Denis Moynihan again moderates. Nation writer John Nichols runs on stage, fields an immediately Moynihan question: Where are we, on impeachment, right now?
Nichols said things are as good as they've ever been, and as bad. He notes that Congress is finally moving: Florida rep. Bob Wexler is holding hearings for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. GO TO HIS WEBSITE, http://wexlerwantshearings.com/, and sing up. This is the best way to get the ball rolling, right now.
Holtzman puts the brakes on Nichols' and Wexler's vision by noting that, if the vision is partisan - if it consists of "Democrats hate Bush" - then it will fail. We need a bipartisan approach. "Let's go back to Watergate," she says. I wince. But her point is we don't need hearings. Watergate started with evidence. Bipartisan call for evidence.
Seems to me that we need something to happen, whether it's thanks to Wexler or not.
Cohn points out we need an independent prosecutor, a special investigator.
Nichols says Wexler and others have just now given us the opening to impeach Bush.
Holtzman and Nichols are getting into it a bit over the procedural differences between special prosecution and Congressional hearings. (Everyone agrees Bush should be impeached somehow, ASAP.)
Lindorff says that Republicans need to be shown that it was dumb and dangerous not to impeach Bush - that the next president probably will be a Democrat and almost definitely will not give up any power whatsoever that Bush gave the presidency.
Horton agrees. "This can only be checked effectively by the impeachment process."
Nichols: Impeachment, seriously pursued, usually succeeds in forcing leaders to step back from the brink. I love this idea. We need to impeach the sons of donkeys not simply because Hillary might win and continue to use the powers d'Bush, but because Bush and Hillary and the Republicans and Democrats need to be told, by the American people, by the voices of reason in Congress, that it is illegal to spy on Americans, to torture prisoners, to utterly ignore the poor of the South in times of crisis, to ignore laws, to start wars.
Holtzman calls it "inertia." We have to press [the Congress]. (She goes back to Watergate with each answer, each time losing some clarity on the matter: Bushiraqtorturegate simply isn't Watergate. This is a new era. Bush is a new terror. I'm sure Holtzman's suggestions are apt and her ideas useful as to how we can oust Bush. But if Bob Wexler gets it done his own way, props to Bob Wexler.)
Nichols tells us to contact our local Congresspeople and tell them to impeach Bush. Particularly Jerrold Nadler. Please do this.
Question from the audience that becomes an angry litany of Buhs's crimes.
New question asks what else we can do.
Nichols says the public is just as angry at Bush as they were at Nixon; the media has changed, however, and we have seen virtually nothing about impeachment on TV.
Cohn notes that Bush is lying about Iran, aggressive against Iran, and not going to be phased by news that Iran doesn't necessarily have nukes. Cohn says getting out of Iraq and stopping Bush before he can go into Iran should be our number one priorities.
Audience member asks/tells something amounting to, "people all over New York want to impeach Bush." Panel agrees; people everywhere want to impeach him.
Holtzman goes back to Watergate. General discussion of lack of media attention to impeachment. Where's the New York Times on this?
Horton (notice his sweet blog) says polls show people, when asked if Bush has committed serious crimes, over 60% of those polled say yes. In Jackson, Mississippi, prosperous white businessmen asked Horton why nobody was impeaching Bush's ass?
Nichols says now is the time to talk to Republicans about impeachment; they are ready; they are either sick of Bush or afraid of giving Bush-powers to Hillary.
Nichols says we can't let the upcoming election become any excuse for not holding Bush accountable.
Horton says for the last several years, the Republicans have been velociraptors; the Democrats, invertebrates. Democracts aren't challenging bad Republican laws. (Well, this has a lot to do with our two-party/arguably-one-class-based-party system. I yearn for a multi-party system.)
Lindorff tells us how Bush took over science programs to manufacture evidence for war against Iraq.
Holtzman reminds us that impeachment is a democratic process envisioned by the framers to be used in circumstances just such as these. We have the time. This will not divide the country; this will unify the country. Rule of law is more important than any one president or party.
Cohn says we have to elect a Democrat in 2008. Bush has done the most dangerous thing, aside from Iraq, by stacking the Supreme Court. Please vote for the Democrat.
And we're done with the articles of impeachment. I for one am convinced - my suspicions confirmed - that we need to get Bush and Cheney out.
Rebel Voices up next, then the big closing concert at 7:30.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Republicans, Debating, Not As A Team
(Before the titular stuff, mad props to Roger Cohen for his concise, timely defense of secularism in today's NYTimes.)
Ahem.
Props to Ron Paul for saying, in the Republican debates last night:
"We [Americans] maintain an empire which we can't afford."
His answer to budgetary questions, unlike the other candidates', made sense; he recognized that America's attempts to police the world and bully oil-producing nations not only isn't helping us, it's costing us two arms, three legs, and part of a pelvis.
And when asked what he would do in his first year in office:
"We would threaten nobody." Word.
Also, not to be overlooked, Ron Paul on trade:
"It's time we changed our attitude about Cuba."
Mitt Romney had this to say about taxes:
"I don't stay awake at night worrying about the taxes that rich people are paying."
Of course, he followed up by calling for tax-cuts, but at least not rich-people tax-cuts.
Rudy didn't think a failing economy was as big a deal as "Islamic terrorism," which has certainly been the reason behind all my money woes. If only Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia would stop messing with our housing market and vitiating the middle class... Those rascals.
Fred Thompson was the most frustrating candidate, refusing at first to answer a simple yes or no question about whether or not global climate change was a serious threat caused by humans. (Of course, the moderator should have added "caused in part by humans," or something to that effect - "certainly not helped by human pollution," etc.)
Alan Keyes declined to talk about the environment, instead attacking his opponents and saying America should reduce "hot air" (from politicians); Thompson then - I don't know why, exactly, perhaps in a fit of Dada - said he "agreed with Alan Keyes's position on global warming." Which was cute, but meant he never actually addressed our warming, tidal wave-wracked globe.
Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee were both weak on green, the former saying he doesn't believe in mandates. (I.e., simply because the vast majority of us don't want to live in a warm, wet, smoky, landless swamp in a few hundred years, that doesn't mean Tancredo [had anyone heard of him before last night?] and his lizard-people should listen to us.)
Huckabee was quite simply weak. Instead of espousing a coherent policy on/acknowledgment of energy emissions, oil production, the car industry, etc., the Huckster said the U.S. government is the world's biggest energy-user and should therefore be cut down to size, which makes sense most if you're talking - like the Dems (minus Hillary) and Ron Paul - about reducing the U.S. war-machine.
But Huckabee had already said defense was one of three primary features of the vital modern state (including food and oil); he literally called for the U.S. to be able to make its own "tanks, airplanes, bullets, and bombs." Sheesh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but outsourcing the making of our tanks has never been the issue, no? We're not losing any wars (say, the war against religious extremism, here and abroad) due to lack of/shoddy manufacturing of tanks.
