communists to save their own skin? The name Ronald Reagan, head of the Screen Actors Guild, who provided names to the McCarthyites comes to mind.
Maybe the players accused solely by unsavory types are guilty. Maybe the unsavory characters, in addition to trying for lenient treatment (if that's what's going on, and I don't know that it is), are telling the truth.
People's lives were ruined when, with no proof other than allegation, labels like "communist" or "fellow traveler" were attached to their names. People's lives are also ruined, in more subtle ways, when they attach such labels to others with no proof beyond allegation.
I also want to know more about what George Mitchell, part owner of a baseball team, means when he talks about the player's union as a source of the problem, here. And I am a little concerned that someone who is a part owner of a team is the investigator, here. There are all kinds of aspects of this that I think need to be on the table (again, I don't know that there's anything going on here, but we owe it to players accused and to ourselves to examine this aspect of the situation). Could it be that the agenda here, at least in part, is to advance the owner's cause in the constant struggle between the union and the owners? Can we be sure that Mr. Mitchell did not protect Red Sox players because he has a stake--emotionally and financially in that team? I know Senator Mitchell has credentials--but America is not about credentials and, as a former prosecutor and judge he knows the way that the appearance of impropriety can undermine an investigation and prosecution. Why, then, did he agree to do it?
Again, I don't know; we don't know. We owe it to ourselves and to everyone involved, here, to find this stuff out before we go asterisking records or trashing the union.
I am saying that the American way is to prove allegations like this in a certain way when life, liberty and property/the pursuit of happiness is on the line. And, for these players, those things are on the line. Their reputations--their ability to use their status as major league players for whatever advantage they can, their chances of getting into the Hall of Fame, their ability to live their lives beyond the reach of innuendo--are at risk.
Ours are, too. Is it going to be that any or all of us can be brought down this way? Is it going to be that any or all of us are going to bring people down in this way?
The possibility is that the herd--we--are being stampeded, here. What's wrong with a little due process to make sure that's not true?
It's the difference between and indictment and a conviction. We say we respect people's rights and that we want people to get a fair shake. Integrity would indicate, then, that we prove things about people before we punish them with asterisks and bans from the Hall of Fame.
So, does our response to this show our integrity? Or does it show we really don't care about innocent until proven guilty? Does it show that we are willing to give people, when we disapprove of what they are accused of doing, less than a fair shake, less than the kind of shake we'd want to get?
Another aspect of this, getting back to my daughter, is that she is a San Francisco Giant fan (there is no accounting for choices kids make, sometimes) who dislikes Barry Bonds. She is personally convinced he is guilty of steroid use. She saw the innuendo and the potential for slander of this whole steroid thing months ago even though she would be among the last people on earth to apologize for or defend Barry Bonds. I am pleased to see that she wants to make sure that even people she doesn't care for, even people she believes are guilty, get their day in court and are not unfairly brought down by the court of public opinion.
That's integrity.
That's--ahem-- my girl.
I don't know if she got that from me or not, so although I'd like to repeat, at this point, that I brought her up right, I'll confine myself to saying that I am as pleased with the way she is growing up as I am concerned about the way that most people seem to be showing a lack of integrity, here.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Oh, Joe! A Lily for you...
Oh, Joe! A Lily for you...
It has been a while since I awarded a "Lily," my own personal prize. I chose that name for statements that engender cynicism. The award is named after Lily Tomlin, who reputed to have said "No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
Joe Scarborough wins for his recent defense of water boarding. A part of that defense was asking a rhetorical question that implies very strongly that water boarding is not torture.
When, he asked, did the liberal media, when did the people in Manhatten, when did the people in West Hollywood decide that water boarding was torture?
"I wasn't," he said, "at that meeting."
Joe is a commentator, discussing issues of the day every day. He has access to more information that I have, and more time to take it in, check it out and verify it. . So, I am cynical about his integrity in making this statement. It is well enough known for me to know that, it wasn't a meeting where that decision was made. That was decided at a trial. More than one trial. Three of them are described, here.
"In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
"On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
"Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison."
NPR, "Waterboarding: a tortured history"
It wasn't a meeting that decided that water boarding was torture. It was a law cases--it was trials.
So, if Joe Scarborough doesn't know that, what's he doing commenting on the news of the day? This is the kind of thing that politicians do (and he is a former Congressman)--they use cleverly worded statements that don't really lie but convey and promote untruth. Propagandists--that is people who want to persuade people of something that benefits the propagandist without regard for the truth of the matter--lie; sometimes they lie by commission and sometimes by omission, but they lie.
Later in the same show, Joe said to a guest "If you are going to be on my show, David, you have to provide accurate information."
