I hear much of people’s calling out to punish the guilty, but very few are concerned to clear the innocent.
Daniel Dafoe
Whether or not you believe in the death penalty, I think it’s fair to say that nobody believes in executing innocent people. There are those who think our judicial system makes it virtually impossible and, like our President, refuse to acknowledge that if prisoners have been found innocent as close to 48 hours before their execution then it is likely that innocent people have been executed. But even he is unlikely to admit that executing innocent people bears any relationship to justice (unless you are a 3 year old Iraqi, but that’s another post.)
So, there is absolutely no reason that everyone in this country shouldn’t support the Innocence Protection Act. which allows every prisoner the right to DNA testing, if applicable, after conviction. Now that it’s available, the concept of Justice requires that it be used.
Go to The Justice Project to find out what you can do to convince your elected representatives to be reasonable and rational and support this obviously just legislation.
Why are a bunch of wealthy liberals going to waste their money on a “liberal” talk radio network? Why? I like Al Franken as much as the next guy. But he belongs on TV. And, I’d prefer it if they spent their money supporting alternative NEWS sources. Not talk radio.
Actually, the reason is pretty simple.
Radio is much less expensive than TV. The estimates to start up a news network like Fox are outrageous, outside of a major media company like NewsCorp that can afford a loss leader for a time. Roger Ailes convinced Rupert that a conservative news network would be successful on the basis of the success of conservative talk radio. And Rupert is naturally, shall we say, sympathetic in the first place.
Viacom, Disney, Time Warner or GE are the only ones who can do it and they aren’t going to unless it’s demonstrated that it can make money. MSNBC’s experiment with Donohue is probably going to be used as an example of why it won’t.
On the other hand, entertaining liberal talk radio, if successful (and not suppressed by the 800 pound chickens like Limbaugh who don’t want any competition) could create a new paradigm for political programming that could work its way into television. (Jon Stewart is already there.) During the impeachment farce, I used to listen to Stephanie Miller while miserably stuck on the 405 at rush hour every night. Her impression of Linda Tripp was so funny that I very nearly rear ended the car in front of me every time I heard it.
Those were dark days but Stephanie was a beacon of laughs at the end of the day. She, of course, was booted for whatever reason (probably refused Limbaugh a Lewinsky) and I stopped listening to talk radio (except for the awesome Michael Jackson) altogether. And I had listened to talk radio for many, many years before it was taken over by the cretinous screamers. I’ll go back if somebody offers me something to listen to. I spend a lot of time in my car.
Liberal Talk Radio stars could be the political cartoonists of this era. Making fun of political windbags is a tried and true method of reducing their influence and puncturing their ridiculous high opinion of themselves. Ridicule works. Conde Nast took down Boss Tweed. I think Al Franken could take down President Chimpy. I agree with Sinton, the programmer who’s putting the thing together,
“This side has failed by going at Rush, and trying to be Rush — you’re not going to beat him at his game,” Mr. Sinton said. “What really makes this work is tapping into Hollywood and New York and having a huge entertainment component, where political sarcasm is every bit as effective as Rush Limbaugh is at bashing you over the head.”
And, anyway, it isn’t a zero sum game. Liberals need to try to counter the GOP political media dominance wherever they can. Radio is one thing. Maybe Hollywood can start to use some of their muscle to persuade a Michael Eisner or a Sumner Redstone to take a flyer on some explicitly liberal news programming, who knows? These are long term projects — the wing nuts began back in the 60’s.
We’ve gotta start someplace.
CORRECTION: Reader Dave points out that it was THOMAS Nast rather than Conde. He rightly notes that had it been Conde Nast, they would have done a fluffy profile of Boss Tweed. I’m sure that whoever was the Marjorie Williams of the day would have protrayed him as a “uniter not a divider.”
Carpeicthus reminds those brave GI’s like Tom DeLay (who apparently waded ashore at Normandy when he was 2) of some American history. It’s true that France might be speaking German if not for America (although I don’t think even the Nazis could have accomplished that) but even more importantly,
Without the French, we’d be eating crumpets right now.
Yes, as embarrassing as it is, without those cheese-eating, chain-smoking, sex-having bastards the United States of America wouldn’t even exist.
On August 14, 1781 Washington and the French general Rochambeau received word from Comte de Grasse, the admiral of the French fleet, that he would be arriving off the coast of Virginia in mid-September. De Grasse would remain in the Chesapeake area for a month, until the expected seasonal heavy weather forced him south again.
Here was an opportunity to trap Cornwallis in Virginia, but to do so meant that not one, but two armies—one speaking English, one French—would have to travel 500 miles over local roads in a coordinated assault with a navy that was, at the time de Grasse’s letter arrived, sailing somewhere in the Atlantic.
