I’m taking bets on how the wingnuts try to re-write this embarrassing history. You know they will have to eventually. They’ve had to rewrite their history for the last 60 years. (And in the case of the hard core confederates, the original “Ownership Society” — 200.) But it’s getting harder what with these internets and all.
This may be the ultimate reason why they have had to resort to the alternate discourses of “I know you are but what am I” and “You can believe me or you can believe your lyin’ eyes.” (Not to be confused with “the emperor is strutting around stark naked in the white house, but at least he isn’t getting a blow job.”)
Any thoughts on how Wolfie and his cadre are going to explain this to the children?
Those liberal activist judges are at it again. They really are. A majority, which includes the moderates on the court, just ruled that the federal laws against medical marijuana are constitutional (as opposed to federal laws against guns near schools or violence against women.) If this were a case about, say, a federal law that overrode state laws against gay marriage, I suspect you’d be seeing a slightly different reaction from the wingnuts and probably on the court. The moderates (there are no liberals) upheld federal power over states’ rights which is consistent with their position.
Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor dissented on the basis of states’ rights, which is also consistent with their position. Kennedy swung with the majority — he has no discernible position. The “surprise” is that Little Nino, who is proving himself to be more and more of a straight-up whore every day, voted with Ginsberg and Stevens and the rest. Not because he agrees with the legal doctrine involved — nothing in his judicial history would suggest that — but because he just doesn’t want people smoking pot. Or perhaps he just thinks that federal power is ducky when it’s in the hands of his friends. Either way, he’s intellectually bankrupt.
The court is operating on the same basis that the political system operates. The liberals and moderates in the minority play by the rules thinking that consistency and intellectual integrity are important and that people will hold it against them if they deviate from their stated position.( And, of course, they are right. Even when they haven’t actually deviated from their position they are accused of it and called “flip-floppers.”) The shrinking number of real conservatives pay lip service to their belief system as long as it won’t affect the outcome: they are subject to the same intimidation as the moderates and liberals if they don’t. The right wing radicals just power their way through using any means necessary, willingly taking the help of liberals and moderates who perform the function of useful idiots with their fealty to process and institutional integrity in a time of pure power politics. I’m sure they are greatly soothed by the fact that all good children go to heaven.
The good news is that, as Stevens says in the opinion, it preserves the right of federal legislators to change the laws, so that’s nice. When we finally get over our reefer madness in this country, which I expect to be in a couple of hundred years or so, maybe the Armageddon Party can join with the Theocrats and make it legal. But of course, it won’t be necessary because Pfizer will have found a way to perfectly re-create the effect of marijuana in a pill form and will have made millions selling it by prescription to those who can afford it — which is, after all, the whole point.
I hope that everyone is making a habit of checking out Harry Shearer’s column over on the Huffington Post because he’s got access to some of the most amazing footage you are ever going to see.
Check this out. George and Laura on Larry King talking about “the drinking debate” in South Carolina in 2000. As Shearer points out, the strange, mummified puppet who calls himself Larry King didn’t have the wherewithall to follow up. He was too busy pimping himself, as it seems he does constantly, to his guests.
Has anyone heard anything to the effect that everyone was drunk during the famous South Carolina debate between Mccain, Bush and Keyes? Oddly, Karen Hughes didn’t mention it in her memoir.
Atrios is on fire today. This explication of the Democrats’ position and challenges on Iraq is spot on.
He mentions Matt Yglesias’ observation that the liberal hawks are unwilling to admit they were wrong because to do so would create a hit to their credibility. This is very interesting. We know that Bush and his cronies believe they will lose credibility if they admit they are wrong about anything and they are probably right. Without their claim to God-like infallibility, I suspect they know that their whole delicate house of cards might collapse. They do not want their base to ever get it in their heads that the emperor has no clothes and they will fight like hell to see that they don’t.
However, there are plenty of liberal hawks like Joe Biden, for instance, who also seem to be backed into a corner because they think that they will lose credibility with…who, exactly? Fred Hiatt? Tim Russert? Because they sure as hell won’t lose credibility with the base of the Democratic party — they’d be heroes. See, to us, admitting you were wrong about Iraq means that you gain credibility, not lose it. Indeed, the reality based community tends to believe that it’s important to admit when you were wrong. It’s all part of that whole godless scientific method, empirical data, age of reason, enlightenment lah-de-dah we hold so dear.
