Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Just a quickie. Anyone notice how many flags there are in the Scarborough Country lead-in? It's like they pulled out every video they had of Joe standing near a flag and played them while washing the whole screen in rippling flag effect. Man, that Joe Scarborough must really love America.
0 comments
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Memorandums, or memoranda? Maybe we should spend time debating what the correct plural form of memorandum is! It seems like an important and pressing topic of inquiry. It would certainly be a compelling solution for John Ashcroft, who suggested in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that it's just not good policy to debate openly about what powers a president has in wartime.
Frankly, I quite agree with Ashcroft. The time to debate a President's powers is not during war. I would be much happier debating these powers before we go to war. One of the things that troubles me so much about this administration is that I'm constantly playing catch-up with them.
I understand the argument that says that our military and intelligence establishments were designed for the Cold War, and must be adjusted, augmented, and reshaped to deal with the challenges of fighting groups like Al Qaeda. Heck, that's a reasonable argument! I would then expect a list of suggested changes, pilot programs, procedure modifications, etc. That would be reasonable. Instead, what I get is illegal search and seizure, frightening abductions, and horrific torture, all justified after their discovery by a claim that the rules are different in a post-9/11 world.
So why can't I just hear all the ways in which the rules are now different? Why can't I know what I've empowered my administration to do in my name and on my behalf when I didn't elect them into office? Well, it's obvious. John Ashcroft has already told us that it's unwise to debate the President's power in a time of war.
Evidently, these powers extend quite far. For instance, according to the various memoranda that have been unearthed, the President can basically ignore any law or treaty in order to protect that nation's security. He can then extend immunity to all executive branch officials, including the military. Surprisingly, this has lead to the belief that it would be acceptable to torture prisoners in the conflict in Afghanistan, and against any prisoner of the war against Al Qaeda (the so-called Global War on Terror) because the Geneva Convention wouldn't apply, thanks to some clever legal arguments.
What I hadn't realized was that the US didn't torture prisoners of war because of the Geneva Convention. I'd always thought that we didn't torture prisoners because it's wrong to torture people! And evidently, the President's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the Geneva Convention displayed either a woefully poor understanding of the spirit of the Geneva Convention, or more likely, a contemptuous attitude towards the public and it's intelligence. I guess what goes around comes around - we should never have 'misunderestimated' the damage that ambitious, intelligent, and fundamentalist men could do in the service of the one-dimensional George W. Bush.
What goes around comes around indeed though. Colin Powell was forced to testify in front of the UN in support of a war he believed was wrong, based on evidence he believed was false and exaggerated, and for a party which paraded him around as a mere token, but which didn't actually trust his professional judgment. Now, it's John Ashcroft's turn. The Attorney General of the United States of America got to testify to the Senate that torture is an acceptable policy. For my viewers at home, please raise your hand if you were in favor of this outcome. Don't be shy - did any of you think that this is exactly what you were voting for and supporting when Bush ran for office? Anybody think this is right or good?
It's interesting that we have a real policy about prisoner abuse and when it's allowed. I mean, I may disagree with the laws and rules, but I'm comforted by the knowledge that rules exist. And I even understand why you need rules. If you're going to be carrying out this kind of behavior systematically, you need to have your list of 24 approved procedures, and you need to know whether you have to call Donald Rumsfeld before placing women's underwear on the heads of Muslim prisoners, or whether you only need to call when you wish to unleash vicious Dobermans on naked men.
To be honest, I'm just speculating. The administration has refused to release the memo which details the 24 procedures, and the four which require direct approval from Donald Rumsfeld. Come to think of it, maybe that's what the administration meant when they said that the soldiers in Abu Ghraib were bad apples. Here the administration's gone through all this trouble to create rules about torture, an entire torture chain of command, and these yahoos from military intelligence were going around and torturing on their own! Now that's just wrong. Don't they know that only the President is allowed to torture people? I mean, according to the March 2003 memo, all laws, including those against torture, are unconstitutional if they "seek to prevent the president from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States." Whoa - that's a tall order. George W. Bush needs a lot more intelligence than he's got if he plans on preventing attacks against America. We all knew that, and that's why we felt better when he hired all those intelligent, experienced guys to run the country.
