Month: June 2007

Back To The Dark Ages

by digby

Can you believe we are actually reading stuff like this?

Although many scientists accept evolution as the best theoretical explanation for diversity in forms of life on Earth, the issue of its validity has risen again as an important issue in the current 2008 presidential campaign.

It’s enough to make you hang your head in despair. But that doesn’t really tell the story. From Steve Benen:

Gallup followed up today with some pertinent details — including the partisan breakdown.

The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

In fact, the problem isn’t just that Americans in general are confused, but rather that the GOP is throwing off the curve.

Here’s the breakdown on belief in evolutionary biology by partisan affiliations:

* Dems — 57% believe in evolution, 40% do not

* Independents — 61% believe in evolution, 37% do not

* Republicans — 30% believe in evolution, 68% do not

Granted, the numbers for Dems and Independents aren’t great, but a strong majority of each accept modern science. That’s at least somewhat comforting.

But by more than a 2-to-1 margin, Republicans are on another page of the science textbook altogether.

Hey, a quarter of the population say they believe in both evolution and creationism so it’s safe to say that there is something very bizarre about this debate. But we can also safely say that this is a GOP culture war rallying cry and not a true national obsession.

But it’s obvious that the candidates are nervous about this because only three of them said they didn’t believe in evolution in the South Carolina debate even though almost 70% of Republicans say they don’t. Not one of the super-pandering, smarmy flip-floppers, “Rudy McRomney,” who desperately need to establish bona fides with the fundies, were willing to raise their tiny hands along with Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee. It seems to me that it would have been a freebie.

I think it’s obvious that the evolution debate is manufactured by a bunch of evil Straussian elites to keep the primitives in line, but why wouldn’t they play along when they could have sent a strong dog-whistle to the base? It doesn’t make sense to me. What do you think?

.

Set Scooter Free Or The Country Gets It

by digby

Marcy finds a nice catch in the Libby letters today. Well, it’s not nice, exactly. It reads more like something Tony Soprano might have written and I’m not exaggerating:

I wanted to call attention to the Michael Horowitz letter in support of leniency for Libby. Horowitz issues a thinly-veiled threat to retaliate if Libby has to do jail time.

Disposition of the Libby case will have much to do with whether the country will further and gravely descend into “us v. them” feelings of bitterness and contention. As the Bork case led inexorably to the Clinton impeachment, so can the case before the Court profoundly criminalize and poison the country’s political process with calls for retribution on the part of many who will never believe–never–that Scooter merits criminal punishment or, God forbid, incarceration. It is an irony that Scooter would be the last to support such an embittering development, but the esteem in which he is held is such that any but the most Solomon-like disposition of his case could easily ensure this occurrence.

Gosh, I’m not sure who these people are who will never — never — accept that Scooter merits punishment and so will profoundly criminalize and poison the country’s political process with calls for retribution, but they sound like a bunch of lawless thugs. In fact, they sound like terrorists, what with their apparent willingness to take down innocent people in senseless acts of revenge and all. But no, apparently these aren’t thugs and terrorists — these are Republican politicians. Go figure.

This is one of my favorite right wing gambits: threatening to pitch such a sustained and over-the-top partisan tantrum that the whole country will regret not letting them have their way. For instance, this was the subtext of the Florida recount.

“You thought impeachment was bad… if Al Gore moves into Bush’s house we will make his life — and the country’s — so miserable they will rue the day he took the oath of office. We will never — never — accept that Gore won this election. Make it easy on yourselves, people. Do the smart thing. Let the Republicans have their way.”

(Here’s how it’s done, by the way.)

The media, of course, fed into this with all their hand wringing about how we needed to hurry up and decide because “god knows what will happen if we don’t.” Of course, we knew exactly what would happen: the right wing would have an epic fit that made the Clinton years look like utopia. I think for a lot of people it was a sense of relief that the Republicans would finally be appeased, (which is, of course, impossible.) Certainly, the punditocrisy sold that idea but instead of presenting it honestly, they wrote columns about how Bush was the right choice because he was a uniter not a divider, forgetting to mention that he and his cronies were the ones who created the divisions in the first place and threatened to deepen them if they didn’t get their way.

You can see why Democrats are gunshy with these people. They are thugs, as Horowitz’s letter, in surprisingly crude fashion, illustrates. (No wonder they didn’t want them made public.) They are saying straight-up that if Scooter has to go to jail they are going to the mattresses. The judge seemed to be unmoved — we’ll see what happens next.

But if the Republicans persist with this “thing of theirs” the Democrats should make them an offer they can’t refuse. I have a sneaking suspicion they are less Tony Soprano than cranky three year olds threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue at this point. The Mommy Party should give them a nice long time out.

.