Anyway, Chuck Norris aside, Huckabee is not inspiring.
Duncan Hunter won the G.W.B. Education Award of the evening, however: When asked about, well, education, he said, "Three words: Jaime Escalante and inspiration." Those are four words, Dunk. (You just got slammed.) [Sorry, bad pun.]
No mention of gay rights.
But to bookend:
The whole thing - the gyre of history - turns on this question of religiosity. When asked about "values" (what a terrible reduction/conflation of "metaphysics," "ethics," and "morals"), or in Keyes's case when asked anything, the candidates focused on themselves instead of on the whole of the not necessarily white, not necessarily Christian whole of America.
Instead of saying "church and state are separate; you can be a Muslim-American, a Christian-American, a Buddhist-American, a Satanist-American, an atheist-American, etc.," or anything even remotely similar, they spent their precious seconds trying to out-faith one another.
Need we be reminded? Ours is not a country of "faith," but of reason and individuality: Reason rules the government; individuals are then free to be as faith-y or faithless as they like.
If the government were, say, Buddhist, the Catholics might get mad; if the government were Catholic, the Lutherans might throw a fit, and so on. It's a balancing act wherein the fulcrum is an absence - an absence of a state faith. In fact, it's an absence of any metaphysical principle whatsoever.
"The universe exists and we exist in it" is pretty much the only metaphysical proposition the Framers left us. Some very severe atheists might even take issue with that, but I think 99.999% of Americans can say that, yes, the universe somehow exists.
(Yes, there's the "Creator" bit in the Declaration of Independence, but look at it in context - "endowed by their Creator" is just Deist slang for "alive." Doesn't go into detail about who that Creator is or in what sort of metaphysical hooptie he cruises through time-space.
Full breakdown: Constitution: 0 "God"s, 0 "Creator/created"s; Dec.o.Ind.: 1 "God," 1 "Creator," 1 "created.")
Anyway, I try to take Republicans seriously, as seriously as cancer and good hygiene (both of which, I think, we should consider very seriously), but I just don't get the problem with separating church and state. Seems like a tidy, no-hassle solution to an otherwise impossible problem.
Newest dream-team: Colbert/Bell Hooks '08.
Ahem.
Props to Ron Paul for saying, in the Republican debates last night:
"We [Americans] maintain an empire which we can't afford."
His answer to budgetary questions, unlike the other candidates', made sense; he recognized that America's attempts to police the world and bully oil-producing nations not only isn't helping us, it's costing us two arms, three legs, and part of a pelvis.
And when asked what he would do in his first year in office:
"We would threaten nobody." Word.
Also, not to be overlooked, Ron Paul on trade:
"It's time we changed our attitude about Cuba."
Mitt Romney had this to say about taxes:
"I don't stay awake at night worrying about the taxes that rich people are paying."
Of course, he followed up by calling for tax-cuts, but at least not rich-people tax-cuts.
Rudy didn't think a failing economy was as big a deal as "Islamic terrorism," which has certainly been the reason behind all my money woes. If only Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia would stop messing with our housing market and vitiating the middle class... Those rascals.
Fred Thompson was the most frustrating candidate, refusing at first to answer a simple yes or no question about whether or not global climate change was a serious threat caused by humans. (Of course, the moderator should have added "caused in part by humans," or something to that effect - "certainly not helped by human pollution," etc.)
Alan Keyes declined to talk about the environment, instead attacking his opponents and saying America should reduce "hot air" (from politicians); Thompson then - I don't know why, exactly, perhaps in a fit of Dada - said he "agreed with Alan Keyes's position on global warming." Which was cute, but meant he never actually addressed our warming, tidal wave-wracked globe.
Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee were both weak on green, the former saying he doesn't believe in mandates. (I.e., simply because the vast majority of us don't want to live in a warm, wet, smoky, landless swamp in a few hundred years, that doesn't mean Tancredo [had anyone heard of him before last night?] and his lizard-people should listen to us.)
Huckabee was quite simply weak. Instead of espousing a coherent policy on/acknowledgment of energy emissions, oil production, the car industry, etc., the Huckster said the U.S. government is the world's biggest energy-user and should therefore be cut down to size, which makes sense most if you're talking - like the Dems (minus Hillary) and Ron Paul - about reducing the U.S. war-machine.
But Huckabee had already said defense was one of three primary features of the vital modern state (including food and oil); he literally called for the U.S. to be able to make its own "tanks, airplanes, bullets, and bombs." Sheesh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but outsourcing the making of our tanks has never been the issue, no? We're not losing any wars (say, the war against religious extremism, here and abroad) due to lack of/shoddy manufacturing of tanks.
Anyway, Chuck Norris aside, Huckabee is not inspiring.
Duncan Hunter won the G.W.B. Education Award of the evening, however: When asked about, well, education, he said, "Three words: Jaime Escalante and inspiration." Those are four words, Dunk. (You just got slammed.) [Sorry, bad pun.]
No mention of gay rights.
But to bookend:
The whole thing - the gyre of history - turns on this question of religiosity. When asked about "values" (what a terrible reduction/conflation of "metaphysics," "ethics," and "morals"), or in Keyes's case when asked anything, the candidates focused on themselves instead of on the whole of the not necessarily white, not necessarily Christian whole of America.
Instead of saying "church and state are separate; you can be a Muslim-American, a Christian-American, a Buddhist-American, a Satanist-American, an atheist-American, etc.," or anything even remotely similar, they spent their precious seconds trying to out-faith one another.
Need we be reminded? Ours is not a country of "faith," but of reason and individuality: Reason rules the government; individuals are then free to be as faith-y or faithless as they like.
If the government were, say, Buddhist, the Catholics might get mad; if the government were Catholic, the Lutherans might throw a fit, and so on. It's a balancing act wherein the fulcrum is an absence - an absence of a state faith. In fact, it's an absence of any metaphysical principle whatsoever.
"The universe exists and we exist in it" is pretty much the only metaphysical proposition the Framers left us. Some very severe atheists might even take issue with that, but I think 99.999% of Americans can say that, yes, the universe somehow exists.
(Yes, there's the "Creator" bit in the Declaration of Independence, but look at it in context - "endowed by their Creator" is just Deist slang for "alive." Doesn't go into detail about who that Creator is or in what sort of metaphysical hooptie he cruises through time-space.
Full breakdown: Constitution: 0 "God"s, 0 "Creator/created"s; Dec.o.Ind.: 1 "God," 1 "Creator," 1 "created.")
Anyway, I try to take Republicans seriously, as seriously as cancer and good hygiene (both of which, I think, we should consider very seriously), but I just don't get the problem with separating church and state. Seems like a tidy, no-hassle solution to an otherwise impossible problem.