A Lily for Joe. The category is Integrity.
It has been a while since I awarded a "Lily," my own personal prize. I chose that name for statements that engender cynicism. The award is named after Lily Tomlin, who reputed to have said "No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
Joe Scarborough wins for his recent defense of water boarding. A part of that defense was asking a rhetorical question that implies very strongly that water boarding is not torture.
When, he asked, did the liberal media, when did the people in Manhatten, when did the people in West Hollywood decide that water boarding was torture?
"I wasn't," he said, "at that meeting."
Joe is a commentator, discussing issues of the day every day. He has access to more information that I have, and more time to take it in, check it out and verify it. . So, I am cynical about his integrity in making this statement. It is well enough known for me to know that, it wasn't a meeting where that decision was made. That was decided at a trial. More than one trial. Three of them are described, here.
"In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
"On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
"Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison."
NPR, "Waterboarding: a tortured history"
It wasn't a meeting that decided that water boarding was torture. It was a law cases--it was trials.
So, if Joe Scarborough doesn't know that, what's he doing commenting on the news of the day? This is the kind of thing that politicians do (and he is a former Congressman)--they use cleverly worded statements that don't really lie but convey and promote untruth. Propagandists--that is people who want to persuade people of something that benefits the propagandist without regard for the truth of the matter--lie; sometimes they lie by commission and sometimes by omission, but they lie.
Later in the same show, Joe said to a guest "If you are going to be on my show, David, you have to provide accurate information."
A Lily for Joe. The category is Integrity.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Settle down, Mr. Matthews...
Hey, Chris, long time, first time. I love Hardball and download the podcast every day because I can't catch it on the air.
You're a brilliant guy but lately you're showing that you are as vulnerable as some of the rest of us to getting someting a little wrong and then going on about it.
On a recent Hardball you asked Governor Huckabee about the candidate's emphasis on his religion in advertising and in debates. Later you said later that a religious test was being erected to holding office and have gone from there to talk a lot about the emphasis Republicans are putting on candidate's relilgion. Again last night you, and another reporter on your show, talked about a religious test for office being created among Republicans; that they are violating the US Constitution.
The Constitution, in Article Six:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
This means that the state and federal governments cannot make any aspect of a person's religion an official qualification for office. Just as a person may be required to be of a certain age, or residency, or professional certification (this applies to appointed offices, as well as elected), or even--until subsequent amendments--race or sex, a person may not be required to be of a certain religion.
All of this goes to government action.
It does not prohibit people voting for someone based on that person's religion--either the religion of the voter or the religion of the candidate. It also does not prohibit anyone asking a candidate about religion or anyone or group of people saying that they will only support someone of a certain religion or that they will oppose someone of a certain (or of no) religion.
So, Chris, you can be critical of people because it's not a good idea to make religion (or a lack thereof) a test in the voter's mind--and I agree with you, it isn't--but it's not really correct to say that people are prohibited from doing that. They can do that, all they want. It is not Un Constitutional.
Like I say, love your show...
You're a brilliant guy but lately you're showing that you are as vulnerable as some of the rest of us to getting someting a little wrong and then going on about it.
On a recent Hardball you asked Governor Huckabee about the candidate's emphasis on his religion in advertising and in debates. Later you said later that a religious test was being erected to holding office and have gone from there to talk a lot about the emphasis Republicans are putting on candidate's relilgion. Again last night you, and another reporter on your show, talked about a religious test for office being created among Republicans; that they are violating the US Constitution.
The Constitution, in Article Six:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
This means that the state and federal governments cannot make any aspect of a person's religion an official qualification for office. Just as a person may be required to be of a certain age, or residency, or professional certification (this applies to appointed offices, as well as elected), or even--until subsequent amendments--race or sex, a person may not be required to be of a certain religion.
All of this goes to government action.
It does not prohibit people voting for someone based on that person's religion--either the religion of the voter or the religion of the candidate. It also does not prohibit anyone asking a candidate about religion or anyone or group of people saying that they will only support someone of a certain religion or that they will oppose someone of a certain (or of no) religion.
So, Chris, you can be critical of people because it's not a good idea to make religion (or a lack thereof) a test in the voter's mind--and I agree with you, it isn't--but it's not really correct to say that people are prohibited from doing that. They can do that, all they want. It is not Un Constitutional.
Like I say, love your show...
Saturday, November 24, 2007
what the old man said made some sense...
"I feel strongly that there ought to be fair justice."
George W. Bush
Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007
The good people at Slate, with whom I am so frequently in unity, regularly runs a feature called "Bushisms." It holds the President up to ridicule for stumbling over his words. The quotation above is cited there as an example of the President's frequent inability to express himself coherently.