The Huckster

by digby

There was a time when Governor Mike Huckabee was considered one of the great white hopes for this election cycle. (Maybe he still is.) He’s supposed to be the one with the softer edges who can appeal to the ladies with his good natured religious talk and the men with his congenial, good ole boy personality.

I dunno, maybe. But after his “beauty shop” one liner against Edwards and seeing him on Blitzer yesterday, I have to say I think he’s got a seriously bitchy quality, along with the usual irresponsible GOP mendacity that puts him firmly in the everyday Republican asshole camp.

Here’s Governor Mike being a nice, decent man who has respect for everyone:

BLITZER: So you don’t accept the notion that a Ralph Nader or some others would suggest that there really is no significance difference between Democrats and Republicans?

HUCKABEE: Well, somebody would have had to have slept through both debates to think that there are no differences. There are clear differences. Now, the good news is the people of America will have a contrast. And I think the other piece of good news is that both sides, I think, are legitimately trying to talk about some issues.

I just watched my friend and former colleague, Bill Richardson, who I have a great deal of respect for, disagree on many issues. But Bill Richardson brings to the table not only a great background, but I think some keen insights.

And good politics is not about agreeing with everybody all the time. It’s about having real, honest debate, putting the differences on the table and seeing if there’s any common ground at all.

Isn’t that terrific? A real, honest debate, putting the differences on the table and finding common ground. What a breath of fresh air.

Later in the same interview:

BLITZER: The president is determined to revive the immigration bill and they are determined to come up with a game plan in the next few days that will see it pass… Are you on board with the president of the United States?

HUCKABEE: Not at this time. But let me explain why. First of all, I think there are three basic reasons that the bill is in real trouble, particularly with Republicans.

And the first reason is is there’s a general lack of credibility that the American people have with government based on their inattention to Katrina and the way it was bungled, based on the lack of attention when it came to corruption, and they saw it…The second factor, it was written in secret…

But Wolf, let me tell you the third reason that people in the Republican Party are uncomfortable with it, I can put it in this simple phrase. What part of Kennedy do you not understand?

When Ted Kennedy is involved, it immediately creates a natural, just anxiety for Republicans. Now having said that, you know, I respect and appreciate that Senator McCain has put a stake in the ground on this. And unlike so many people who just take the easy way out, you’ve got to give him credit for working on this problem along with other senators from both parties and attempting to put something on the table.

So rather than just throw it all away, let’s be very specific in the parts of it we don’t like, and let’s fix it. That’s the way legislation gets done.

BLITZER: Well, let me be just clear, Governor. Just because Senator Kennedy is on board with Senator Kyl and Senator McCain and the president, just because he has come to their side, does that in and of itself make it unacceptable?

HUCKABEE: No. What I’m saying is that when he is front and center, you’re always going to have the first glance from Republicans sort of saying, whoa, we better really take a real close look. Because if he likes it, there may be something hidden in there that we’re not going to like.

I’m just saying that’s one of the issues. It does not mean that it can’t happen. But he’s not exactly the one that brings warm, fuzzy feelings to Republicans in America.

As you can tell by his follow up, even Blitzer was taken aback by Huckabee’s statement.

But, hey, I like Huckabee’s rule. My personal feeling is that any bill that has Orrin Hatch or John Cornyn attached to it is so distasteful that I can’t support it. Lott and McConnell too. I just don’t trust ’em. In fact, since I don’t trust any of these bastards, I can’t support legislation that has any Republican’s name on it. What part of Republican don’t you understand, Governor? (And good luck passing any legislation if by some miracle you do become president…)

I know the Republicans have defined stupidity down ever since Reagan, but this is getting ridiculous. This cretin is running for president and he should know better than to promote such nonsense with a casual one-liner. The Republicans aren’t in charge of the senate and they don’t get to decide who sponsors bills all by themselves. I’m sorry the neanderthal base of the GOP doesn’t like it that Democrats get to be involved in the legislative process now but they are just going to have to adjust to this new reality.

But believe it or not, that wasn’t the dumbest thing he said. He said a whole bunch of truly stupid things. Like this:

FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL: If it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo. Not tomorrow, but this afternoon. Every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. And so essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Governor Huckabee, you agree with Secretary Powell?

HUCKABEE: I know it’s become a symbol of what’s wrong. I visited Guantanamo just about a year ago. My sense was, because I visited every single prison in the Arkansas prison system, and I can tell you most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States.

It’s more symbolic than it is a substantive issue, because people perceive of mistreatment when, in fact, there are extraordinary means being taken to make sure these detainees are being given, really, every consideration.

BLITZER: But the argument isn’t so much the physical condition as to the legal system that they face. These suspected terrorists, these detainees are being held, by and large, without charges, without any evidence. They’re just being kept there indefinitely. And that’s causing a smear on the U.S. reputation.