Newest dream-team: Colbert/Bell Hooks '08.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Surveillance Panel
Okay, Denis Moynihan of Democracy Now(!) is filling in for Amy Goodman as moderator; that's fine, we'll roll with it.
Holtzman fields a question about the nature/balance/ease of impeachment. Nixon's was bipartisan, Clinton's partisan.
Kadidal fields a question... (I miss most of it, reading about Moynihan and Goodman and Hustler magazine. Interesting but sort of psycho. Seems like Moynihan and Goodman are against exploitation, so, go them.)
Now we go to Valeriani, who says Nixon, if alive, would ask, regarding Bush's surveillance and its extraordinary success, "Why the hell didn't I do it?"
(Some thoughts on this very humorous older fellow - Valeriani in a Huffington Post blog post: "Bin Laden tape rants against capitalism. Yo, Osama, where did you get your millions? Tape also urges Americans to convert to Islam. No thanks, we prefer the 21st Century."
Huq quite ably defends Muslim-Americans in another H.F. post.
But don't worry, V. skewers everybody: "Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego announces $198 million settlement with plaintiffs who claimed they were sexually abused by priests. Big Bucks for Buggery.")
Valeriani is a journalist. He contacted Russians and worked in Cuba, back in the Cold War days, and had his phones tapped. The FBI called him routinely to ask him to help get Russians to give away sensitive information. When he didn't respond to FBI phone messages for two days, they showed up in front of buildings where he was headed. He had his records with the FBI checked - he was listed as "turned," a friendly informant. Lol.
Holtzman gets a round of vigorous applause for defending the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, no matter how hard such a process would be. (She's responding to V. and his assertion that - because, in the event of a successful B&C impeachment, Nancy Pelosi would become president - some might see an impeachment as an attempt at a "Democrat coup," which does sound silly, typing it.
She points out that a successful impeachment must be bipartisan; if Republicans don't want to impeach Bush, Democrats won't be able to do it alone.
Huq very smartly brings the whole question around to what will happen with the next president, regardless of her party? Will the next president not only abandon but help dismantle and prevent from being reinstated the illegal, warrantless surveillance programs? The extraordinary renditions to secret jails in Syria and Egypt? He defines the "Cheney version of the Constitution," which is that whenever the executive feels it needs to extend its powers in the name of national security, it simply can, no questions.
Don't think, Huq counsels, that a Pres. Obama or a Pres. Hillary won't use the Republican programs of domestic terror that Culture Project, Democracy Now(!), the CCR, the ACLU, and so many others are fighting against.
Valeriani speaks on "scar tissue," how we're no longer shocked by Bush's evils.
Audience Q1: Pressures on the election...
Holtzman says we need the president to be brought to justice, to show that Congress can do its thing(s) - pass laws and remove tyrants from office.
Audience Q2: If Pelosi hadn't taken impeachment off the table...
Kadidal, Holtzman, and Valeriani note that the American people and Dennis Kucinich want to impeach Bush; keep the pressure on, Pelosi will have to. It wasn't a problem (for the Speaker of the House - third in line for pres. after pres. and VP - to bring the pres. to justice) during Watergate.
Audience Q3: Cheney = brains of operation...
Valeriani: He lied about WMDs.
Huq: There's a great deal of public evidence about Cheney's aide's roles in setting aside FISA, torture laws, and the Geneva Conventions. You'd subpoena [Cheney's aides].
Audience Q4: How would ordinary people get Congress to listen, seriously...?
Holtzman: When was the last time you contacted your Congressperson? Get a meeting. Email. Get your block to sign a petition.
Moynihan has a show of hands for who gets the "Saturday Night Massacre" reference. (The audience, educated and in many cases old enough, gets it.)
Holtzman: The tapes were critical. Elliot Richardson appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who looked for the tapes. The tapes got Nixon impeached. (People got fired, hence the massacre.) "We would have seen a similar event" - Ashcroft would have resigned. It's not clear what they changed to make their program compliant with FISA.
Audience Q5: 200,000 phone calls, that night, Saturday Night Massacre, to the Congress. We had 200,000 phone calls. You heard from us.
Audience Q6: Should we impeach Cheney first, because people seem to favor that, in polls? Then impeach Bush?
Holtzman (again): It will take a while to do two. It took a while for us to do one. We had to hire lawyers. The Democrats hired a Republican lawyer, and the Republicans hired a Republican lawyer. It hadn't been done in a hundred years - these things had to be studied. It took about nine months. So there's really enough time, to do it still. But there's not enough time to do Cheney and Bush. We have Bush's fingerprints on it. My whole view is to start the proceedings against Bush; we will accumulate evidence against Cheney.
One of the articles against Nixon was that he stonewalled us for information, and that was voted on by a bipartisan base. So there's a precedent. There's a lot of sentiment around the country for impeachment.
(Have any Congresspeople - Dems or Reps, candidates or not - seen our videos, site, blog? Do they know about this event? Shouldn't we, CP, tell them? Shouldn't we all?)
Huq: The Congress can hold court on its own. (Holtzman: We have our own jail!) The Congress can specifically subpoena the president and hold him in contempt if he doesn't show.
Qs-Final, there's a short storm of them.
Kadidal notes that other forms of government have Justice Departments that can go after corrupt executives. We do not have this. Certainly not in Mukasey...
Holtzman: What happened not only to Congress, but to the ACLU? I still believe it can be done, has to be done. With all the defects in the impeachment process, this is what the framers had exactly in mind. They were freaked about the misuse of power. They knew there was gonna be a Richard Nixon, a George Bush. There's too much misunderstanding about it. Even Obama said it's not democratic - it's in our Constitution, it's exactly democratic. What's the shape of our country going to be? No one else can make that decision for us?
***
This has been live blogging on surveillance; I'm back for one more live-blog-impeachy event on Sunday... (And, yes, for those who have read some of my earlier posts, I still like Obama but disagree with Obama on impeachment and wish Kucinich was as popular.)
Holtzman fields a question about the nature/balance/ease of impeachment. Nixon's was bipartisan, Clinton's partisan.
Kadidal fields a question... (I miss most of it, reading about Moynihan and Goodman and Hustler magazine. Interesting but sort of psycho. Seems like Moynihan and Goodman are against exploitation, so, go them.)
Now we go to Valeriani, who says Nixon, if alive, would ask, regarding Bush's surveillance and its extraordinary success, "Why the hell didn't I do it?"
(Some thoughts on this very humorous older fellow - Valeriani in a Huffington Post blog post: "Bin Laden tape rants against capitalism. Yo, Osama, where did you get your millions? Tape also urges Americans to convert to Islam. No thanks, we prefer the 21st Century."
Huq quite ably defends Muslim-Americans in another H.F. post.
But don't worry, V. skewers everybody: "Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego announces $198 million settlement with plaintiffs who claimed they were sexually abused by priests. Big Bucks for Buggery.")
