Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.
“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
“That’s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.
I think we got a Jeffy, boys and girls. Yes, many have questioned Tony’s partiality on church/state rulings and for very good reasons: he’s told the world in his writings that he is prepared deliberately to misread the Declaration of Independence to establish his religious beliefs. In particular, Tony wrote that it is a mistake to think that, in his words, ” a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens [sick]”* has any moral power that does not derive directly from the authority of God. And since that belief is downright anti-American and theocratic, it’s no wonder Tony has alarmed so many patriots who question his ability to judge objectively when it comes to church/state issues.
But has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever criticized Tony, or any other Catholic politician or judge, merely for celebrating Mass in public and for no other reason? And not because of their extra-religious political views?
Not likely. And so we have today’s first official Jeffy.
*Note to the humor challenged: That was not a typo. Not “sic” but “sick,” as in a mistakenly sick thing to believe. Get it? No? Oh, well, never mind.
[Update: The question the reporter asked doesn’t count. It was a question, not a criticism.]
[Update: Scalia seems to be losing it. Understandable given that he’s apparently got a son in harm’s way in the Bush/Iraq war. Who could possibly be objective about war tribunals given how hysterical and irrational Tony sounds about it? He has to recuse himself.
Recently, Anne-Marie Slaughter was asked by Time Magazine her opinion of the question, “Was the War Worth It?” Here, she reports that three Middle-Easterners say, “Yes.” This drives her to this remarkably illogical conclusiont:
For those of us who increasingly think that the balance sheet of the war is almost entirely negative (in my case because of the way it has been fought more than its undertaking in the first place) — which describes virtually every American queried, the gap between our perceptions and the perceptions of those actually in the region should give us pause.
By the way, that is not taken out of context. That is her entire comment on the quotes she provides. A few comments:
1. It is impossible to find anyone in the United States who has even the slightest standing in the discussion on Bush/Iraq who also believes that Saddam was a nice, fluffy, warm-hearted kind of a guy who’d gotten a bum rap.
2. If she thinks the views here are at variance with the opinion of many Americans, there’s a protein wisdom I’d like to sell her. But hell, why pick on poor Jeff (besides the fact that it’s incredibly easy, as Wolcott would say)? In today’s NY Times there’s a nifty graphic you can click on where you’ll learn that 69% of all Republicans think the American military effort in Iraq is still going very well or fairly well. Dollars to donuts most would agree the war was worth it for, among other reasons, precisely the reason her Middle East commenters give.
3. Not only are the people she quotes not even crudely representative of Middle East opinion because they are all male, but they are also middle class or upper middle class. They do not begin to represent the huge populaton of Middle Eastern Arabs whose income falls far below any rational level of poverty.
4. I do not, as Anne-Marie writes, “increasingly think” the balance sheet of the war is almost completely negative. I’ve consistently thought so since I first heard that pre-emptive unilateral war against Iraq was being planned by the Bush administration. Following her logic – not mine – I therefore find nothing in the comments she quotes to give me the slightest pause. That Saddam’s regime would last more than 30 years? Who knows? That you can’t negotiate with these dictatorships for reform but you can now? Oh? Well, I guess the president of the United States holding hands with a Saudi oil bigwig is kind of, sort of, a negotiaton for genuine reform if I squint at the video just right.
Bush/Iraq has proven an all-but-umitigated disaster, plain and simple, for Iraq and the US. The proof is in the chaos, the deaths and mutilations, and the descent into a state of anarchy and/or civil war. Its effect on the rest of the region can hardly be said to be positive. Witness, for example, the election of Hamas, to name the first of many disasters that come to mind.
And in truth, the full effect of the Bush/Iraq has not yet been felt. For that we will have to wait for the children, whose fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters and friends and lovers have been blasted to kingdom come by American action, to grow up.
Josh Marshall informs of us of some truly cruel and unusual punishment. Tom DeLay’s license to carry a concealed handgun has been revoked.
You laugh. But let me put this into perspective for you. To a rootin’-tootin’ Texan, that’s like confiscating a ten-year old Volvo from a liberal. Or forcing us, when we order our tall lattes, to have them made from whole milk, not skim. There’d be riots, riots! if the guvmint dared to infringe our rights like that.
Goddamm activist judges. Besides, it’s not as if DeLay shot anyone in the face, you know. If I were Tom DeLay, I’d immediately contact these folks for assistance in having justice done.
…more violence was reported across Iraq, including a terrifying incident earlier in the week in the western city of Ramadi. On Wednesday, armed insurgents burst into the classroom of Khidhir al-Mihallawi, an English teacher at Sajariyah High School, accused him of being an agent for the CIA and Israeli intelligence and beheaded him in front of his students, according to students, fellow instructors and a physician at a local hospital.
But the school in question had of course been freshly repainted. Let’s not lose sight of what’s really important here.
And why aren’t we hearing stories of all the teachers who have not been beheaded in front of their students? Liberal media bias, of course.