HUCKABEE: I understand that. But I’ll tell you, if we let somebody out and it turns out that they come and fly an airliner into one of our skyscrapers, we’re going to be asking, how come we didn’t stop them? We had them detained.

There’s not a perfect solution. The perfect solution is to get people to quit being terrorists. And that’s not something we can easily control. If we’re going to make a mistake right now, let’s make it on the side of protecting the American people. That’s the number one role and responsibility that an American president has right now.

Well, yes. It’s important to get people to quit being terrorists. And locking up a bunch of innocent Muslims and throwing away the key is an excellent way to do that.

I guess this is just another layer of the Bush preemption doctrine. We should imprison innocent people indefinitely because they might do something bad in the future. (That something, by the way, that some of them would never have even thought of doing until we locked them up.) Besides, it’s like a country club down there! The prisoners are being “treated better” than those in Arkansas state prisons (which may be true) and they should be happy to be unjustly imprisoned in such a great place. (It reminds me of Barbara Bush saying that the hurricane victims were doing much better living on cots in the Astrodome than they were in their own homes.)

This thinking gives you a pretty clear look into how Huckabee and his little Republican followers view the concepts of justice and security. And the inescapable conclusion is that these primitive authoritarians may very well be only one short step from applying the laws of the “war on terror” to the American judicial system in general. You cannot make a logical distinction between believing the government should lock potential terrorists up because they might cause some harm and locking potential criminals up because they might cause some harm. It is only a matter of time before that thinking bleeds into the lizard brains of a good portion of Americans, who up to now have been more or less successfully inculcated in the great American values of “innocent until proven guilty” and “due process” and “inalienable rights” even if they didn’t always practice them perfectly. We certainly didn’t have politicians openly calling for keeping innocent people imprisoned forever because they might do something wrong in the future and it would make the government look bad for having let them out!

I have said this before, but this new terrorist legal regime is almost sure to infect our own judicial system sooner or later, when people start arguing that mass murderers or rapists or whatever are just as dangerous as terrorists and they don’t “deserve” to have rights either. After all, if the government’s primary job is to “protect” the American people from someone who might fly a plane into a building, you cannot logically apply a different standard to someone you think “might” hurt Americans in more prosaic ways.

Violence happens every day in our country and we try to prevent it wherever we can, within the law. But we don’t throw out the constitution, however badly we might mangle it at times, because intelligent people know that nobody is safe when a government can preemptively throw innocent people in jail and keep them there with no due process forever. Just ask the people who lived under the Taliban. (I hear there are a few down there in Camp Gitmo living it up — maybe they could share some experiences.)

It used to be that conservatives of all people understood this. Now they are just unctuous authoritarian con men rending their garments over their little friend Scooter while saying in the same breath that we need to keep innocent people in jail forever so the US doesn’t have egg on its face. Creating a few thousand terrorists is a small price to pay to ensure that the Bush administration is never embarrassed by “making a mistake.”

The nice guy Huckabee is a walking ditto-head bumper sticker, only without the nuance.

.

The “Sopranos” Coda: Whacking Philosophical

By Dennis Hartley

Well, this is it. After tonight, no more Sunday night dinners with Tony, Carmela and the, erm, Family (Hmmm…maybe no more Tony-we’ll know definitively by 10pm Eastern.).

Whatever happens tonight on the series finale of HBO’s “The Sopranos”, one thing we can count on is this: It’s not likely to resemble “M*A*S*H: The Final Episode” (with the possible exception of the gunshot traumas). Let’s just say I don’t foresee a lot of hugging.

The inspired mash-up of “The Honeymooners” with “I, Claudius” that informed the series was a stroke of genius, and we probably will not see its like again anytime soon. Love it or hate it, David Chase’s epic mob drama has changed the formula of what constitutes a “hit series” and upped the ante considerably on TV dramas in general. The traditionally pat 48 minute-long story arc just won’t cut it any more.

“The Sopranos” has weathered a lot of storms since its 1999 debut, from initial accusations that the show was only serving to reinforce the Italian-American gangster stereotype, to a sophomore slump (Chase allegedly endured a paralyzing, post-9/11 creative block getting the much-delayed and grumpily received fourth season underway), and most recently suffering a dramatic drop-off in viewers.

But despite the rollercoaster flux of viewer loyalty, the outcries from the PC police about the stereotypes, sex and graphic violence and all the fan boys hand wringing themselves silly online over who shouldn’t have been whacked and who deserves to be whacked, one thing about the show has remained constant. The directing, writing and acting has been, hands down, some of the best I have seen in any medium-TV, cable or film. “The Sopranos” deserves every Emmy it has received and more, and I miss it already.

So what are we going to watch now on HBO Sunday nights? “John from Cincinnati”?! Somehow, the idea of a show centered around a philosophical surfer dude by the creators of “Deadwood” isn’t grabbing me (why don’t they just fucking call it “Driftwood”-because that’s all it’s gonna be in the wake of “The Sopranos”, IMHO).