Valeriani is a journalist. He contacted Russians and worked in Cuba, back in the Cold War days, and had his phones tapped. The FBI called him routinely to ask him to help get Russians to give away sensitive information. When he didn't respond to FBI phone messages for two days, they showed up in front of buildings where he was headed. He had his records with the FBI checked - he was listed as "turned," a friendly informant. Lol.
Holtzman gets a round of vigorous applause for defending the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, no matter how hard such a process would be. (She's responding to V. and his assertion that - because, in the event of a successful B&C impeachment, Nancy Pelosi would become president - some might see an impeachment as an attempt at a "Democrat coup," which does sound silly, typing it.
She points out that a successful impeachment must be bipartisan; if Republicans don't want to impeach Bush, Democrats won't be able to do it alone.
Huq very smartly brings the whole question around to what will happen with the next president, regardless of her party? Will the next president not only abandon but help dismantle and prevent from being reinstated the illegal, warrantless surveillance programs? The extraordinary renditions to secret jails in Syria and Egypt? He defines the "Cheney version of the Constitution," which is that whenever the executive feels it needs to extend its powers in the name of national security, it simply can, no questions.
Don't think, Huq counsels, that a Pres. Obama or a Pres. Hillary won't use the Republican programs of domestic terror that Culture Project, Democracy Now(!), the CCR, the ACLU, and so many others are fighting against.
Valeriani speaks on "scar tissue," how we're no longer shocked by Bush's evils.
Audience Q1: Pressures on the election...
Holtzman says we need the president to be brought to justice, to show that Congress can do its thing(s) - pass laws and remove tyrants from office.
Audience Q2: If Pelosi hadn't taken impeachment off the table...
Kadidal, Holtzman, and Valeriani note that the American people and Dennis Kucinich want to impeach Bush; keep the pressure on, Pelosi will have to. It wasn't a problem (for the Speaker of the House - third in line for pres. after pres. and VP - to bring the pres. to justice) during Watergate.
Audience Q3: Cheney = brains of operation...
Valeriani: He lied about WMDs.
Huq: There's a great deal of public evidence about Cheney's aide's roles in setting aside FISA, torture laws, and the Geneva Conventions. You'd subpoena [Cheney's aides].
Audience Q4: How would ordinary people get Congress to listen, seriously...?
Holtzman: When was the last time you contacted your Congressperson? Get a meeting. Email. Get your block to sign a petition.
Moynihan has a show of hands for who gets the "Saturday Night Massacre" reference. (The audience, educated and in many cases old enough, gets it.)
Holtzman: The tapes were critical. Elliot Richardson appointed a special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who looked for the tapes. The tapes got Nixon impeached. (People got fired, hence the massacre.) "We would have seen a similar event" - Ashcroft would have resigned. It's not clear what they changed to make their program compliant with FISA.
Audience Q5: 200,000 phone calls, that night, Saturday Night Massacre, to the Congress. We had 200,000 phone calls. You heard from us.
Audience Q6: Should we impeach Cheney first, because people seem to favor that, in polls? Then impeach Bush?
Holtzman (again): It will take a while to do two. It took a while for us to do one. We had to hire lawyers. The Democrats hired a Republican lawyer, and the Republicans hired a Republican lawyer. It hadn't been done in a hundred years - these things had to be studied. It took about nine months. So there's really enough time, to do it still. But there's not enough time to do Cheney and Bush. We have Bush's fingerprints on it. My whole view is to start the proceedings against Bush; we will accumulate evidence against Cheney.
One of the articles against Nixon was that he stonewalled us for information, and that was voted on by a bipartisan base. So there's a precedent. There's a lot of sentiment around the country for impeachment.
(Have any Congresspeople - Dems or Reps, candidates or not - seen our videos, site, blog? Do they know about this event? Shouldn't we, CP, tell them? Shouldn't we all?)
Huq: The Congress can hold court on its own. (Holtzman: We have our own jail!) The Congress can specifically subpoena the president and hold him in contempt if he doesn't show.
Qs-Final, there's a short storm of them.
Kadidal notes that other forms of government have Justice Departments that can go after corrupt executives. We do not have this. Certainly not in Mukasey...
Holtzman: What happened not only to Congress, but to the ACLU? I still believe it can be done, has to be done. With all the defects in the impeachment process, this is what the framers had exactly in mind. They were freaked about the misuse of power. They knew there was gonna be a Richard Nixon, a George Bush. There's too much misunderstanding about it. Even Obama said it's not democratic - it's in our Constitution, it's exactly democratic. What's the shape of our country going to be? No one else can make that decision for us?
***
This has been live blogging on surveillance; I'm back for one more live-blog-impeachy event on Sunday... (And, yes, for those who have read some of my earlier posts, I still like Obama but disagree with Obama on impeachment and wish Kucinich was as popular.)
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Sean Penn Rocks the Mic
For serious. Give this speech, delivered last night at San Francisco State, a read.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Faith and Discourse
Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes today on the lack of moderate Muslim voices following tragedies caused by strict interpretations of Muslim law. She opens with this brain-blendingly vile quote from the Qur'an: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (24:2)"
On the same day, we can read a hundred articles, both pro-but-really-con and just con, about Mitt Romney's faith and how deeply it informs his identity as an American and a politician. (Oh, and we find updates, lots of updates).
David Brooks says "[Romney] argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism," then goes on to lambaste Romney for uniting religions that are just separate, if you really think about it; Brooks even calls this unity New Age-y.
In a way, that makes Romney's faith more appealing: If a dedicated Mormon can respect other faiths, then why can't Brooks and other "centrist social conservatives" (or whatever he/they call himself/themselves)?
The sheer dumbfoundedness of Brooks on secularism or Hitchens on faith lumps those very different writers into a sort of category, opposite to Ali and (in the most generous sense, as per Brooks's article) Romney. The question (for everyone, esp. pres. cand.s) isn't, "do you have faith or not?" The question is, "can you talk with those who do - and don't?"
That said, of course Romney's admitting that his faith influences his politics so greatly is both unsurprising and hugely annoying. (BTW, found a shrill, also annoying, but very well-designed site challenging Mormonism and Romney - challenging in general.)
That's why I think a Pastafarian should run for president in 08. Just sayin.
On the same day, we can read a hundred articles, both pro-but-really-con and just con, about Mitt Romney's faith and how deeply it informs his identity as an American and a politician. (Oh, and we find updates, lots of updates).
David Brooks says "[Romney] argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism," then goes on to lambaste Romney for uniting religions that are just separate, if you really think about it; Brooks even calls this unity New Age-y.
In a way, that makes Romney's faith more appealing: If a dedicated Mormon can respect other faiths, then why can't Brooks and other "centrist social conservatives" (or whatever he/they call himself/themselves)?
The sheer dumbfoundedness of Brooks on secularism or Hitchens on faith lumps those very different writers into a sort of category, opposite to Ali and (in the most generous sense, as per Brooks's article) Romney. The question (for everyone, esp. pres. cand.s) isn't, "do you have faith or not?" The question is, "can you talk with those who do - and don't?"