There are times I think that it's not fair to do this kind of thing to him. It's well known that he is mixing up what he says and we all know what he means. He is not really so inept as to think that "Is our children learning?" is acually correct, although I don't buy this thing about him "actually being a brilliant guy." He is not the sweetest peach in the box, but he is not a moron, and he is not a village idiot come a wanderin' out o' Texas.
So, since we all agree he is bright enough to find his rear with both hands, it aseems to me sometimes that ridiculing him for his inevitable slips of the tongue is a little like making fun of a stutterer.
And, in the case of this particular statement, I think it may not actually be a mistake--I think I agree with what the President actually said.
If one thinks of "justice" as a product, a commodity, an outcome that is dealt out by a court (in effect, as a decision) then there is such a thing as fair and unfair "justice." I am sure that many people don't feel that the judgment that was made in their case was "justice" (ask anyone involved in a divorce or, perhaps, about a traffic ticket) and that there are many who feel that factors other than pure equity or pure application of law to facts are often determinative--especially when members of one group come up against those of another, or against the state (which amounts, of course, to coming up against another group).
The Old Testament prophets were always talking about "judgment" in this sense when they decried justice for sale, through bribery ("gifts") and favoritism toward the powerful (as opposed to doing what the law said in regard to widows and orphans).
So, justice is a synonym for "fair" only when it is not corrupt, when the decisions, the judgments handed down by the courts, are consistent with the policies of the various constitutions of the states and the federal governent and of the laws that flow from them. If those policies are frustrated in the administration of justice then, indeed, it is fair to say that justice is "unfair."
So, like the President, I feel strongly that there ought to be fair justice. Fudge--I do hate it when I find I agree with him about something. Well, he can't be wrong all the time.
George W. Bush
Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007
The good people at Slate, with whom I am so frequently in unity, regularly runs a feature called "Bushisms." It holds the President up to ridicule for stumbling over his words. The quotation above is cited there as an example of the President's frequent inability to express himself coherently.
There are times I think that it's not fair to do this kind of thing to him. It's well known that he is mixing up what he says and we all know what he means. He is not really so inept as to think that "Is our children learning?" is acually correct, although I don't buy this thing about him "actually being a brilliant guy." He is not the sweetest peach in the box, but he is not a moron, and he is not a village idiot come a wanderin' out o' Texas.
So, since we all agree he is bright enough to find his rear with both hands, it aseems to me sometimes that ridiculing him for his inevitable slips of the tongue is a little like making fun of a stutterer.
And, in the case of this particular statement, I think it may not actually be a mistake--I think I agree with what the President actually said.
If one thinks of "justice" as a product, a commodity, an outcome that is dealt out by a court (in effect, as a decision) then there is such a thing as fair and unfair "justice." I am sure that many people don't feel that the judgment that was made in their case was "justice" (ask anyone involved in a divorce or, perhaps, about a traffic ticket) and that there are many who feel that factors other than pure equity or pure application of law to facts are often determinative--especially when members of one group come up against those of another, or against the state (which amounts, of course, to coming up against another group).
The Old Testament prophets were always talking about "judgment" in this sense when they decried justice for sale, through bribery ("gifts") and favoritism toward the powerful (as opposed to doing what the law said in regard to widows and orphans).
So, justice is a synonym for "fair" only when it is not corrupt, when the decisions, the judgments handed down by the courts, are consistent with the policies of the various constitutions of the states and the federal governent and of the laws that flow from them. If those policies are frustrated in the administration of justice then, indeed, it is fair to say that justice is "unfair."
So, like the President, I feel strongly that there ought to be fair justice. Fudge--I do hate it when I find I agree with him about something. Well, he can't be wrong all the time.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
on waterboarding and why it cannot be torture...
Waterboarding cannot be torture and keep a long line of people--from privates to the President of the United States--out of legal trouble; criminal legal trouble.
Waterboarding has been successfully prosecuted by the American government for more than 100 years with both its own citizens and members of at least one foreign army as defendents. The crime charged was torture. People went, as they say, down for this one.
As a great American prophet used to say, "You can look it up."
If the new attorney general nominee had said that waterboarding was torture, during his confirmation hearings, then the attorney general nominee would have been saying that Americans committed the crime of torture and that the President was complicit in that he ordered the crime be committed.
Conspiracy? Accomplice liability? Pick 'em, but charge him: let the jury decide--that would be my prosecutorial strategy (of course, I was only a prosecutor for a very short period of time and never got beyond driving under the influence cases more than a time or two).
The President has been called a lot of dirty names, so far, but it seems that one of them might (should?) be "defendant."
That can't be good.