And the biggest question of all-what’s James Gandolfini going to do now? Will he face the “Spock” curse of being so indelibly linked with one particular television character that he can never be taken seriously in any other role? Well, maybe he could look to Bill Shatner for inspiration… wait a minute…that’s it!

Picture if you will: later tonight, after the final episode has been put to bed, Denny Crane and Tony Soprano are sitting on the balcony, enjoying their well-earned brandy and cigars. Denny turns to Tony and says reassuringly, “Don’t worry, Tone. There’s life after a cult series. Seriously.” Tony raises his glass, and with a sparkle in his eye, says: “Sleepover tonight?” To which Denny replies: “You don’t mean…’with the fishes’, do you?” Both men laugh and clink glasses. (Music up, fade to black.)

Adieu, Tony. Adieu.

Please: Under penalty of banning and public flaying, no spoilers in the comment thread.

.

Giving It Away For Free

by digby

Avedon Carol pointed me to this interesting observation that I think is worthy of a little more discussion. Writing about the inexplicable decision of the Democrats to appropriate more money for abstinence only education Avedon says:

This program is immoral and irresponsible on its face, just leaving aside that it is a right-wing crackpot scheme and a kick-back to fringe religious groups as well. The majority of parents in America want their kids to get real sex education, not enforced ignorance and lies. There is not one single tolerable excuse for the program’s existence, and it is the shame of progressives everywhere that they – and elected Democrats – have not been screaming bloody murder about this outrageous misuse of taxpayers’ money.

It’s true that it’s immoral and irresponsible on the merits. To continue to push programs that hurts kids and which a majority of people don’t want is simply wrong.

But what makes this even more inexplicable is this:

The Democrats will now become one of the largest funders of an ultra-conservative network that is clearly hostile to its policies and candidates.

What in the hell is up with that? The piece points to an article in The Nation, that spells out exactly who is going to be getting this money and there is no way on earth that it is ever going to benefit Democrats, much less the people at large:

Over the past six years George W. Bush’s faith-based Administration and a conservative Republican Congress transformed the small-time abstinence-only business into a billion-dollar industry. These dangerously ineffective sexual health enterprises flourish not because they spread “family values” but because of generous helpings of the same pork-heavy gumbo Bush & Co. brought to war-blighted Iraq and Katrina-hammered New Orleans–a mix of back-scratching cronyism, hefty partisan campaign donations, high-dollar lobbyists, a revolving door for political appointees and a lack of concern for results.

One of the chief cooks is a media-shy 63-year-old Catholic multimillionaire, welfare privatizer and Republican donor named Raymond Ruddy. With close ties to the White House, federal health officials and Republican power brokers that date back to W.’s days as Texas governor, Ruddy has leveraged his generous wallet and insider muscle to push an ultraconservative social agenda, enrich a preferred network of abstinence-only and antiabortion groups, boost profits for his company and line the pockets of his cronies–all with taxpayer dollars.

Following the money swirling around Ruddy offers an eye-opening glimpse into the squalor at the heart of the abstinence-only project. One top Bush adviser left to take a job at Ruddy’s charity, Gerard Health Foundation, and a senior officer at Ruddy’s for-profit company, Maximus, left to take a top-level position at the Department of Health and Human Services. Leaders of Christian-right organizations that are Gerard grantees have gained advisory HHS positions–and their organizations have in turn received AIDS and abstinence grants to the tune of at least $25 million. Maximus itself has raked in more than $100 million in federal contracts during the Bush era.

So you have an obscenely expensive program that the data shows doesn’t work, that Democrats don’t want and that actually hurts kids. The only people it benefits are a bunch of right wing extremist scam artists who would rather put ice picks in their eyes than support a Democrat — and the Republican party, who continue to receive plenty of largesse in return. Yet the Democratic congress has agreed to fund it.

This is political malpractice — the K Street project in reverse. If you are going to sell out your principles, you are at least supposed to get something out of it. These programs help Republicans and only Republicans. Talk about getting the milk for free…

The GOP understands very well that power begets power and they went so far over the top that they actually began to illegally use executive power to rig elections (and possibly spy on their political enemies — we don’t know.) It would be wrong for Democrats to go that far, of course. But if the Democrats are unwilling or unable to even pass legislation that has the salutary effect of enhancing their political power, the least they could do is not pass legislation that enhances the political clout of the Republicans. It’s not too much to ask, particularly when the interests they are funding are actually hurting America’s kids with superstitious nonsense.

What are they going to do next, help Bush confirm a bunch of wingnut judges on the courts who will torpedo every progressive initiative for the next generation? Oh wait…

.