That said, of course Romney's admitting that his faith influences his politics so greatly is both unsurprising and hugely annoying. (BTW, found a shrill, also annoying, but very well-designed site challenging Mormonism and Romney - challenging in general.)
That's why I think a Pastafarian should run for president in 08. Just sayin.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Huckchuckin It...
Have you seen the internet crying today? Its brightest meme and one of its ideologically darkest, melting together to form: An ad for presidential candidate Mike Huckabee starting Mr. Huckabee... and Mr. Chuck Norris.
For those of you knew to the Huckchuckzone, Mr. Huckabee is against gay rights, against the separation of church and state, against immigration in the most severe way, in favor of eliminating the Internal Revenue Service entirely, and pro-guns (pretty much all guns - used for hunting). Also not a big fan of science.
Chuck Norris is a conservative karate champion and the creator and star of Walker, Texas Ranger, a show about fighting drug-dealers in rural Texas. And whitewater-rafting. Also not a big fan of science, but he studied with Bruce Lee and so gets some kind of by from young people. (I am glad to be old enough to be mad at young people about this.) If you haven't heard all the "Chuck Norris facts," just Google em.
We return to impeachment...
For those of you knew to the Huckchuckzone, Mr. Huckabee is against gay rights, against the separation of church and state, against immigration in the most severe way, in favor of eliminating the Internal Revenue Service entirely, and pro-guns (pretty much all guns - used for hunting). Also not a big fan of science.
Chuck Norris is a conservative karate champion and the creator and star of Walker, Texas Ranger, a show about fighting drug-dealers in rural Texas. And whitewater-rafting. Also not a big fan of science, but he studied with Bruce Lee and so gets some kind of by from young people. (I am glad to be old enough to be mad at young people about this.) If you haven't heard all the "Chuck Norris facts," just Google em.
We return to impeachment...
Monday, December 3, 2007
Alec Baldwin moderates the Katrina Panel (long)
Alec Baldwin notes that, if you care, you think about "why" and "how it [everything Bush] got to this level" all the time. You have to train yourself to stop asking why, how...
At a dinner party, Alec Baldwin asked Bill Clinton about how spending by the government is prioritized. Clinton just gave him a look as if to say, "Don't go there." Baldwin discusses in general how we are all tied to the idea that government just gets to spend tons of money, gets to hire nepotistically... Very disturbing, discussed much by Lapham in books (why we are always at war).
Baldwin wonders what impeaching Bush with only one year left.
Baldwin to Cynthia Cooper: Can Bush be impeached for Katrina?
Cynthia Cooper and a prominent Watergate lawyer looked intensely at the question. Cooper says the president is supposed to uphold the law and take care. She says the Stafford Act very clearly is Bush's purview; he failed to uphold his duty to mobilize the government according to the Stafford Act. The president was specifically told that lives were on the line. He did nothing, prayed for a good outcome. He failed to live up to a presidential standard of upholding the law and Constitution.
Baldwin to Gardner: What do you think Bush should have done? What could have been done in two days?
Gardner: He could have stopped his vacation. He was on vacation. He could have show, on a basic level, compassion. Should have evacuated right away - helped those with no transportation get away from the [ginormous] hurricane. Judith Browne-Dianis says the administration just didn't care, figured the hurricane would literally blow over; people would forget that some citizens had been screwed over. The city's evacuation plan relied on buses, and the bus drivers left.
Erica Hunt points out that there was a yard full of buses only blocks from the Super Dome, unused...
Baldwin: Were there any heroes, of Katrina?
Cooper: National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield. He tried to personally motivate Bush.
Lapham: The government behaved exactly how it was supposed to, according to Republican ideologues - who want the smallest possible government. Two nations, divisible by magnitude. The more poor that can be eliminated, the better. The government has no purpose for the rich. They don't need the government. (More privatized cops now than public.)
Baldwin: The fraud and waste of the welfare system is minuscule compared to the fraud and waste of the defense system. Do you think Republicans hate the poor more because of what they cost the system, or more because they vote for Democrats?
Lapham: It's George Bernard Shaw. If you're poor, you deserve to be punished.
Baldwin: Do you think Bush should be literally impeached?
Browne-Dianis: I don't think it would happen now. We're going into an election year. I think he has done enough to show that he should be impeached.
Cooper: Absolutely. Even if on his last day in office. He has many more months to screw up this country.
Gardner: Totally. There was a growing movement to impeach him; the Dems won Congress; Pelosi took it off the table. Kucinich introduced it again.
Jackson: Yes. Bush has continued Reagan's campaign against the poor.
Hunt: Yes, impeachment may be in order, but she's concerned about the symbolism of impeachment and how it might obscure the root causes (of the crimes that led to impeachment). Off course Pelosi took it off the table - she doesn't believe in a common wealth, a common good, any more than most Republicans.
Lapham: Yes, on two grounds - Iraq, a criminal fraud. Second, it's the Constitutional task of the Congress to preserve the balance of power, to assert the legislative authority - unless it does that, it destroys the principle on which this country was set up. (I.e., not just Bush, but any president will be too powerful.)
Baldwin: What happened with Pelosi?
Lapham: Conyers made the grounds for impeachment clear; Pelosi didn't see it as politically useful and abandoned it.
Baldwin: Most people don't want to impeach a president at war, whether or not the war was just to start. Baldwin goes into a long story about Reagan - old-school, against taxes, in favor of letting people admit that they'd rather have a new swimming pool than social programs elsewhere - and how different Bush is. Bush sees Iraq as money to be made. The economy has to be in perpetual debt in order to cut useful social programs. He goes into the racket of war. (You can and should read the book War Is A Racket.)
Baldwin: Lewis, are these people [B&C] the same as we've seen before, and they've just been emboldened by Clinton-fatigue and 9/11? Or are they the worst you've ever seen?
Lapham: These guys are the worst I've ever seen. I see Bush the way I see Britney Spears. Spoiled rich kid adolescents. How do spoiled rich kids show their power? They break things. They spend money.
Baldwin: Goes off about how empty the Texas governorship was, even under Bush. He was a ribbon-cutter.
Baldwin: What can people do now? I don't want people to come into this room and have the "awareness orgasm" where they learn some facts, go home, and have completion. What should they do?
Browne-Dianis: I represent N.O. residents in class-action suits. People are getting kicked out of FEMA trailers. Rents are going up all over. Bulldozing public housing. The federal government runs the housing authority of New Orleans. They're demolishing brick public housing built to survive hurricanes (that did survive hurricanes - they just need new flooring and mold removal). But the plan is to keep the poor out. The right to return does not exist. We have tried ever legal way to stop the bulldozers. We have been denied. Local authorities don't want to be on the side of their constituents, the developers, in case the poor come back and vote somehow. But they don't want to be on the side of the poor. December 15th, let's do something to stop the bulldozers. (She leaves the stage to massive applause.)