At least, it can't be good from his point of view.
What is good from the President's point of view is that he appears to be able to have the same "complete confidence" in this new attorney general that he had in the old one. It was confusing to hear the President express such confidence in Mr. Gonzales, someone who was held in almost total contempt by almost everyone. How could anyone have such confidence in the ability of such a person to function as attorney general?
Well, silly me, it was not AG the AG's ability to function as AG in which Mr. Bush had such complete confidence. It was, rather, in the many times proven ability of AG the AG to lie, forget and do whatever else was necessary to keep anyone who was trying to figure things out from following the converging trails back to Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney...whomever. AG was trustworthy in that his loyal service to the Bush administration was not constrained by the perimeters of either law or ethics. (And Mr Gonzales may, yet, be going to go down for this. Perhaps he should hope he is indicted and convicted before Mr. Bush is. If the prosecution moves adroitly Scooter Libby may be the only law breaker in this administration who will benefit from a presidential pardon. The "pardoner" may be in need of a pardon, himself, before they are in a position to benefit from one.)
What also cannot be good, aside from the direct results of employing torture--getting a bunch of bogus information upon which to lay dumb plans and build stupid policies--is the (at least) one inevitable result of employing torture: others will do it to our military people and we will have absolutely no legs--moral or legal--to stand upon if we let this "just go by."
Way to go, George.
Just one more way in which the integrity of the Republic and the Constitution upon which is is based has been compromised and perhaps broken beyond all repair. Which successor of yours will have the grounding, the moral compass, to resist going through all the doors you (and Mr. Cheney) have opened and legitimized?
We are going to be paying for your presidency for a long time to come, in more ways than one.
It all comes from riding a high horse down the low road, from telling everyone you are off clearing brush when, actually, you are off planting more in which you can hide.
President Bush has shown himself to be the kind of person who, when he speaks, one can safely assume that the opposite of what he says is true. In fact, it is at one's peril that one relies on the truth of anything he says. He is the kind of person once described as one whose dog will not come when he whistles.
Waterboarding has been successfully prosecuted by the American government for more than 100 years with both its own citizens and members of at least one foreign army as defendents. The crime charged was torture. People went, as they say, down for this one.
As a great American prophet used to say, "You can look it up."
If the new attorney general nominee had said that waterboarding was torture, during his confirmation hearings, then the attorney general nominee would have been saying that Americans committed the crime of torture and that the President was complicit in that he ordered the crime be committed.
Conspiracy? Accomplice liability? Pick 'em, but charge him: let the jury decide--that would be my prosecutorial strategy (of course, I was only a prosecutor for a very short period of time and never got beyond driving under the influence cases more than a time or two).
The President has been called a lot of dirty names, so far, but it seems that one of them might (should?) be "defendant."
That can't be good.
At least, it can't be good from his point of view.
What is good from the President's point of view is that he appears to be able to have the same "complete confidence" in this new attorney general that he had in the old one. It was confusing to hear the President express such confidence in Mr. Gonzales, someone who was held in almost total contempt by almost everyone. How could anyone have such confidence in the ability of such a person to function as attorney general?
Well, silly me, it was not AG the AG's ability to function as AG in which Mr. Bush had such complete confidence. It was, rather, in the many times proven ability of AG the AG to lie, forget and do whatever else was necessary to keep anyone who was trying to figure things out from following the converging trails back to Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney...whomever. AG was trustworthy in that his loyal service to the Bush administration was not constrained by the perimeters of either law or ethics. (And Mr Gonzales may, yet, be going to go down for this. Perhaps he should hope he is indicted and convicted before Mr. Bush is. If the prosecution moves adroitly Scooter Libby may be the only law breaker in this administration who will benefit from a presidential pardon. The "pardoner" may be in need of a pardon, himself, before they are in a position to benefit from one.)
What also cannot be good, aside from the direct results of employing torture--getting a bunch of bogus information upon which to lay dumb plans and build stupid policies--is the (at least) one inevitable result of employing torture: others will do it to our military people and we will have absolutely no legs--moral or legal--to stand upon if we let this "just go by."
Way to go, George.
Just one more way in which the integrity of the Republic and the Constitution upon which is is based has been compromised and perhaps broken beyond all repair. Which successor of yours will have the grounding, the moral compass, to resist going through all the doors you (and Mr. Cheney) have opened and legitimized?
We are going to be paying for your presidency for a long time to come, in more ways than one.
It all comes from riding a high horse down the low road, from telling everyone you are off clearing brush when, actually, you are off planting more in which you can hide.