On Pace

by digby

Am I the only one who thinks the excuse for not reappointing General Pace sounds like total nonsense? Dick Durbin said this morning that any appointee was going to have tough confirmation hearings so it doesn’t make much sense and I think that’s true. The Senate might have given him a tough time, but he’s a General, a Marine in uniform and they would have been respectful and they would have confirmed him. Are they saying that Peter Perfect couldn’t take the heat and come out on top? Please. My BS detector went off the minute I heard it.

The question is, did they ax him or did he quit? And why?

Update: There are many interesting theories in the comments. But I think Greenwald’s speculation here, rings true. Unlike certain marine colonels of yore, Pace may have been unwilling to commit perjury and some people don’t want certain things to be discussed in public just now.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

SIFF-ting Through Celluloid-Part 1

By Dennis Hartley

The 2007 Seattle International Film Festival is in full swing, so I thought that for the next few posts I would take you along to some of this year’s screenings.

Navigating a film festival is no easy task, even for a dedicated buff. This year’s SIFF is screening nearly 400 features and short films, over a period just shy of four weeks. It must be a wonderful opportunity for independently wealthy slackers, but for those of us who have to work for a living, it’s a little tough catching the North American premiere of that hot new documentary from Uzbekistan that is only screening once at 11:45am on a Tuesday. I’m lucky if I can catch ten films each year, but I do take consolation from my observation that the ratio of crap movies (too many) to quality movies (too few) at a film festival differs little from any Friday night at the multiplex. The trick lies in developing a sixth sense for which titles “feel” like they would most likely be up your alley (or, in my case, embracing your OCD and channeling it like a cinematic divining rod.)

Some of the films I will be reviewing will hopefully be “coming to a theatre near you” in the near future; on the other hand there may be a few that will only be accessible via DVD (the Netflix queue is our friend!). BTW, if you are lucky enough to go to Sundance, Toronto or Cannes, let’s get this out of the way now-Yes, I am quite aware that Seattle gets sloppy seconds from some of the more prestigious festivals; so go ahead, we’ll wait while you do your little “superior dance”. Okay, feel better? Good! Now let’s move on!

First up, we’ll take a look at the latest film from French director Patrice Leconte, “Mon Meilleur Ami” (“My Best Friend”), starring Daniel Auteil.

We are introduced to glum-faced antique dealer Francois Coste (Auteil) as he attends a funeral. After the service, Francois approaches the grieving widow and mutters a few perfunctory condolences. She doesn’t seem to recognize him; he explains that her husband was a client, then after pausing a beat, asks her if it would still be okay to stop by and take a look at a piece of furniture he had arranged to appraise for him before his unexpected demise. His faux pas and the look she gives him tell us everything we need to know about our hero’s complete and utter lack of charm.

Later, at a dinner with clients, Francois tells his business partner Catherine (Julie Gayet) about the sad lack of attendees at the funeral, an image he can’t shake. Imagine leading such a pathetic, friendless existence that no one shows up at your funeral! Catherine seizes this moment to confront Francois about his own inability to connect with people, which he naturally denies. Flustered and humiliated, Francois accepts her challenge to produce a “best friend” within the week. Francois has his work cut out for him.

Serendipity leads Francois to the perfect mark-Bruno Bouley (Dany Boon) an outgoing cab driver who seems to have an effortless manner of ingratiating himself to strangers. As we get a closer look at Bruno, he seems an unlikely mentor; he is divorced, takes anti-depressants, lives alone in a tiny apartment next door to his elderly parents, where he spends all his spare time cutting out newspaper articles and memorizing trivial facts in hopes of someday winning a fortune on a quiz show.

Initially, Francois takes an anthropological approach; he observes Bruno with the same sort of bemused detachment that Alan Bates studied Anthony Quinn in “Zorba the Greek”. What is Bruno’s secret to connecting to people…to Life? In spite of his ulterior motives, Francois begins to develop a genuine bond with Bruno, leading to some ironic twists and complications. Uh-oh, you’re thinking-we’re going to learn Life Lessons about the value of True Friendship, aren’t we? (Cue the “After School Special” theme…)

I was reminded a wee bit of another French film, Francis Veber’s 1999 social satire “The Dinner Game”, in which a group of snobs, for their amusement, challenge each other to feign friendship with an “idiot” and invite him to a special dinner night, competing to see who can produce the “biggest idiot”. And of course, the “idiot” gets the last laugh, and Lessons are Learned. (Apparently, the French adore “comedies” steeped in discomfiture.)

In his previous films, Leconte has displayed a knack for delivering compelling character studies that are wistful, brooding, darkly humorous yet simultaneously uplifting and life-affirming (his apex 2002 masterpiece “Man on the Train (L’Homme du Train)” resonated with me in such a deeply profound manner that I have become emotionally attached to it). I wish I could say the same for “My Best Friend”. It is certainly not what I would call a “bad” film (even lesser Laconte stands head and shoulder above most typical Hollywood grist) but there is a bit too much of that dreaded, audience pandering, “feel good ending” contrivance going on in the third act that mixes too jarringly with what has preceded.