Cooper: Let's get major media to look at impeachment. Call the public editor of the NYTimes.
Gardner: We have to stop the assault on the poor; public housing is being demolished all over. The Gulf Coast Recovery Act is being held up by a Republican senator from Louisiana, this jerk. We have to contact Sen. Charles Schumer and get him to pass the bill.
Jackson: December 10th, come to New Orleans. Get organized to stop the bulldozing on the 15th. Contact Jackson at jackson-action@hotmail.com. Help us get the GCRA bill passed. Fight that jerk Vitter; call Schumer.
Gardner: Go to http://www.peopleshurricane.org/.
Baldwin: Have a banner on the website to list everything. (Okay, note to self - I think I've just had my first freelance job request from Alec Baldwin.)
Hunt: Two great sites that can help you keep up with news and events are: Color of Change and Katrina Information Networkth.
Audience1: There's a rally in New York on the 10th. (Send CP info on this, please.)
Audience2: How/why can anyone respect the U.S. if it lets its president defraud us? We must impeach Bush.
Cooper: Bush won't turn over emails; his staff refuse to testify. Same as Watergate (but worse). The people have to stand up in larger and larger numbers and demand impeachment.
Audience3: During the 70s, we had more alternative news, a free press. How do we get the average Joe to know about the impeachment movement?
Cooper: Demanding it can only help; media activism is necessary.
Audience4: Barbara Jordan pointed out that unless we use impeachment, we might as well shred the Constitution. We have to make sacrifice to make change - stop shopping, go down to New Orleans. Buy a ticket, go down there, stand with the residents against bulldozers.
Audience5: I'm not really so sure whether Bush should be impeached. If we impeach Bush and the Dems win the next presidential election, the Reps will use impeachment against the Dems. (?) (Murmuring of dissatisfaction with question.)
Baldwin: Impeachment is a very difficult thing, on purpose. Long aside about Tom Delay. (More murmurs.)
Lapham: (Too quiet to hear, I think he said "it's necessary.")
Audience6: If you don't have time to go to New Orleans, I'm sure one of us displaced New Orleanians (sp?) would be willing to go in your place. (Applause.) If culture is demolished, what is the future of New Orleans?
Jackson: We had doctors, lawyers, musicians in public housing, not just drug-dealers. Really, public housing in New Orleans was not like they said (the media?).
Gardner: Now they're asking for expensive funeral permits. More about the destruction of culture in N.O.
Baldwin thanks everyone; we're out of time.
Cue zydeco. Cue applause.
At a dinner party, Alec Baldwin asked Bill Clinton about how spending by the government is prioritized. Clinton just gave him a look as if to say, "Don't go there." Baldwin discusses in general how we are all tied to the idea that government just gets to spend tons of money, gets to hire nepotistically... Very disturbing, discussed much by Lapham in books (why we are always at war).
Baldwin wonders what impeaching Bush with only one year left.
Baldwin to Cynthia Cooper: Can Bush be impeached for Katrina?
Cynthia Cooper and a prominent Watergate lawyer looked intensely at the question. Cooper says the president is supposed to uphold the law and take care. She says the Stafford Act very clearly is Bush's purview; he failed to uphold his duty to mobilize the government according to the Stafford Act. The president was specifically told that lives were on the line. He did nothing, prayed for a good outcome. He failed to live up to a presidential standard of upholding the law and Constitution.
Baldwin to Gardner: What do you think Bush should have done? What could have been done in two days?
Gardner: He could have stopped his vacation. He was on vacation. He could have show, on a basic level, compassion. Should have evacuated right away - helped those with no transportation get away from the [ginormous] hurricane. Judith Browne-Dianis says the administration just didn't care, figured the hurricane would literally blow over; people would forget that some citizens had been screwed over. The city's evacuation plan relied on buses, and the bus drivers left.
Erica Hunt points out that there was a yard full of buses only blocks from the Super Dome, unused...
Baldwin: Were there any heroes, of Katrina?
Cooper: National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield. He tried to personally motivate Bush.
Lapham: The government behaved exactly how it was supposed to, according to Republican ideologues - who want the smallest possible government. Two nations, divisible by magnitude. The more poor that can be eliminated, the better. The government has no purpose for the rich. They don't need the government. (More privatized cops now than public.)
Baldwin: The fraud and waste of the welfare system is minuscule compared to the fraud and waste of the defense system. Do you think Republicans hate the poor more because of what they cost the system, or more because they vote for Democrats?
Lapham: It's George Bernard Shaw. If you're poor, you deserve to be punished.
Baldwin: Do you think Bush should be literally impeached?
Browne-Dianis: I don't think it would happen now. We're going into an election year. I think he has done enough to show that he should be impeached.
Cooper: Absolutely. Even if on his last day in office. He has many more months to screw up this country.
Gardner: Totally. There was a growing movement to impeach him; the Dems won Congress; Pelosi took it off the table. Kucinich introduced it again.
Jackson: Yes. Bush has continued Reagan's campaign against the poor.
Hunt: Yes, impeachment may be in order, but she's concerned about the symbolism of impeachment and how it might obscure the root causes (of the crimes that led to impeachment). Off course Pelosi took it off the table - she doesn't believe in a common wealth, a common good, any more than most Republicans.
Lapham: Yes, on two grounds - Iraq, a criminal fraud. Second, it's the Constitutional task of the Congress to preserve the balance of power, to assert the legislative authority - unless it does that, it destroys the principle on which this country was set up. (I.e., not just Bush, but any president will be too powerful.)
Baldwin: What happened with Pelosi?
Lapham: Conyers made the grounds for impeachment clear; Pelosi didn't see it as politically useful and abandoned it.
Baldwin: Most people don't want to impeach a president at war, whether or not the war was just to start. Baldwin goes into a long story about Reagan - old-school, against taxes, in favor of letting people admit that they'd rather have a new swimming pool than social programs elsewhere - and how different Bush is. Bush sees Iraq as money to be made. The economy has to be in perpetual debt in order to cut useful social programs. He goes into the racket of war. (You can and should read the book War Is A Racket.)
Baldwin: Lewis, are these people [B&C] the same as we've seen before, and they've just been emboldened by Clinton-fatigue and 9/11? Or are they the worst you've ever seen?
Lapham: These guys are the worst I've ever seen. I see Bush the way I see Britney Spears. Spoiled rich kid adolescents. How do spoiled rich kids show their power? They break things. They spend money.
Baldwin: Goes off about how empty the Texas governorship was, even under Bush. He was a ribbon-cutter.
Baldwin: What can people do now? I don't want people to come into this room and have the "awareness orgasm" where they learn some facts, go home, and have completion. What should they do?