But then it’s obvious they have no respect for the base of the Democratic party. Just this morning, both Biden and Edwards dissed Howard Dean big time. While Bill Frist bumps and grinds the pole to James Dobsons’ every command three years before the presidential election, our presidential hopeful club is already running to the middle as fast as their chubby little legs will carry them. Or perhaps they are just running toward their nannies, the liberal punditocrisy who get ever so upset at the harsh rhetoric being flung by that rabble rouser, Dean:
Dean ”doesn’t speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don’t think he speaks for the majority of Democrats,” Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday on ABC’s ”This Week.”
While discussing the hardship of working Americans standing in long lines to vote, Dean said Thursday, ”Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.”
Oh mercy me, pass me ovah the smellin’ salts, daddy! I’m like to be bowled ovah with a feathah!
Dean’s words are actually quite powerful to anyone who isn’t a hypocrite, a member of the Sally Quinn circle jerk society or a paid spokesman of the RNC. It’s the kind of thing that real people say in real life. It’s authentic, Real Murica speak, not Washington pearl clutching bullshit. The presidential race is three long years away and Joe and John both should have laughed and said, “Howard was talking about the Republican leadership and their lobbyist buddies who can’t seem to get anything done for the American people — but they sure do take care of themselves. I think a lot of people probably agree with him on that.” Instead they twisted their little lace hankies like a couple of rich old biddies and sniffed and whimpered about how they don’t agree with such tawdry sentiment. It’s really a wonder we get any votes at all.
Which brings me to Rick Perlstein’s guest post on Political Animal the other night. I still haven’t received my copy of his new book, and I’ll discuss it in much greater depth when I have, but I think that Perlstein’s quite correct when he asks:
Here’s a riddle: what is a swing voter? More and more, it is an American who thinks like a Democrat but refuses to identify as one.
…If it is true that party identification — which, as Stan Greenberg argues, is a form of social identity that endures over the long term — is the best predictor of voter behavior, isn’t getting this selfsame public to identify with the Democratic Party much, much more than half the solution?
There is much more to his prescription, of course, than merely respecting the base. But if party ID is a form of social behavior that endures over the long term, it is a necessary first step. The grassroots of the Democratic Party were the ones who pushed for Howard Dean to become the chairman of the DNC. When you treat him like an unruly child or a slightly crazed relative, you are saying to the voters who have already committed to the party and strongly identify as Democrats that they are a bunch of losers. Why on earth would anyone join a party that does that?
This woman was tasered with 50,000 volts by the police for not getting out of her car fast enough at a traffic stop. The officer waited less than 40 seconds before tasing her. Then she is tasered again for not responding properly after she fell out of the car and was writhing on the ground in pain.
I realize that police officers face a lot of danger. And this woman was driving with a suspended license. (They didn’t know this when they jolted her, however.) All they knew was that she was talking to someone on the phone and narrating what was happening to her and did not respond immediately to the officer’s demand that she get out of the car. She did not appear to pose any physical danger to them, only to their authority.
Evidently, because the officers had been tased in their training they believe that it isn’t “that bad.” (Someone needs to instuct them about pain threshholds and adrenaline and how it feels to fall from the open door of an SUV onto ashphalt with 50,000 volts coursing through your system and two angry cops pointing loaded guns at you.) Apparently, police credit the taser with preventing shootings, and perhaps they are right. But then so would simply bashing suspects over the head with a baton if they don’t cooperate within 30 seconds. Or shooting them. It certainly does make the job easier if you don’t have to evaluate the situation or try to talk sense into a young woman who is incooperative but instead can simply stun her into compliance like something out of a science fiction movie.
According to this series of reports by the Palm Beach Post, tasering is commonly used to shut up loudmouths. It’s “safe” you see. Doesn’t leave any marks and is considered perfectly legal.
The company that makes this convenient, lawful device is under intense scrutiny by authorities for securities violations as well as serious safety concerns:
Since the summer, reports in The Republic and the New York Times have brought to light contradictions about Taser’s claims of safety.
For years, Taser maintained that its stun guns never caused a death or serious injury. As proof, Taser officials said no medical examiner had ever cited the weapon in an autopsy report.
But Taser did not have those autopsy reports and didn’t start collecting them until April. Using computer searches, autopsy reports, police reports, media reports and Taser’s own records, The Republic has identified 88 deaths after police Taser strikes in the United States and Canada since 1999.