So, Tom, do you sing “God Save the Queen?” De rien, motha-fuckah.
Update: Via Ampersand and Atrios, a great new blog, VeryVery Happy gives another little history lesson about those hapless French cowards in WWII. The day that Tom and Denny face down the 2nd SS Panzer Division outside their gated community in Sugarland, Texas with a couple of 22 rifles, then maybe they’ll be in a position to criticize. ‘Course, as we all know, Tom wasn’t even allowed to join the service during Viet Nam because all the Blacks and Mezkins stole the good combat slots.
Power consists in one’s capacity to link his will with the purpose of others, to lead by reason and a gift of cooperation.
Woodrow Wilson
Matthew Yglesias asks anti-war protestors a very good question. The war is inevitable (since August 2002, in my opinion) so what will happen to this “movement” once the bombs start dropping?
I think that you have to ask a different question before you can answer that one, which is, “What are these protests really about?”
I believe that the energy and the commitment that brought average people into the streets in rather impressive numbers yesterday was about mistrust of American power in the hands of this administration. Diplomacy by bludgeon, the flatulent public proclamations of “unilateralism” and “benevolent hegemony” and the ham-handed, ever changing rationales for the invasion have served to confirm in many minds that disarming Iraq is merely afirst step in a much larger global agenda. These documented ambitions (which, granted, most people only sense rather than know,) combined with a dubious election, an eccentric if not downright radical foreign policy team and a President whose childlike rhetoric and blindingly obvious lack of qualifications for the job of world leader make America appear to be slightly unstable and potentially threatening. We are the most powerful country on earth and yet something strange and unnerving is going on with our politics. This worries people.
For 50 years, the United States contained the Soviet Union. What seems to be becoming apparent, at least in terms of the global ambitions and bellicose threats of policymakers in the current administration, is that for 50 years the Soviet Union may also have been containing us.
This, I believe, is what the protests are all about — a growing movement to counter the aggressive ambition and yet frightening ineptitude of the current American government. If Iraq is the last breath of the neocon fantasy, and there are no more proclamations of American determination to “go it alone” (or conversely pull our troops out of South Korea in a fit of pique) and if Rumsfeld can contain his plans to punish our allies for deigning to disagree with his lordly utterances and if the administration is chastened and becomes mature and reasonable in its thinking, then perhaps the anti-war movement will be just a blip on George W. Bush’s trip to Mt Rushmore.
If, however, we continue on this track, leveling threats of retribution against all who question our absolute authority to wage war (even preventive war), if we persist in believing we have no necessity to exercise our enormous power with discretion, humility and respect for our allies, then we are going to see more than an anti-war protest movement. We are going to see an ongoing Anti-American protest movement.
Here in the United States, for many months it was considered anti-social if not unpatriotic to even broach one’s disagreement with the administration during these troubled times. I believe that yesterday began to fundamentally change all that. Despite some of the unintentionally hilarious commentary by reporters and pundits, who appeared to be gobsmacked by the realization that Junior is not as universally beloved by “normal” Americans as he is by Sally Quinn’s e-mail web ring, it is now quite obvious that Bush is NOT perceived by one and all as a heroic figure of Churchillian proportions, here or around the world. The sheer numbers of the protesters have given people permission to dissent without the threat of broad social opprobrium and if nothing else we are free of the notion that it is unpatriotic to criticize the President.
What’s next? The war with Iraq is a done deal and who knows what the aftermath will be. But, the real issue is this notion of aggressive American hegemony and the pathetic inability of the current administration to explain their goals in a believable fashion, bring our historical allies along or re-evaluate policies in light of changing circumstances. They have failed the test of a decent civilized superpower and they must go.
So, the next move is political. In my opinion, this anti-war movement will likely result in an energized anti-Bush movement in the United States, regardless of the outcome of the war, and continued resistance from allies like France and Germany and former adversaries like Russia and China. The Bush administration has put the world on notice that the United States has become dangerous, not just because of Iraq, but because they cannot be trusted to wield our mighty power with intelligence and integrity. Iraq may turn out ok in the end (I certainly hope so) but I have no faith that the next adventure will.
The other world powers, sadly, now feel they must bind themselves together to contain these strange neocon Imperialists until right thinking Americans can institute a regime change at home. It didn’t have to be this way.
…not only does Bush make no effort to persuade the folks on the fence, he actually goes out of his way — whether deliberately or not I don’t know — to alienate them. A lot of protesters, both in the U.S. and abroad, are reacting more to Bush himself than they are to deposing Saddam Hussein.