Browne-Dianis: I represent N.O. residents in class-action suits. People are getting kicked out of FEMA trailers. Rents are going up all over. Bulldozing public housing. The federal government runs the housing authority of New Orleans. They're demolishing brick public housing built to survive hurricanes (that did survive hurricanes - they just need new flooring and mold removal). But the plan is to keep the poor out. The right to return does not exist. We have tried ever legal way to stop the bulldozers. We have been denied. Local authorities don't want to be on the side of their constituents, the developers, in case the poor come back and vote somehow. But they don't want to be on the side of the poor. December 15th, let's do something to stop the bulldozers. (She leaves the stage to massive applause.)
Cooper: Let's get major media to look at impeachment. Call the public editor of the NYTimes.
Gardner: We have to stop the assault on the poor; public housing is being demolished all over. The Gulf Coast Recovery Act is being held up by a Republican senator from Louisiana, this jerk. We have to contact Sen. Charles Schumer and get him to pass the bill.
Jackson: December 10th, come to New Orleans. Get organized to stop the bulldozing on the 15th. Contact Jackson at jackson-action@hotmail.com. Help us get the GCRA bill passed. Fight that jerk Vitter; call Schumer.
Gardner: Go to http://www.peopleshurricane.org/.
Baldwin: Have a banner on the website to list everything. (Okay, note to self - I think I've just had my first freelance job request from Alec Baldwin.)
Hunt: Two great sites that can help you keep up with news and events are: Color of Change and Katrina Information Networkth.
Audience1: There's a rally in New York on the 10th. (Send CP info on this, please.)
Audience2: How/why can anyone respect the U.S. if it lets its president defraud us? We must impeach Bush.
Cooper: Bush won't turn over emails; his staff refuse to testify. Same as Watergate (but worse). The people have to stand up in larger and larger numbers and demand impeachment.
Audience3: During the 70s, we had more alternative news, a free press. How do we get the average Joe to know about the impeachment movement?
Cooper: Demanding it can only help; media activism is necessary.
Audience4: Barbara Jordan pointed out that unless we use impeachment, we might as well shred the Constitution. We have to make sacrifice to make change - stop shopping, go down to New Orleans. Buy a ticket, go down there, stand with the residents against bulldozers.
Audience5: I'm not really so sure whether Bush should be impeached. If we impeach Bush and the Dems win the next presidential election, the Reps will use impeachment against the Dems. (?) (Murmuring of dissatisfaction with question.)
Baldwin: Impeachment is a very difficult thing, on purpose. Long aside about Tom Delay. (More murmurs.)
Lapham: (Too quiet to hear, I think he said "it's necessary.")
Audience6: If you don't have time to go to New Orleans, I'm sure one of us displaced New Orleanians (sp?) would be willing to go in your place. (Applause.) If culture is demolished, what is the future of New Orleans?
Jackson: We had doctors, lawyers, musicians in public housing, not just drug-dealers. Really, public housing in New Orleans was not like they said (the media?).
Gardner: Now they're asking for expensive funeral permits. More about the destruction of culture in N.O.
Baldwin thanks everyone; we're out of time.
Cue zydeco. Cue applause.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Bloggingheads
Check out Bloggingheads.tv, a great repository of head-to-head expert dialogues via video web logs (compressed via portmanteau into "diavlogs," a great word).
Listening to an Israeli/Arab debate (rather quiet, debate-wise) about Condie's upcoming Mid-East peace conference.
Listening to an Israeli/Arab debate (rather quiet, debate-wise) about Condie's upcoming Mid-East peace conference.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Torture Panel
Moderated by Vincent Warren, senior staff counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. Carol Gilligan joins Warren, McKelvey, Fein, and Hafetz.
Fein compares U.S. power binge to Rome. I also think about Pakistan, as the situation there comes to a head - executive privilege versus public consensus that wants anything but. We are, of course, still a more free nation than Rome or Pakistan (as Fein says, "We, the people, still rule"), but "the disease of executive omnipotence is one" that will snowball into the future. More about Nixon. [Applause.]
Gilligan brings up the stolen (pres.) election. (I think many of us agree there was at least one.) We had trouble feeling pride when our votes didn't turn out to count. (Author concurs.) The elections aren't slated topics for impeachment debate in this series - though as David Swanson pointed out last time, there's so much to impeach them for - but I wonder if they wouldn't be worth including in a draft of impeachment articles. "We think you stole the election, Bush."
McKelvey, Ratner, and Hafetz are unfortunately too quiet for me to hear at all (the video will fill in). Actually, most of the rest I can't hear. The audience is packed, attentive, quiet, asking long questions. This panel isn't as fast and conflicted as the last, but .
In the booth, I have several video monitor views as well as a long natural view of the stage. (The video aspect of this event is exciting and reminds me of my favorite deepthinking site, TED.)
Gilligan brings back the election, and the gender gap between female votes for Gore and male votes for Bush. "Are you a real man?" She indicts men in general for violence, which is fair I suppose historically, given that men have pretty much run all the armies until now (Nancy Pelosi, Indira G., A. Markel, Sharkosky's wife).
Ratner notes that Maureen Dowd notes that Dems are afraid to seem unmanly, that people like Obama must try to seem "hard" while admitting that, hey, they're not into the war-thing. (Disclosure: I am a bigger fan of Obama than of the other leading Democratic candidates.)
Warren points out that the president says that people who say the president is wrong are terrorists, and this is part of the big problem with the "impeach the who? no way!" mentality. Regarding the abuses of presidential power, the paranoid have been right. (War with Iran, anyone?)
Gilligan recommends focusing on the arts.
Questions wrap up; Buchman grabs the mic to give props to Howard Zinn. "Our problem today is not civil disobedience, but civil obedience." Word up.
Night Three is now one for the video archives...
Fein compares U.S. power binge to Rome. I also think about Pakistan, as the situation there comes to a head - executive privilege versus public consensus that wants anything but. We are, of course, still a more free nation than Rome or Pakistan (as Fein says, "We, the people, still rule"), but "the disease of executive omnipotence is one" that will snowball into the future. More about Nixon. [Applause.]
Gilligan brings up the stolen (pres.) election. (I think many of us agree there was at least one.) We had trouble feeling pride when our votes didn't turn out to count. (Author concurs.) The elections aren't slated topics for impeachment debate in this series - though as David Swanson pointed out last time, there's so much to impeach them for - but I wonder if they wouldn't be worth including in a draft of impeachment articles. "We think you stole the election, Bush."
McKelvey, Ratner, and Hafetz are unfortunately too quiet for me to hear at all (the video will fill in). Actually, most of the rest I can't hear. The audience is packed, attentive, quiet, asking long questions. This panel isn't as fast and conflicted as the last, but .
In the booth, I have several video monitor views as well as a long natural view of the stage. (The video aspect of this event is exciting and reminds me of my favorite deepthinking site, TED.)