Via Wolcott (who promotes this as “L’il Debbie Snackcake versus Monica the Harmonica!”) I see that plagiarism is actually epidemic on the right and that it’s, unsurprisingly, embittering some of those who are being ripped off by their ideological brethren. This explains why PJ O’Rourke didn’t sound any happier about Lil’ Benji stealing his words than NRO sounded when they had to admit that they’d published stolen movie reviews.
I’m sure the rightwing plagiarists would prefer to steal from liberals if they could, but for obvious reasons that won’t work. It’s an interesting conundrum for wingnut hacks, isn’t it?
(And who would have ever dreamed that Jerome Corsi was dishonest? Why you could bowl me over with a feather…)
Via Attaturk, I see there may be a good reason why there aren’t a lot of nice stories about schools in Iraq.
I know Lil’ Benji is for homeschooling and all, but maybe he’d like to take tristero’s advice and sit in on one of those classes for a few days so he can show the American people all the good news. If he lives through it.
Bruce Bartlett, The Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, George Packer, William F. Buckley, Sandra Day O’Connor, Republican voters in Indiana and all the rest of you newly-minted dissenters from Bush’s faith-based reality…those of us who have been anti-Bush from day 1 (defined as the day after the stolen 2000 election) have a few pointers for you that should make your transition more realistic.
1. Bush doesn’t know you disagree with him. Nothing about you makes you of interest to George W. Bush once you no longer agree with and support him…
2. Bush doesn’t care whether you disagree with him….You know that Katrina tape in which Bush never asked a question? It doesn’t matter how much you know or how passionately you feel or, most importantly, what degree of disintegration you see around you, he’s not going to ask you a question. You and your ideas are dead to him…
3. Bush does what he feels like doing and he deeply resents being told, even politely, that he ought to do anything else. This is called a “sense of entitlement”. Bush is a man who has never been anywhere and never done anything, and yet he has been flattered and cajoled into being president of the United States through his connections, all of whom thought they could use him for their own purposes…
4. President Bush is your creation…Bush does what he wants because you have let him…
5. Tyranny is your creation. What we have today is the natural and inevitable outcome of ideas and policies you have promoted for the last generation…
The US could have become a moderating force in what seems now to be an inevitable battle among the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions, but you have made that impossible by flattering and empowering our own violent and intolerant Christian right.
You have created an imperium, heedless of the most basic wisdom of the Founding Fathers–that at the very least, no man is competent enough or far-seeing enough to rule imperially…
Now you are fleeing him, but it’s only because he’s got the earmarks of a loser. Your problem is that you don’t know why he’s losing. You think he’s made mistakes. But no. He’s losing because the ideas that you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas, self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas… [emphasis added.]
“This is an important program,” said Lieberman, who is seeking a fourth term this year. “I don’t find anybody in Congress who thinks we ought not to be listening to the phone conversations and reading the e-mails of people that we think are involved in and we have reason to believe are involved in terrorist groups. But it has to be done in America in my opinion pursuant to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It has to be done with a court order.”
Lieberman, who has been criticized by liberals for supporting Bush’s war policy, faulted a censure move against the president that was proposed last week by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
“My own opinion, and it seems to be shared by most Democratic senators, is that it would be an unproductive use of our time,” Lieberman said. “Again, it’s looking backward. It would be divisive. The best thing we could do about this program is to bring it under the law and I’d prefer to spend my time and the Senate’s time figuring out how we can adopt a law that allows the administration to continue this program but force them to go to court to get a warrant before they do.”
I love these guys who claim to be our moral arbiters, don’t you? Yes, the president broke the law and defiled the constitution, but we shouldn’t hold him accountable because it would be divisive and “looking backward.”
It’s funny how he wasn’t concerened about wasting time or looking backward when he railed for half an hour on the Senate floor about President Clinton dragging down the moral values of the country for lying about his sex life, thus bringing the shrieking media harpies to full hysteria for weeks with the idea that the Democrats “were deserting Clinton.” Indeed, even after president Clinton was acquitted, Holy Joe thought censure was needed heal the divisions in our nation at the time.
I do believe the Constitution allows for one recourse that would provide a means for us as the people’s representatives to register our and their disapproval, and would, I believe, help us to bring appropriate closure to this terrible chapter in our nation’s history. It is well within the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives to adopt a resolution of censure expressing our contempt for the President’s misconduct, both that which is charged in the articles and that which is not. Such a censure would not amount to a punishment, nor would it be intended to do so. What it would do, particularly if it united Senators across party lines and positions on removal, is fulfill our responsibility to our children and our posterity to speak to the common values the President has violated, and make clear what our expectations are for future holders of that highest office.
And what it could do, I believe, is to help us to begin healing the wounds the President’s misconduct and the impeachment process’s partisanship have done to the American body politic, and to the soul of the nation. I have observed that roughly two-thirds of the public consistently expresses its opposition to the President’s removal. But I do not think we can leave this proceeding, especially those of us who have voted against the Articles, without also noting that roughly one-third of the American people have consistently expressed their belief that this President is unfit to lead this nation. That is a startlingly large percentage of our people who have totally lost confidence in our nation’s leader.