Of those, 11 autopsy reports have linked deaths to the stun gun. Medical examiners cited Taser as a cause or contributing factor in eight deaths and could not rule it out as a cause in three others.
The Republic has also reported that several police officers have sustained career-ending injuries that they attribute to being shocked with Taser.
In reports to bolster safety claims, Taser officials have said more than 100,000 police officers have been shocked during training exercises without suffering a serious injury.
In October, Taser issued a press release saying a Department of Defense study, whose full results have not yet been released, found that its guns were safe. But The Times reported that the Air Force researchers who conducted the study actually found that the guns could be dangerous and that more data was needed to evaluate their risks.
Of course, whether or not tasers inflict permanent damage or death is beside the point. They clearly administer terrible pain to people who are officially only suspects or witnesses and it’s clear that they are being used to simply make people behave in a docile manner when in the presence of police. It makes the policeman’s job easier. But again, so would hitting them over the head.
The review of three years’ use by police from Boca Raton to Fort Pierce, starting in 2001 when the weapon arrived in South Florida, revealed that one of every four suspects zapped was not armed, violent or posing any immediate potential threat to anyone, including themselves. In at least 237 incidents, the stun gun was used to achieve compliance from passively resisting or fleeing suspects — who often were not even arrested.
Police agencies recognize that they have a problem in their widely varying policies for recording and tracking Taser use, which often require no explanation for why officers fired the weapon. The manufacturers’ marketing also skates past questions about respiratory, cardiac, neurological, psychological and other effects, including the effect of being zapped multiple times.
There are reasons why it is a bad idea for police to be allowed to inflict pain on people who are uncooperative or disagreeable — the most important being that this means police are sanctioned to commit violence on the public under color of law in instances where their safety is not at issue. That’s one of the hallmarks of a police state not a free society. (And yes, I realize that Saddam pulled the legs off of puppies on Christmas morning and I’m damned lucky not to be living under that kind of hellish nightmare. But every lil’ totalitarian has to start somewhere.)
It’s not just Gitmo. Sophisticated torture techniques are becoming common policing and interrogation methods in America. I remember watching the excrutiating video of police meticulously applying q-tips dipped in pepper spray to the inside of logging protesters’ eyelids when they refused to unchain themselves from one another. It was explained that because they weren’t actually blinded or permanently harmed, this was really the humane way to get them to cooperate. The most chilling thing about this was the dry, benign way the police calmly went about methodically pulling the immobile protesters’ heads back and then their eyelids, to carefully daub the painful chemicals directly into the eye as they screamed in agony. Don’t ever think that the systematic “banality of evil” regime couldn’t happen here. The police didn’t seem to be enjoying themselves, nor were they bothered. It was just all in day’s work.
(It should be noted that police had dealt with this form of protest — in this case blocking a congressman’s office — many times before and had always simply cut the steel armbands with no ill effect. This was a method to force the protesters to willingly bend to the authorities’ will.)
They sued and had two hung juries, the first of which had the judge stepping in after the mistrial with a verdict for the defendants (“no reasonable person could conclude that this was excessive force.”) Many appeals followed, including the one that overturned that first judge’s unbelievable ruling and removed him from the case for bias. Just last April, they finally won on the third try. (I wonder if Abu Ghraib may have had an influence?)
The common rationale for the torture regime is that policemen must have the right to inflict great pain (if not permanent damage) on the spot, at their discretion, to gain the cooperation of suspects or witnesses because they have a dangerous job. Tasers have made that call a little bit easier because they allegedly cause no lasting damage. I would imagine that many people instinctively think that is not such a big deal. Until they get pulled over by a cop in bad mood who goes from 0 to 60 in 30 seconds and determines for whatever reason that you must be physically subdued. Or maybe he just doesn’t like your looks. After all it’s “not that bad.” No harm no foul. Why if it weren’t for the Bill of Rights we wouldn’t have to think about it at all.
Kevin at Catch catches Ben Stein deep throating Richard Nixon’s corpse again. Aside from peddling the latest Peggy Nooner dolphin fantasy — that Mark Felt is responsible for genocide because the Mahatma Nixon died for our sins, or something — he comes up with some especially colorful rhetoric to describe him:
Have you noticed how Mark Felt looks like one of those old Nazi war criminals they find in Bolivia or Paraguay? That same, haunted, hunted look combined with a glee at what he has managed to get away with so far?