President Bush has shown himself to be the kind of person who, when he speaks, one can safely assume that the opposite of what he says is true. In fact, it is at one's peril that one relies on the truth of anything he says. He is the kind of person once described as one whose dog will not come when he whistles.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
At Last...At Least
I finally heard George Bush say that something was too expensive. It had nothing to do with the war, and nothing to do with tax cuts, nothing to do with energy...
It was poor children's health care...
He said he will veto a bill that would keep it going in fifteen states...
It was poor children's health care...
He said he will veto a bill that would keep it going in fifteen states...
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Hey, Dude, where's my country?
I never identified with that rhetorical question until this morning.
I read that the Bush Administration failed to accept "no" for an answer from the Senate in the "advise and consent" process for high level executive appointees. Seems the Senators had som reservations about a person nominated to fill an undersecretary of somethin or other position that oversees, among other things, mine safety. They had concerns about this person's safety record as a mine operator.
It's not just the questions this begs in light of recent mine disaster in Utah.
It's also the question of circumventing the process. If someone is not confirmed they're not supposed to get the job. It's a process in which both sides have to agree for the appointment to be confirmed. But the Bush Administration has just ignored that, completely disregarding process.
This time it's the harmony testimony that is implicated. And integrity.
I read that the Bush Administration failed to accept "no" for an answer from the Senate in the "advise and consent" process for high level executive appointees. Seems the Senators had som reservations about a person nominated to fill an undersecretary of somethin or other position that oversees, among other things, mine safety. They had concerns about this person's safety record as a mine operator.
It's not just the questions this begs in light of recent mine disaster in Utah.
It's also the question of circumventing the process. If someone is not confirmed they're not supposed to get the job. It's a process in which both sides have to agree for the appointment to be confirmed. But the Bush Administration has just ignored that, completely disregarding process.
This time it's the harmony testimony that is implicated. And integrity.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
getting toward election time...
With the primaries on the horizon and the general election not far behind, with the balance of power in Congress is in play. The conservative leadership is putting itself on the cross, so to speak, and once more cheapening religion by manipulating believers into supporting wedge issues. Being blessed as peacemakers is not what the Republican leadership is after.
What's coming?
It appears we are going to get a couple of really conservative judges. Some of thee will be from the former Starr team who worked so hard to reduce the power of the presidency when Bill Clinton held it and now work hard to enhance that same power now that George Bush holds it. Like the God they insist wrote the Bible, word for word (a notion that was only developed about 400 years ago), the US Constitution is not really the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Apparently the Constitution's meaning varies with which person is in power.
This judge issue is one of my personal favorites. The Republicans blocked judge after judge on ideological grounds during the Clinton years and now they howl about how the president should be entitled to pick anyone he pleases. The Republican long run strategy is to name enough federal judges--who sit for life--so as to create a conservative judiciary that will be legislating their ideology long after the current conservative majority is cast out of office by the normal cycle of American politics.
This is a total lack of integrity on the part of Republicans who, having blocked on ideological grounds, now moan that it's unfair for anyone to ask any questions about a judge's ideology. The whole system is twisted, now, by partisanship and who knows when, or if, that can be fixed.
Aside from litmus tested judges we are also in for some flashy votes in Congress. Gay marriage, broadcast decency, a 10 commandments act, cloning ban, "protecting" in God we trust on the money and in the pledge of allegiance. These are the kinds of things that make the base go wild but that most centerist voters just tune out. These trivial issues do not mobilize, one way or the other, most voters who have their minds on serious questions (like health care, the deficit, our bankrupt transportation system, the structure of the tax system, etc). So "legislating" on these will be viewed by the center as more background noise to be ignored and will stoke the base at the same time.
We won't be seeing legislation about abortion or stem cell research which would awaken the voters in the center. The majority of Americans, including those in the center, who will hold the key the upcoming elections, do not agree with Bush and his base on these issues. Attention drawn to these issues will show that a lot of senators and representatives that go to Congress in their name don't agree with them on these kinds of issues that have great impact on how we live.
So, the Bush administration and Congress will give Dr. Dobson and the like something to chew on. They will not move on the issues that really have effect on the day to day lives of Americans because the Bush position on such issues, while drawing cheers from the base, are unpopular with the swing voters.
It's after the election, of course, that we are going to hear more about the things the administration is currently doing to prepare us for war with Iran...
The Democrats are not without fault in all of this and a number of them will be playing along with this strategy so as to fend off challanges from conservatives who have been picked and funded by the Republican National Committee to try to knock off members considered "vulnerable."
That's what we are in for from now until election day. It's not even "business as usual." It's politics as always.
Timothy Travis
What's coming?