Hey Joe, you putz. Have you looked at the polls lately? And do you think it might be worth your notice that most of your fellow Democrats believe that George W. Bush has been unfit to lead this country since he stole the election, with you on the damned ticket for gods sake, in 2000? Maybe you don’t mind being punked by Karl Rove, but the rest of us kind of resent it. How about healing those wounds?
Lying and breaking the law and spying on Americans without a warrant, well, it’s wrong, but we needn’t punish anyone for it. It’s not like there’s anything important (like extra-marital sex) involved or anything. We should just make it legal and carry on. Oh hell, let’s just crown the half-wit and get it over with.
Joe Liebermann’s little eight year old grandkid asked him at the dinner table the other night if he thought the president broke the law, like the kids at school said he did.
“Is he gonna get in trouble?” he asked.
“No, son,” Liebermann replied, “we’re just going to change the law so what he did isn’t illegal anymore. We don’t want his friends to get upset.”
“Neat,” the kid replied, “I took four candy bars from 7-11 after school and the man said he was gonna call the police. Can you change the law for me so I won’t get into trouble either?”
Lieberman looked indulgently at the naive little pup and said, “I’m sorry son. You’re the grandson of a Democrat. You shall have to pay the price for your misdeeds. Breaking the law and having a private personal life is only OKIYAR. It’s time you learned that.”
Many bloggers have suggested that the recently unemployed Ben Domenech should seriously consider signing up for service in the military (but not, presumably, as a blogger for the Army Times). Far be it for me to disagree, but I would like to suggest an equally worthy alternative.
Ben can grab himself one of those groovy new digital videocams, catch the next plane to Iraq, and hitch-hike around, carefully filming all the good news in the country. You know what I’m talking about, Ben: All the schools opening, the pipelines flowing, the new businesses being generated (terrorism insurance not included; that’s been covered), the overstaffed hospitals, the fearless Iraqi policemen, and the many public squares all over Iraq’s villages and towns renamed in honor of George W. Bush.
Most importantly, Ben can document on video the thousands of truly poignant stories of Sunni and Shiites putting aside their ancient differences to embrace each other as fellow Muslims. now working together to forge the future destiny of their beloved homeland.
This is the perfect chance for Ben, the legendary gentleman that Jeff and his pals at RedState perceive, to redeem himself. Since no one’s been able to find these sorts of stories and live to tell them, he’ll be reporting completely unique news.
No one could possibly accuse him of plagiarizing. Faking the videos, maybe. But not plagiarzing.
I just want to second tristero’s endorsement below of Lara Logan’s rapier-like take down of Howie Kurtz’s lame reiteration of GOP talking points. Crooks and Liars has the video, here.
As I wrote earlier in the week:
Memo to the news media: The mere fact that reporters must risk their lives every time they attempt to report the “good news” means that the news, by definition, cannot be all that good. It means that all those new schools and soccer games and litters of adorable puppies exist in the shadow of horrible violence.
And speaking of lameass reiteration of GOP talking points, could someone wise up our sleepy, naive New York Times Babydoll, Elizabeth Bumiller, about how the Republicans work please? Perhaps someone from the “conservative beat” could take her out for coffee. Or maybe she could open her little eyes and look around her:
MR. HARWOOD: … When, when you have, as Charlie said, journalists over there who cannot move around the country to report because they know that, that they’re in danger of being killed at any moment, that tells you about the state of security in the country. It’s not good.
MR. RUSSERT: The White House?
MS. BUMILLER: The other thing that’s interesting, what you didn’t show was the president’s response to her. I was there that day, and he was very, very careful not to jump on her bandwagon. In fact – I mean, obviously, he didn’t have to, she did it for him. But the point is he said, “Look, wait a minute. You know, I understand your frustration, but we have a free press in this country, we can’t tell them what to do.” He pulled back somewhat from her comment.
And I think you’re right, Charlie, that they aren’t – they know they can’t sell this, and when they’ve tried in the past, it has backfired on them.
MR. RUSSERT: But the president also said don’t be afraid to go to blogs and find out some more information.
MS. BUMILLER: Yes. I mean, I mean, I’m, I’m—these are gradations here, I mean, in White House response.
MR. RUSSERT: But is the White House convinced that in order to secure the base of the Republican Party for the president, it doesn’t hurt to go after the media a little bit?
MS. BUMILLER: Not – of course not. They do it all the time. And, and they complain all the time about, about, about what we do. But, but I, I have noticed this past week Scott McClellan saying, the White House press secretary, you know, “We’re not blaming the media for the war in Iraq.” He said that a couple times this week, and so, so it, it’s – they’re – again, they’re being a little more careful here than usual.
That military wife, who just happens to be married to a public affairs officer, made her comments all on her own. Why, the president didn’t publicly endorse them or anything! And Scott McClellan never says one thing while Rove’s RNC minions say another. They are much too straighforward and honest to do something like that.