He goes on to say how odd it is that Felt would betray the savior of the his people.
If he even knows what shame is, I wonder if he felt a moment’s shame as he tortured the man who brought security and salvation to the land of so many of his and my fellow Jews. Somehow, as I look at his demented face, I doubt it.
Click the link at Catch to read some of Isaac Bashevis Nixon’s inspiring words about the Jews.
I have once again misunderestimated Republicans. I had thought they had cast all their considerable historical revisionist desires totally into Saint Ronald. As the obsessive object of their fear and love had done with Lenin, I had assumed the Reagan cult would serve as the Republican historical example of perfect leadership and humanity. I was wrong. Being the great winners of ideological struggle apparently entitles them to raise all Republican leaders to the status of gods. In fact, there is no Republican leader on earth, from Joe McCarthy to Richard Nixon, who has not been entirely misunderstood until now. They have all not only been great warriors and leaders of men, they are also, each in their way, Jesus-like in their transcendent love for their fellow man and devotion to peace. All of them. Even the paranoid drunks and crooks.
Perhaps this is something necessarily present in the totalitarian mindset. The movement is infallible and all leaders of the cause must, therefore, be perfect. We’ve seen this before, of course. Caligula made his horse into a senator (and you know, Bill Frist does have a rather equine visage…) Still, it never fails to amaze me that somewhere along the line the right wing in America came to identify so closely with their left wing nemeses. Perhaps obsessing about communism all those years created a kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome. Whatever the explanation, they become more and more like them every day.
If any Democratic Senators are looking for a way to shine light on the Downing St Memo(and I’m not holding my breath) this may be the way to do it. And the beauty of it is that they can use that loudmouthed cretin John Bolton to do it:
John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.
A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani “had to go,” particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.
[…]
The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein’s regime.
An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help.
[…]
After U.N. arms inspectors had withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 in a dispute with the Baghdad government, Bustani stepped up his initiative, seeking to bring Iraq – and other Arab states – into the chemical weapons treaty.
Bustani’s inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq’s chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program.
In a March 2002 “white paper,” Bolton’s office said Bustani was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq, and the matter should be left to the U.N. Security Council – where Washington has a veto.
Bolton said in a 2003 AP interview that Iraq was “completely irrelevant” to Bustani’s responsibilities. Earle and Bohlen disagree. Enlisting new treaty members was part of the OPCW chief’s job, they said, although they thought he should have consulted with Washington.
Former Bustani aide Bob Rigg, a New Zealander, sees a clear U.S. motivation: “Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt they couldn’t rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the U.S. wanted.”
Bustani and his aides believe friction with Washington over OPCW inspections of U.S. chemical-industry sites also contributed to the showdown, which went on for months.
The article discusses at some length what an asshole Bolton was, menacing and inapprorpiate, but then what else is new. What is interesting is that the article connects the dots between Downing St and this explicitly.
This is an AP article. Unfortunately, it is also on the wires on Saturday where it is most likely to be overlooked. Unless we refuse to let it.
The media needs a hook to start talking about Downing St. I think Bolton’s toast, but if the nomination goes forward I would certainly hope that the Democrats would use this as an opening to start talking about it. If Bolton ends up withdrawing because of this (and he might) then the media also has an excuse to talk about it.
I wonder if Monsignor Russert will see fit to discuss this between Hail Mary’s on Press the Meat tomorrow morning?
What’s Good For The Goose Is Only Good For The Goose
It is interesting that the ACLU got a ruling requiring that all the Abu Ghraib pictures be released to the public. What is really interesting is that the government argued that releasing them would be contrary to the Geneva Conventions. (Via Talk Left)
“It is indeed ironic that the government invoked the Geneva Conventions as a basis for withholding these photographs,” said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney at the ACLU. “Had the government genuinely adhered to its obligations under these Conventions, it could have prevented the widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.”
It’s nearly impossible to be as obtuse as is the Bush administration without having either some sort of cognitive problem or psychological impairment. I suspect it’s the latter.
This recent phony outrage about Amnesty International is another example of this pathology. They had no problem using Amnesty to buttress their case against Saddam, but balk at being called to task for our own very obvious and well known human rights abuses in Guantanamo. Of course, there is little mention of this (except by Jon Stewart) so it doesn’t matter. Patriotic correctness requires that any criticism of the United States be immediately struck down as treasonous, if not blasphemous.