I'm just glad that I don't know anything. Actually, I'm glad that not only don't I know anything, but that the President doesn't think that I know something, because if he did, I'd be in serious trouble. No 5th Amendment for me. No due process of the law, no freedom from unlawful search or seizure, no access to legal counsel, no freedom from unjust imprisonment. And yet I'm supposed to believe that I live in the freest and greatest country in the world. At least the Fascists made no bones about their beliefs. They called themselves Fascists, and they acted like Fascists. Our administration employs many of the techniques of Fascism, but insists that as long as we believe it, America is the greatest and most free.
I believe that America is a great country because it embodies the greatest potential for freedom and expression of the yearnings of the human spirit. Our responsibility, in every generation, is to make true the promise of America's great potential, and to mine the opportunity of our land and reap the bountiful harvest of ideas and innovations. Without freedom, we have no opportunity, no motivation, no security and no American greatness. Believing just won't make it so.
0 comments
Frankly, I quite agree with Ashcroft. The time to debate a President's powers is not during war. I would be much happier debating these powers before we go to war. One of the things that troubles me so much about this administration is that I'm constantly playing catch-up with them.
I understand the argument that says that our military and intelligence establishments were designed for the Cold War, and must be adjusted, augmented, and reshaped to deal with the challenges of fighting groups like Al Qaeda. Heck, that's a reasonable argument! I would then expect a list of suggested changes, pilot programs, procedure modifications, etc. That would be reasonable. Instead, what I get is illegal search and seizure, frightening abductions, and horrific torture, all justified after their discovery by a claim that the rules are different in a post-9/11 world.
So why can't I just hear all the ways in which the rules are now different? Why can't I know what I've empowered my administration to do in my name and on my behalf when I didn't elect them into office? Well, it's obvious. John Ashcroft has already told us that it's unwise to debate the President's power in a time of war.
Evidently, these powers extend quite far. For instance, according to the various memoranda that have been unearthed, the President can basically ignore any law or treaty in order to protect that nation's security. He can then extend immunity to all executive branch officials, including the military. Surprisingly, this has lead to the belief that it would be acceptable to torture prisoners in the conflict in Afghanistan, and against any prisoner of the war against Al Qaeda (the so-called Global War on Terror) because the Geneva Convention wouldn't apply, thanks to some clever legal arguments.
What I hadn't realized was that the US didn't torture prisoners of war because of the Geneva Convention. I'd always thought that we didn't torture prisoners because it's wrong to torture people! And evidently, the President's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the Geneva Convention displayed either a woefully poor understanding of the spirit of the Geneva Convention, or more likely, a contemptuous attitude towards the public and it's intelligence. I guess what goes around comes around - we should never have 'misunderestimated' the damage that ambitious, intelligent, and fundamentalist men could do in the service of the one-dimensional George W. Bush.
What goes around comes around indeed though. Colin Powell was forced to testify in front of the UN in support of a war he believed was wrong, based on evidence he believed was false and exaggerated, and for a party which paraded him around as a mere token, but which didn't actually trust his professional judgment. Now, it's John Ashcroft's turn. The Attorney General of the United States of America got to testify to the Senate that torture is an acceptable policy. For my viewers at home, please raise your hand if you were in favor of this outcome. Don't be shy - did any of you think that this is exactly what you were voting for and supporting when Bush ran for office? Anybody think this is right or good?
It's interesting that we have a real policy about prisoner abuse and when it's allowed. I mean, I may disagree with the laws and rules, but I'm comforted by the knowledge that rules exist. And I even understand why you need rules. If you're going to be carrying out this kind of behavior systematically, you need to have your list of 24 approved procedures, and you need to know whether you have to call Donald Rumsfeld before placing women's underwear on the heads of Muslim prisoners, or whether you only need to call when you wish to unleash vicious Dobermans on naked men.