It appears we are going to get a couple of really conservative judges. Some of thee will be from the former Starr team who worked so hard to reduce the power of the presidency when Bill Clinton held it and now work hard to enhance that same power now that George Bush holds it. Like the God they insist wrote the Bible, word for word (a notion that was only developed about 400 years ago), the US Constitution is not really the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Apparently the Constitution's meaning varies with which person is in power.
This judge issue is one of my personal favorites. The Republicans blocked judge after judge on ideological grounds during the Clinton years and now they howl about how the president should be entitled to pick anyone he pleases. The Republican long run strategy is to name enough federal judges--who sit for life--so as to create a conservative judiciary that will be legislating their ideology long after the current conservative majority is cast out of office by the normal cycle of American politics.
This is a total lack of integrity on the part of Republicans who, having blocked on ideological grounds, now moan that it's unfair for anyone to ask any questions about a judge's ideology. The whole system is twisted, now, by partisanship and who knows when, or if, that can be fixed.
Aside from litmus tested judges we are also in for some flashy votes in Congress. Gay marriage, broadcast decency, a 10 commandments act, cloning ban, "protecting" in God we trust on the money and in the pledge of allegiance. These are the kinds of things that make the base go wild but that most centerist voters just tune out. These trivial issues do not mobilize, one way or the other, most voters who have their minds on serious questions (like health care, the deficit, our bankrupt transportation system, the structure of the tax system, etc). So "legislating" on these will be viewed by the center as more background noise to be ignored and will stoke the base at the same time.
We won't be seeing legislation about abortion or stem cell research which would awaken the voters in the center. The majority of Americans, including those in the center, who will hold the key the upcoming elections, do not agree with Bush and his base on these issues. Attention drawn to these issues will show that a lot of senators and representatives that go to Congress in their name don't agree with them on these kinds of issues that have great impact on how we live.
So, the Bush administration and Congress will give Dr. Dobson and the like something to chew on. They will not move on the issues that really have effect on the day to day lives of Americans because the Bush position on such issues, while drawing cheers from the base, are unpopular with the swing voters.
It's after the election, of course, that we are going to hear more about the things the administration is currently doing to prepare us for war with Iran...
The Democrats are not without fault in all of this and a number of them will be playing along with this strategy so as to fend off challanges from conservatives who have been picked and funded by the Republican National Committee to try to knock off members considered "vulnerable."
That's what we are in for from now until election day. It's not even "business as usual." It's politics as always.
Timothy Travis
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
just no end to it...
More on the same Supreme Court case discussed below...
Justice Scalia openly discussed the legal principals underlying this case and, before hearing arguments that were held today, he summed up the appellant's side of things by saying "Give me a break."
A judge, like a juror, who has his/her mind made up before hearing the case is not allowed to sit. In the case of a judge, though, and in the case of a justice, no one can enforce this ethical duty. It's up to the integrity of the judge, or justice, involved.
Awarding two "Lilies" in one day. It really is hard to keep up.
Justice Scalia openly discussed the legal principals underlying this case and, before hearing arguments that were held today, he summed up the appellant's side of things by saying "Give me a break."
A judge, like a juror, who has his/her mind made up before hearing the case is not allowed to sit. In the case of a judge, though, and in the case of a justice, no one can enforce this ethical duty. It's up to the integrity of the judge, or justice, involved.
Awarding two "Lilies" in one day. It really is hard to keep up.
taking the Lily Tomlin prize
"No matter how cynical I get, it's hard to keep up."
Lily Tomlin
I'm going to call it "The Keeping Up" Prize and if I ever get around to creating a statue for winners I'll call them "Lilies."
And todays winners are two US Senators: Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. They filed a brief in a Supreme Court case to which they were not parties, a "friend of the court brief." In this brief they argued that a certain law applied to a case before the court. They claimed that an exchange they had on the floor of the Senate, at the time the bill was passed, made clear to all who would vote on it that this law was meant to apply. Therefore, their brief tells the Supreme Court, the law should apply.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/
The problem is that this exchange, that supposedly told all Senator what they were voting on, never happened on the floor of Senate. It was inserted in the Congressional Record (as most anything can be). It was a made up conversation (complete with made up interruptions and statements alluding the fact that the speaker's time was expiring). No one on the Senate floor heard it and so the argument that it shows that the intent of people who voted in favor of it was that it was meant to apply to this case before the Supreme Court today shows a complete lack of integrity on the part of the two US Senators involved.
There is plenty of stuff in the record of the actual debate on the Senate floor indicating that many Senators expressed their view that the bill was not intended to apply to this Supreme Court case. In fact, the entire record on the Senate floor indicates that the law as not intended to apply to this case. That's the exact opposite of what Graham and Kyl argue in their brief to the Court, based on their made up conversation that never happened. Since the legislative history of the law was clear that it was not intended to apply to this particular case something had to be made up to argue that it should.