If anybody still wants to know why they hate us, this would be a good place to start.
At today’s Take Back America conference I saw some interesting polling data from Diane Feldman on a subject I’d pondered now and again. Unfortunately, the written summary of the presentation doesn’t contain the exact numbers and I didn’t write them down because I assumed this question would be included in the summary. The point, however, was that when you ask if America is “the greatest country in the world” most voters say that it is. When you ask if Democrats believe that America is the greatest country, most voters say that they do not.
I think it’s clear that this perception creates some electoral problems. Indeed, it’s a particularly serious kind of electoral problem because my guess is that the perception is probably correct.
It seems to me that if you are a member of the “reality based” community, as so many of us liberals claim to be, that you can’t answer such a question without qualifiers. This means that we are unable to respond in appropriate knee jerk fashion and are therefore assumed to be unpatriotic. The question is simple minded and it demands a simple minded answer and that’s a problem for us. Perhaps we should just lie, like everyone already does about going to church or whether they are faithful or all the other things Americans are forced to lie about in our right wing PC times.
Patriotism is defined in the dictionary quite simply as “love of one’s country and a willingness to sacrifice for it.” That is not the same thing as believing that your country is the greatest country in the world. I love many things in life that aren’t “the greatest” and I don’t see the conflict. One doesn’t have to abandon all intellectual integrity to love something, imperfect and not-so-great as it may be. America is certainly the most powerful country in the world. One would think that people could be satisfied enough with that, but apparently not.
What does it mean to be the “greatest country in the world, or as I’ve heard it put, “the greatest country the world has ever known” anyway? Is it measured by how fair and just our system of government is or standard of living or military prowess, or what? Is it, as George W. Bush pushes incessantly, because its people are “good?” Or is it that by all measures of all things it is simply the best?
I raise this because I suspect that what people really want from liberals is not patriotism, but chauvinism, one important facet of which is characterized in this context by the belief that your national culture and interests are superior to any other. (Our vaunted “exceptionalism” is not made up of a whole lot more than that simple definition.) And, yes, some liberals do not sign on to that, for good reason. Because it’s bullshit. And America, the home of mutts from all over the world, the give-me-your-tired-your-poor immigrant nation, should be more aware of the shallowness and idiocy of this than any other country in the world. It’s not as if we are Germans trying to preserve the fairy tale of a thousand year Reich. It’s one of the good things about not being European, with all that baggage — or would be if we thought about it for half a minute.
Simple observation of the world shows that all nations are made up of human beings, which automatically taints the project. America and Iraq and China and everywhere else are comprised of this very flawed species. If you live long enough you see that, as much as our fearless leader likes to claim otherwise, Americans are not “better” and therefore our country is not “better.” Only individual people can be judged better or worse and it is without regard to nationality, culture or religious belief.
Our democratic experiment has been a worldwide inspiration and our Bill of Rights is one of the most important contributions any nation has made to mankind. This country has welcomed immigrants (in fits and starts) from all over the world and created a wealthy, successful nation because of it. I would easily sacrifice for the country, it’s my home. I love it the way anyone loves their home, with a deep and emotional connection that transcends intellectual thought. But I don’t need to suspend my judgement or my faculties and further say that this country is the greatest country on earth. There is no such thing as the greatest country on earth.
Matt feels that this presents an electoral problem. I would agree if people like me were expressing these views in a political campaign. (Just call me Ward Churchill, I guess.) However, the perception that Matt talks about isn’t fueled by some quasi intellectual argument about chauvinism. It’s fueled by Rush Limbaugh and his band of flaming gasbags who have spent the last fifteen years saying that liberals hate America day after day.
John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, fought bravely, and came home and devoted himself to ending what he saw as an unjust war. Meanwhile his rival George Bush spent the war drinking beer and fucking off. Yet Kerry was made out to be a coward and Bush a hero. I suspect that my candidate, Wes Clark, would have been similarly reduced to sissy status despite the fact he was a four star general. Proof of love and devotion to country is not particularly relevant — just as what liberals really think about America is not particularly relevant.
Our political problems stem from some very deep and ongoing cultural anxieties that we need to think about and confront. What we can’t do anything about is the idea that liberals tend to be more — dare I say it — nuanced than conservatives. It is a characteristic not a policy. We’re stuck with that and we’re just going to have to find a way to make it work for us.