I would still recommend this film, especially for the wonderful performances. Auteil, one of France’s top actors, is always worth watching, and Boon delivers nary a false note with a funny and touching performance as the ebullient yet mentally fragile Bruno.

In the meantime, if you want to catch up on some of Patrice Laconte’s back catalogue, I would also recommend “Ridicule”, “The Hairdresser’s Husband” and “The Girl on the Bridge”.

.

Wait Til Daddy Gets Home

by digby

As I watch the conservative movement purge the Bushmen from the ranks and decrying their former idol’s betrayal of conservatism, it’s interesting that we see almost nothing about the constitutional degradation that’s taken place. Instead, it’s all about spending and how he “mismanaged” the war. Bush’s reaction to 9/11 has yet to be challenged, and that says everything about their intellectual integrity.

They have often made the argument that the current circumstances are so unprecedented that nothing we have ever believed or done before applies. (I call it the “War of The Worlds” syndrome.) This is, of course, completely out of step with real conservatism, which assumes that mans nature is basically immutable and that only the institutions we have built up over centuries can be relied upon to keep society together and face new challenges. Still, the alleged conservatives fight on, often evoking the works of “the father of modern conservatism,” Edmund Burke, even as they espouse arguments that are anything but conservative.

So, it was with some gladness that I read this article in Harper’s by Scott Horton (via Nitpicker) that discusses the two dismissed Guantanamo cases this past week in light of Burke’s “Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol.” It provides a nice concise riposte to the right wing radicals who still insist they are true conservatives even as they continue to endorse dictatorial executive powers and the abandoning of centuries old understanding of habeas corpus. One can only assume they do this because they are either frightened and stimulated by the idea of war — or are complete hypocrites and tribal partisans without any intellectual grounding at all. (Or all of those things.)But Burkean conservatives, they ain’t.

Read it all the way through to the end, print it out, and the next time one of your conservative friends starts droning on about Burke, take it out and slowly rub it in his smug face.

Oh, and be sure to send at least this quote from the piece to Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the chickenhawk crew over at NRO, just for kicks:

The poorest being that crawls on earth, contending to save itself from injustice and oppression, is an object respectable in the eyes of God and man. But I cannot conceive any existence under heaven (which in the depths of its wisdom tolerates all sorts of things) that is more truly odious and disgusting than an impotent, helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any other qualification for power but his servility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battles which he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he can never exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in order to render others contemptible and wretched.

Love,

Your philosophical Daddy
Edmund

.

TV Politics

by digby

So, even though we know for a fact that it takes more skill than being a grade B TV actor or a good beer drinking partner to be president, it looks as though we are entering another presidential campaign in which manufactured, irrelevant personality characteristics are the primary means of making the decision. It’s not as though I don’t believe that presidents should have some skills in those areas. They should have good speaking skills and be able to articulate their policies in ways that people can understand them and be someone you believe understands the concerns of the average person. But ever since the press tried to sell that petulant, incoherent cretin Junior Bush as Winston Churchill, it’s clear their judgments in this regard are untrustworthy. Not that it will stop them.

But it isn’t just the press. Apparently, the government and the military are likewise infected with a TV version of reality, in which whatever experts or common sense say are to be rejected, and TV dramas and dark, science fiction fantasies are to be used in their place.

Here’s a stomach churning example buried on page 7 of the NY Times today that made me want to turn off the computer, go to the beach … and just keep walking:

In a report on Friday, the lead investigator for the Council of Europe gave a bleak description of secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency in Eastern Europe, with information he said was gleaned from anonymous intelligence agents.

Prisoners guarded by silent men in black masks and dark visors were held naked in cramped cells and shackled to walls, according to the report, which was prepared by Dick Marty, a Swiss senator investigating C.I.A. operations for the Council of Europe, a 46-nation rights group.

Ventilation holes in the cells released bursts of hot or freezing air, with temperature used as a form of extreme pressure to wear down prisoners, the investigators found. Prisoners were also subjected to water-boarding, a form of simulated drowning, and relentless blasts of music and sound, from rap to cackling laughter and screams, the report says.

The report, which runs more than 100 pages, says the prisons were operated exclusively by Americans in Poland and Romania from 2003 to 2006. It relies heavily on testimony from C.I.A. agents.

That prison is right out of dystopian science fiction.

It is not as if the United States government doesn’t have access to the mountains of information that shows these techniques are incredibly unreliable and counterproductive. It’s not as if they don’t know that there are much better ways of extracting information. It’s not as if over the course of centuries we developed a set of moral guidelines that define what it means to be a decent society. They know all these things. They just chose to use television shows and movies as their guideline instead of real information, real morality or the rule of law.