To be honest, I'm just speculating. The administration has refused to release the memo which details the 24 procedures, and the four which require direct approval from Donald Rumsfeld. Come to think of it, maybe that's what the administration meant when they said that the soldiers in Abu Ghraib were bad apples. Here the administration's gone through all this trouble to create rules about torture, an entire torture chain of command, and these yahoos from military intelligence were going around and torturing on their own! Now that's just wrong. Don't they know that only the President is allowed to torture people? I mean, according to the March 2003 memo, all laws, including those against torture, are unconstitutional if they "seek to prevent the president from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States." Whoa - that's a tall order. George W. Bush needs a lot more intelligence than he's got if he plans on preventing attacks against America. We all knew that, and that's why we felt better when he hired all those intelligent, experienced guys to run the country.
I'm just glad that I don't know anything. Actually, I'm glad that not only don't I know anything, but that the President doesn't think that I know something, because if he did, I'd be in serious trouble. No 5th Amendment for me. No due process of the law, no freedom from unlawful search or seizure, no access to legal counsel, no freedom from unjust imprisonment. And yet I'm supposed to believe that I live in the freest and greatest country in the world. At least the Fascists made no bones about their beliefs. They called themselves Fascists, and they acted like Fascists. Our administration employs many of the techniques of Fascism, but insists that as long as we believe it, America is the greatest and most free.
I believe that America is a great country because it embodies the greatest potential for freedom and expression of the yearnings of the human spirit. Our responsibility, in every generation, is to make true the promise of America's great potential, and to mine the opportunity of our land and reap the bountiful harvest of ideas and innovations. Without freedom, we have no opportunity, no motivation, no security and no American greatness. Believing just won't make it so.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
this is fantastic. Evidently, we now have phone transcripts proving that Enron traders were both aware and proud of the way they rigged energy costs on the West Coast and robbed the state of California blind. The fiscal crisis that this fed into was a large part of the reason for Gray Davis' defeat at the hands of Arnold Schwarzenegger. That, and the fact that the most interesting part of Gray Davis' personality is his first name.
But what goes around comes around. Schwarzenegger has secured his post as most popular governor in the nation by governing like a Democrat. Given that California is over 50% non-white, perhaps that's not a surprise. The Governator (I do love that nickname, as well as all the jokes about GW Bush thinking it was the name of the position, but I digress). The Governator has achieved popularity as a politician through fiscal prudence, of all things. Combining a bond issue with a rather progressive $1 billion income tax increase has bought California some time and some stability. And while many traditional Conservatives gnash their teeth over President Bush's yawning deficits and consider staying home this November, Democrats quietly note the power of fiscal prudence and secretly chortle over how easy it was to co-opt this once-Republican issue.
But what must gall Republicans the most was Governor Arnold's announcement that, though he supports the president and will campaign for him in California (a lost cause for Republicans even despite Arnold's popularity) he will not campaign outside of the state for President Bush. In an interview with California Journal magazine, Arnold was quoted as as saying "But I do not go around the country or anything like that, because there's too many Democrats here. I don't want to rub that in their face. I want them and me to be a partner, to work together."
That'll do for now, check back later for some thoughts on President Bush's church-centered re-election strategy.
0 comments
But what goes around comes around. Schwarzenegger has secured his post as most popular governor in the nation by governing like a Democrat. Given that California is over 50% non-white, perhaps that's not a surprise. The Governator (I do love that nickname, as well as all the jokes about GW Bush thinking it was the name of the position, but I digress). The Governator has achieved popularity as a politician through fiscal prudence, of all things. Combining a bond issue with a rather progressive $1 billion income tax increase has bought California some time and some stability. And while many traditional Conservatives gnash their teeth over President Bush's yawning deficits and consider staying home this November, Democrats quietly note the power of fiscal prudence and secretly chortle over how easy it was to co-opt this once-Republican issue.
But what must gall Republicans the most was Governor Arnold's announcement that, though he supports the president and will campaign for him in California (a lost cause for Republicans even despite Arnold's popularity) he will not campaign outside of the state for President Bush. In an interview with California Journal magazine, Arnold was quoted as as saying "But I do not go around the country or anything like that, because there's too many Democrats here. I don't want to rub that in their face. I want them and me to be a partner, to work together."
That'll do for now, check back later for some thoughts on President Bush's church-centered re-election strategy.