You don't have to be a Quaker to be concerned at this kind of thing. You just have to know right from wrong.
Lily Tomlin
I'm going to call it "The Keeping Up" Prize and if I ever get around to creating a statue for winners I'll call them "Lilies."
And todays winners are two US Senators: Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. They filed a brief in a Supreme Court case to which they were not parties, a "friend of the court brief." In this brief they argued that a certain law applied to a case before the court. They claimed that an exchange they had on the floor of the Senate, at the time the bill was passed, made clear to all who would vote on it that this law was meant to apply. Therefore, their brief tells the Supreme Court, the law should apply.
http://www.slate.com/id/2138750/
The problem is that this exchange, that supposedly told all Senator what they were voting on, never happened on the floor of Senate. It was inserted in the Congressional Record (as most anything can be). It was a made up conversation (complete with made up interruptions and statements alluding the fact that the speaker's time was expiring). No one on the Senate floor heard it and so the argument that it shows that the intent of people who voted in favor of it was that it was meant to apply to this case before the Supreme Court today shows a complete lack of integrity on the part of the two US Senators involved.
There is plenty of stuff in the record of the actual debate on the Senate floor indicating that many Senators expressed their view that the bill was not intended to apply to this Supreme Court case. In fact, the entire record on the Senate floor indicates that the law as not intended to apply to this case. That's the exact opposite of what Graham and Kyl argue in their brief to the Court, based on their made up conversation that never happened. Since the legislative history of the law was clear that it was not intended to apply to this particular case something had to be made up to argue that it should.
You don't have to be a Quaker to be concerned at this kind of thing. You just have to know right from wrong.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Am I the only person who gets this?
WASHINGTON - Iran may yet end up on the docket of the United Nations Security Council for restarting its nuclear-fuel program. But even if the international community can agree to punish it with economic sanctions, will those actions succeed in stopping Tehran's pursuit of nuclear technology - and possibly a bomb?
so says the Christian Science Monitor, January 18, 2006
Why is the international community thinking about punishing Iran for restarting its nuclear weapons program? Why isn't the international commuity thinking of punishing the countries that currently have nuclear weapons for encouraging other countries to get them?
Iran is hot to get nuclear weapons because George Bush has clearly shown, in his disparate treatments of Iraq and North Korea, that if one has nuclear weapons one survives even if one's action do not please Washington DC. No one has pulled down any statues of Kim what's his name and the reason for that is that he has nukes. Saddam is on trial for crimes against humanity because he did not have nukes.
When I hear western leaders talking about the dangers of nuclear proliferation I just stand in dumbfounded awe of what is either clossal arrogance or most remarkable lack of insight the world has ever seen.
No one should have nukes. But the last people on earth to be objecting to their spread, with integrity, that is, are those who have them. Any country that has nuclear weapons today, and objects to other countries getting them, has adopted a policy of hypocrisy that will no doubt lead to the spread of nuclear weapons and, eventually, to a catasprophe of as yet unexperienced proportions.
so says the Christian Science Monitor, January 18, 2006
Why is the international community thinking about punishing Iran for restarting its nuclear weapons program? Why isn't the international commuity thinking of punishing the countries that currently have nuclear weapons for encouraging other countries to get them?
Iran is hot to get nuclear weapons because George Bush has clearly shown, in his disparate treatments of Iraq and North Korea, that if one has nuclear weapons one survives even if one's action do not please Washington DC. No one has pulled down any statues of Kim what's his name and the reason for that is that he has nukes. Saddam is on trial for crimes against humanity because he did not have nukes.
When I hear western leaders talking about the dangers of nuclear proliferation I just stand in dumbfounded awe of what is either clossal arrogance or most remarkable lack of insight the world has ever seen.
No one should have nukes. But the last people on earth to be objecting to their spread, with integrity, that is, are those who have them. Any country that has nuclear weapons today, and objects to other countries getting them, has adopted a policy of hypocrisy that will no doubt lead to the spread of nuclear weapons and, eventually, to a catasprophe of as yet unexperienced proportions.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
sometimes one just has to shake one's head...
Washington Times reports:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members...
Judge Alito's "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the need for full equality in this country," Mr. Kennedy said Wednesday.
Kennedy spokeswoman Laura Capps said there is "absolutely no comparison" between the Owl Club, a social group, and an organized effort to "exclude women from getting an education" at Princeton.
"It's a social club. It's like a fraternity," she said. "He has been fighting to break down barriers for decades."