And then, there is the assault on reason itself:

The details of prison life were given by retired and current American intelligence agents who had been promised confidentiality, the report says.

Their motives were varied, Mr. Marty said. “For 15 years, I have interviewed people as an investigating magistrate and I have always noticed that at a certain point, people with secrets need to talk,” he said.

Others justified the grim treatment, the reports said, saying, in one instance: “Here’s my question. Was the guy a terrorist? ’Cause if he’s a terrorist, then I figure he got what was coming to him.”

Well, that is an excellent question, isn’t it — the very reason due process was conceived in the first place. It is, of course, unacceptable to torture anyone, even if they are terrorists. But this argument is especially specious coming from a country that picked up a bunch of innocent people and then tortured them and confined them indefinitely. (Not to mention started a war based on false evidence.) Let’s just say they aren’t the greatest at unilaterally discerning who’s guilty and who’s not. Which, again, is the fucking reason for due process in the first place.

So, they adopted a torture first, ask questions later approach based upon … what? Season 1 of “24”?

Yes:

“24” and America’s Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction, or Does it Matter?
The distinguished panel and Heritage Foundation officials pose in the green room.

Left to Right: Joel Surnow, David Heyman, James Carafano, Phillip Truluck, America’s Anchorman,
Michael Chertoff, Mary Lynn Rajskub, Robert Cochran, Greg Itzin, Kay Coles James, Diana Spencer,
Howard Gordon, Abby Moffat, Carlos Bernard, Lee Klinetobe.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: …In reflecting a little bit about the popularity of the show “24” — and it is popular, and there are a number of senior political and military officials around the country who are fans, and I won’t identify them, because they may not want me to do that (laughter) I was trying to analyze why it’s caught such public attention. Obviously, it’s a very well-made and very well-acted show, and very exciting. And the premise of a 24-hour period is a novel and, I think, very intriguing premise. But I thought that there was one element of the shows that at least I found very thought-provoking, and I suspect, from talking to people, others do as well.

Typically, in the course of the show, although in a very condensed time period, the actors and the characters are presented with very difficult choices — choices about whether to take drastic and even violent action against a threat, and weighing that against the consequence of not taking the action and the destruction that might otherwise ensue.

In simple terms, whether it’s the president in the show or Jack Bauer or the other characters, they’re always trying to make the best choice with a series of bad options, where there is no clear magic bullet to solve the problem, and you have to weigh the costs and benefits of a series of unpalatable alternatives. And I think people are attracted to that because, frankly, it reflects real life. That is what we do every day. That is what we do in the government, that’s what we do in private life when we evaluate risks. We recognize that there isn’t necessarily a magic bullet that’s going to solve the problem easily and without a cost, and that sometimes acting on very imperfect information and running the risk of making a serious mistake, we still have to make a decision because not to make a decision is the worst of all outcomes.

And so I think when people watch the show, it provokes a lot of thinking about what would you do if you were faced with this set of unpalatable alternatives, and what do you do when you make a choice and it turns out to be a mistake because there was something you didn’t know. I think that, the lesson there, I think is an important one we need to take to heart. It’s very easy in hindsight to go back after a decision and inspect it and examine why the decision should have been taken in the other direction. But when you are in the middle of the event, as the characters in “24” are, with very imperfect information and with very little time to make a decision, and with the consequences very high on a wrong decision, you have to be willing to make a decision recognizing that there is a risk of mistake.

This man was in the Justice Department when they were churning out memos saying that it wasn’t torture unless it equalled the pain of major organ failure. And he’s the head of our Homeland Security Department (the name of which also sounds like it comes out of dystopian science fiction.) Senior political official Dick Cheney tried to run the first Gulf War based upon Ken Burns’ civil war documentary and a rousing game of Risk he won back in 1967. His tastes naturally run more toward Fox these days. (He insists their Republican”news” division be on at all times.) Bush is still parroting the lines from Hopalong Cassidy he heard back in ’57, when his mind stopped absorbing new information.

So, I suppose it isn’t surprising they adopted the rather shopworn, action flick plotlines of the 80’s to run the GWOT. They are obsessed by the primitive archetypal notions of masculinity, leadership and strength :

The analogy between the war on terror and the death struggle of ancient Greece with Persia has not been lost on some high administration officials either, especially Vice President Dick Cheney. (A White House spokesman declined to comment about the film.) In the months after 9/11, a classics scholar named Victor Davis Hanson wrote a series of powerful pieces for the National Review Online, later collected and published as a book, “An Autumn of War.” Moved by Hanson’s evocative essays, Cheney invited Hanson to dine with him and talk about the wars the Greeks waged against the Asian hordes, in defense of justice and reason, two and a half millennia ago.