I don’t believe that Bush or his key advisors believe that they have the responsibility to persuade (see Kieren Healy’s excellent post on collective action.) In their view “leadership” is action and because they have a very loose interpretation of democracy they believe that the American people are required to follow and support simply because they hold the office. Bush himself often makes the mistake of saying that he is Commander In Chief of the American people and I think he actually believes that. Their attempts at persuasion have been half hearted at best and they seem quite confused that citizens and allies believe it is not enough to take their word that they are right in this.
Ultimately, what they fail to understand is that there exists a huge amount of doubt about this President’s ability to lead this country and the people who advise him are showing themselves to be erratic and inept. Demonstrably stupid leaders often have trouble inspiring confidence. It’s something the Republican establishment should have thought of before they endowed a sub-standard intellect with such power. They are reaping what they sowed.
Atrios notices the baby elephant just starting to find its legs over in the corner of the room.
The Bush administration filed a brief in support of a city government’s attempts to suppress a march which was protesting their policies.
Let’s say that again.
The Bush administration filed a brief in support of a city government’s attempts to suppress a march which was protesting their policies.
But, you have to understand something citizens. We are under threat from terrorists. The government hasn’t got enough money to defend our cities because it needs to cut taxes for the rich people who are the most productive members of our society. Therefore, it is not in the national interest to allow people to gather in these threatened cities and drain the few precious resources we have left.
If you can’t shut your mouths, the government will have no choice but to take some duct tape and wrap it around your heads. We’re at Code Orange, fergawds sake. It’s for your own good.
Kevin Drum links to an article in the Washington Post about a couple of lawsuits against Dubyah’s favorite InnerChange Freedom Initiative, run by evangelist Charles Colson’s Virginia-based Prison Fellowship
So, the bottom line is this: the Iowa program gives prisoners special privileges as long as they agree to become Christians.
And that’s not a violation of the First Amendment? That’s not using coerceive government power to promote one religion over another?
And if it isn’t, what is?
I think the Bush argument is that this misses the real point. They say the government has been using the coercive power of the state to discriminate against religion. According to them, by funding this program the government is not establishing a particular religion because if the Muslims or the Moonies want to start a prison outreach program, the constitution is obligated to allow them to “compete” in the marketplace of religious ideas in state institutions. There is no separation of church and state. In fact, the state should be enmeshed with as many different permutations of faith as possible because all people will benefit from some kind of religion. We know this for a fact. (Atheists can piss up a rope.)
In other words, religion has been oppressed by the big bad secular government and the conservatives are going to set it free. It’s an equal protection issue and like so many conservative causes these days it is framed as if Charles Colson is the Rosa Parks of the thoroughly downtrodden oppressed Christians who are just trying to become part of the mainstream.
And once again, the liberal monolith is bent on keepin’ the voices of these minorities down. As with the news media, the “man” works overtime to silence and marginalize the sad, struggling conservatives.
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but seeing paunchy millionaires whine about their supposed victimhood just makes my gorge rise.
To any of you folks who live in the Santa Monica environs, the above linked peace gathering will feature Ron Kovic and Tom Hayden as speakers.
PLUS:
FORMATION OF PICASSO INSPIRED PEACE SYMBOL
** DARK BLUE OR SOLID COLOR SHIRT WILL HELP AERIAL PHOTO**
The UN recently covered Picasso’s “Guernica,” a painting depicting the horrors of war, as Powell addressed the Security Council. You can’t cover thousands of people on the beach. Aerial artist and environmentalist, John Quigley, will guide and shape over a thousand people on Saturday, as they become Picasso’s “Face of Peace.
It’s supposed to be about 70 degrees tomorrow…
There are worse ways to spend a Saturday afternoon even if you are consorting with a bunch of commie Priests, socialistic soccer moms and Pro-Saddam military veterans.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities
– Voltaire
MWO posts John Breaux’s use of the RNC talking points on Lou Dobbs:
BREAUX: Well, Lou, I respect the right of Democrats to filibuster a nominee, but I differ on this particular nominee. I think that at a time in this country when we’re under orange alert and we have advice on stockpiling water and buying duct tape and who in the heck knows what’s going to happen in North Korea and Iraq, that this is not a time that we should be filibustering a nominee who has been called well qualified, the highest recommendation the American Bar Association can give a nominee…
Doesn’t it occur to anyone that maybe it’s Bush who should table this nominee while he’s trying to rally the country around his cause? Why on earth is the President pushing controversial judicial nominees during a time of national crisis and causing unneeded partisanship? I thought he was going to change the tone.