This Quaker's take is that there is no reason for social clubs to erect barriers along sex lines. Excluding women (or men) from a club or a function or a conference really says that there is something about women (or men) that makes them unsuitable for the company of the other sex in that context or for some activity that the other sex wants to engage in.
And if that's the case what is the activity in which the one sex wants to engage that is so unsuitable for the other that a rule, rather than natural inclination or lack ability, is enough to preserve the integrity of that activity? Perhaps the desire to exclude the other sex is an indication that it's really an unsuitable pursuit for either sex.
Excluding either sex from any activity by rule only proves that those who want the rule believe in sex stereotypes that do damage to the other sex and to their own understanding of themselves. People who harbor misconceptions about the other sex also harbor misconceptions about their own. One cannot believe foolish ideas about the opposite sex without believing in foolish ideas about their own.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members...
Judge Alito's "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the need for full equality in this country," Mr. Kennedy said Wednesday.
Kennedy spokeswoman Laura Capps said there is "absolutely no comparison" between the Owl Club, a social group, and an organized effort to "exclude women from getting an education" at Princeton.
"It's a social club. It's like a fraternity," she said. "He has been fighting to break down barriers for decades."
This Quaker's take is that there is no reason for social clubs to erect barriers along sex lines. Excluding women (or men) from a club or a function or a conference really says that there is something about women (or men) that makes them unsuitable for the company of the other sex in that context or for some activity that the other sex wants to engage in.
And if that's the case what is the activity in which the one sex wants to engage that is so unsuitable for the other that a rule, rather than natural inclination or lack ability, is enough to preserve the integrity of that activity? Perhaps the desire to exclude the other sex is an indication that it's really an unsuitable pursuit for either sex.
Excluding either sex from any activity by rule only proves that those who want the rule believe in sex stereotypes that do damage to the other sex and to their own understanding of themselves. People who harbor misconceptions about the other sex also harbor misconceptions about their own. One cannot believe foolish ideas about the opposite sex without believing in foolish ideas about their own.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Privacy --why do I really value it?
from
http://dailykos.com/
January 8, 2006
"In a nutshell, the Chicago Sun-Times ran a story two days ago about a Web site that sells phone records, for cells and land-lines, for $110 a pop. The company boasts on its own Web site:
"Give us the cell phone number and we will send you the calls made from the cell phone number.
"So I went to their site, plopped down $110, and within a day I had a list of every single phone number that called my cell, or that I called from my cell, for the month of November. I even had the dates the calls were made, and for a premium I could find out how long the calls were."
So, is this a scary thought?
It was to me when I read it and then I wondered why it was.
I recognize that someone could do me harm with this informaton but they wouldn't need this information to do me harm. Someone who really wanted to do me harm could do it without this information.
I can see how I would be concerned if I were making calls that would indicate that I was doing things that I would rather not have other people know about because I was acting "in the dark," and I didn't want want that behavior brought into the light. If I were cheating on my spouse, for example, or doing criminal stuff, or making personal calls on work time and such.
So my take on this is that I would rather that this information were not available like this and I would love to know how they are doing this. It seems to me that I expected that this information would be confidential but I cannot point to some specific assurance I have ever received, at least not in regard to cell phones. I thought that after some Congressmen were embarrassed that some of their cell phone calls were inadvertantly overheard on other phones that a federal law was passed about intercepting cell phone calls but I'm not sure about that.
I do know that people have wierd notions about privacy--notions that are not supported by law. For example, video cameras in public places designed to detect and deter crime are perfectly legal because in public places one has, legally, no reasable expectation of privacy. But, given the state of technology, today, where does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
I remember when photo radar was debated in the Oregon legislature it was obvious that some members were uncomfortable about where a car (and its driver) might be photographed and with whom. They were obviously concerned about photographed drivers being in more trouble than a mere traffic ticket.
Although I do agree that people should not be allowed to get a list of all phone calls made from a specific number I also wonder about why this is such an odious idea to us. There are, no doubt, real threats to us posed by such access, but I think, too, that some of our fears in this regard have to do with the fact that we are too often up to things that, if revealed, would compromise us in the eyes of our employers, our families and our communities. In other words, whatever else such revelation would do, it might also reveal the corruption within our whitewashed sepulchers.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
More 21st Century Integrity
"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system."
Is it Senator Ted Kennedy complaining about President Bush ignoring the laws governing government tapping of phones and "mining" e mails?
No...
It's Tom Delay (currently under indictment) urging that President Clinton be punished for having an affair with an intern.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=45006#comment
Is it Senator Ted Kennedy complaining about President Bush ignoring the laws governing government tapping of phones and "mining" e mails?
No...
It's Tom Delay (currently under indictment) urging that President Clinton be punished for having an affair with an intern.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=45006#comment
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)