But we already knew all this. One thing I didn’t realize before was that they apparently are recruiting CIA agents out of Pat Robertson U, judging by the puerile logic of the person quoted above. They used to hire assholes from the Ivy league who had few morals and no conscience, so that’s not much change there. But they weren’t stupid. I’m not sure if that’s better or worse, frankly.

.

Uncured Bork

by digby

Reading Emptywheel’s post about that horrible old man, Robert Bork, (and his equally horrible buddies) made me wonder if they have reason to believe they can get Libby’s conviction reversed on a technicality.

After all, this isn’t the first time we’ve been to this rodeo. From Robert Parry:

The North case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1990 and the Poindexter case followed in 1991. Iran-contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, a Republican himself, encountered what he termed “a powerful band of Republican appointees [who] waited like the strategic reserves of an embattled army.”

Walsh recognized that many of the appeals judges held a “continuing political allegiance” to the conservative Federalist Society, an organization dedicated to purging liberalism from the federal courts.”It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and 1950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party,” Walsh wrote. [For details, see Walsh’s Firewall.]

A leader of this partisan faction was Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a bombastic character known for his decidedly injudicious temperament. Silberman had served as a foreign policy advisor to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign and had joined in a controversial contact with an emissary from Iran behind President Carter’s back. [See Robert Parry’s Trick or Treason.] On the appeals court, Silberman took hardline conservative positions and demonstrated an animosity toward Walsh during a hearing on the constitutionality of independent counsels. Silberman also lashed out publicly at U.S. Appeals Court Judge George MacKinnon, an old-school Republican who ran the three-judge panel which had picked Walsh to investigate the Iran-contra affair in 1986. “At a D.C. circuit conference, he Silberman had gotten into a shouting match about independent counsel with Judge George MacKinnon,” Walsh wrote. “Silbermannot only had hostile views but seemed to hold them in anger.” To Walsh’s dismay, Silberman and another conservative judge, David Sentelle, were two of the three judges to hear the appeal of North’s conviction. A North Carolina protege of Sen. Jesse Helms, Sentelle was not as obstreperous as Silberman. But Sentelle carried with him a pugnacious pride in his Republican conservatism. Sentelle had served as chairman of the Mecklenburg County Republican Party and had been a Reagan delegate at the 1984 GOP convention. He named his daughter, Reagan, after the president. Though normally law-and-order judges, Silberman and Sentelle overturned North’s conviction by expanding the protections that a witness receives from a grant of limited immunity. In 1991, Sentelle again served with another Republican judge as the majority on the Poindexter appeal. This time, the GOP judges overturned the convictions by applying a novel argument: that lying to Congress did not constitute the crime of obstruction. Ironically, by expanding the rights of defendants, Sentelle became a conservative judicial hero. Sentelle also wasn’t shy about joining the ideological battle against the left. In the winter 1991 issue of the conservative Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Sentelle praised the writings of right-wing jurist Robert Bork. “Leftist heretics perceive our system of separated and federated powers as a stumbling block to their goal of remaking the Republic into a collectivist, egalitarian, materialistic, race-conscious, hyper-secular, and socially permissive state,” Sentelle wrote. Sentelle and Bork shared the view that the American left was riding roughshod over the nation. “Modern liberalism,” according to Bork’s 1996 book, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, “is what fascism looks like when it has captured significant institutions, most notably the universities, but has no possibility of becoming a mass movement.” Only “the rise of an energetic, optimistic and politically sophisticated religious conservatism” can counter “the extremists of modern liberalism,” Bork argued. [For an examination of the intellectual underpinnings of the new religious conservatism, see The New York Times Magazine, Oct. 11, 1998.] Unlike Bork, however, Sentelle had the opportunity to do more than fume about a domineering left. After the North and Poindexter reversals, Sentelle caught the eye of another Reagan appointee, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Amid mounting Republican anger over Walsh’s Iran-contra probe, Rehnquist removed MacKinnon, the judge who had picked and protected Walsh.

All of these people went on to become deeply involved in the Clinton witchhunts, suddenly finding that the independent counsel statute was quite useful. Sentelle and Silbermann appointed Ken Starr, whom Robert Bork defended for his high minded, straight devotion to duty.

Sentelle is still on the court. Lawrence Silberman is now a senior judge. Rehnquist’s replacement, John Roberts was on that same court. The extremist Janice Rogers Brown is also on that court.

Perhaps the long term friendships, shared legal history and blind partisan loyalties among these people will not be relevant in this case. But let’s just say I wouldn’t be shocked if we get a surprising appellate decision based upon a novel, intellectually inconsistent theory set forth by a bunch of powerful wingnut legal enforcers. It happens.

Update: From Lemieux at LGM, a reminder of one of Bork’s greatest hits.

.