Gilligan brings back the election, and the gender gap between female votes for Gore and male votes for Bush. "Are you a real man?" She indicts men in general for violence, which is fair I suppose historically, given that men have pretty much run all the armies until now (Nancy Pelosi, Indira G., A. Markel, Sharkosky's wife).
Ratner notes that Maureen Dowd notes that Dems are afraid to seem unmanly, that people like Obama must try to seem "hard" while admitting that, hey, they're not into the war-thing. (Disclosure: I am a bigger fan of Obama than of the other leading Democratic candidates.)
Warren points out that the president says that people who say the president is wrong are terrorists, and this is part of the big problem with the "impeach the who? no way!" mentality. Regarding the abuses of presidential power, the paranoid have been right. (War with Iran, anyone?)
Gilligan recommends focusing on the arts.
Questions wrap up; Buchman grabs the mic to give props to Howard Zinn. "Our problem today is not civil disobedience, but civil obedience." Word up.
Night Three is now one for the video archives...
Return to Blog, Rainy Night, More Videos from the Opening
Rain in the City has mired the trains down and I'm slightly late. Sitting in the booth the perspective is yet again different from the dark cool hush of the theater and the casual pacing-around bar feeling of the lobby.
The opening of Night Three (Torture & Extraordinary Rendition) mirrors the middle of Night One, with a fast repeat of some wonderful quotes about impeachment from thinkers throughout post-Enlightenment history.
Now a reading of something about torture during the famously torture-dense Algerian War (for Independence).
Now comes Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights...
Ratner steps us through ideas behind U.S. statues banning torture, torture by other countries on our behalf (extraordinary rendition), and jailing without due process. He points out that failing to stop torture is ground for impeachment.
Three areas to look at:
- Definition of torture
- Evidence of torture within United States
- Evidence that programs of U.S. torture are authorized by B&C
First we look at such questionable techniques as the "attention grab," the "attention slap," the "belly slap," "long-time standing," the "cold [and naked in the] cell," "water boarding" (simulated drowning, instant heaves, gagging), and (we can only imagine) others.
Bruce Fein is called to the stand...
***
Please check out all the videos by Sarah and Emily Kunstler that document each night of this series; here's just a few of what you can see:
Mary Lee Kortes (3rd Song)
Andy Krikun
Lewis Lapham
Preamble
***
Also, I've been doing googling about Republican blogs and found some weird results. Scary weird. Suffice to say, I'm not convinced.
The opening of Night Three (Torture & Extraordinary Rendition) mirrors the middle of Night One, with a fast repeat of some wonderful quotes about impeachment from thinkers throughout post-Enlightenment history.
Now a reading of something about torture during the famously torture-dense Algerian War (for Independence).
Now comes Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights...
Ratner steps us through ideas behind U.S. statues banning torture, torture by other countries on our behalf (extraordinary rendition), and jailing without due process. He points out that failing to stop torture is ground for impeachment.
Three areas to look at:
- Definition of torture
- Evidence of torture within United States
- Evidence that programs of U.S. torture are authorized by B&C
First we look at such questionable techniques as the "attention grab," the "attention slap," the "belly slap," "long-time standing," the "cold [and naked in the] cell," "water boarding" (simulated drowning, instant heaves, gagging), and (we can only imagine) others.
Bruce Fein is called to the stand...
***
Please check out all the videos by Sarah and Emily Kunstler that document each night of this series; here's just a few of what you can see:
Mary Lee Kortes (3rd Song)
Andy Krikun
Lewis Lapham
Preamble
***
Also, I've been doing googling about Republican blogs and found some weird results. Scary weird. Suffice to say, I'm not convinced.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Sisterhood out the window!
I think that imaginative, vocal, and serious protest to hold our elected leaders accountable is crucial, especially in the world we're living in today. That's what Women Center Stage here at CP is all about after all - amplifying the voices calling for change. But I get very concerned when "liberals," "Democrats," "lefties," and related ilk decide to go after "liberals," "Democrats," "lefties," and related ilk.
Why do we keep going after one another? What happened to solidarity?
The NY Times reported yesterday that Cindy Sheehan has issued an ultimatum to Nancy Pelosi:
Maybe I'm naive, but I feel so strongly that those of us trying to change this country do ourselves a major disservice by publicly attacking our allies.The war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son was killed in Iraq three years ago, said in May that she was quitting her prominent role in the antiwar movement and severing her ties with the Democratic Party. But her retirement from politics may prove short-lived.
Now Ms. Sheehan, right, is talking about running for Congress as an independent candidate against Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2008 if Ms. Pelosi, left, a Democrat, refuses to move for the impeachment of President Bush.
Especially as women in movements for change, we are in a position to further and facilitate solidarity, to change the paradigm of power-mongering and scapegoating.
Not that we should let leaders like Nancy Pelosi, who are in powerful positions to make change, get away with resting on their laurels. But to go to battle publicly like this...I think it does far more harm than good, and allows Repubs to keep calling us flip-flopping dummies.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Two Headlines Today: Libby Libby Libby! (and in small print, war with iran...)
I open my emailed version of the NYTimes and see this:
Meaning everybody's so pissed off at Bush about Libby, they're liable to let him go to war with Iran... (If some are to be believed - and I think there's reason to hear them out: The anti-Iranian press will ramp up; the "incidents" with "Iranian nationals" will increase in frequency and intensity; it's the Spanish-American War/I mean 'Nam/I mean 'Raq all over again...)
But the Libby thing is really a kick in the nards, ain't it?
This from Kenneth L. Adelman, former Defense (originally War) Department official and Libby-liker:
Yes, if a cop caught me smoking rocks on the corner and I was humiliated and talked about in the media (perhaps because I was an important public official), I would not have to go to jail; I'd have served my time via the public spotlight, as it were.
Yes, if I revealed the identity of an American spy... Fuck it, you get the point.
But enough Americans don't seem to get the point about these cheeseball Neocon warmongers. We just love thugs too much. We can't see their bad sides. We don't like em to perjure, to get caught, or say names - but Cheney et Co. can do damn well what he pleases. Who do you think is writing the official version of every incident with Iran?
Here's a little something from the NYTimes' review of T.I.'s new album:
Supertechnical my ass. He rhymes "attitude" with "dude" (more than once) and talks about beatin folks up. And not ala the Iliad or Biggie's best verses on life as a poor black American, but just in plain, pro-wrestler, prosaically-themed, overly-metered platitudes. He'll beat you up - not make you cry talking about having to beat some guy up to help his mom.
Now, all you really need to know about T.I. for the purposes of this essay is that the man is a low-down, woman-beatin, gay-bashin, drug-smugglin thug. He revels in thuggery. As Mos Def said, "Thug is the drug," and T.I. is one the best-selling rappers in mainstream hip hop, having two albums ago joined the elite pantheon of other woman-beatin, gay-bashin, crack-smokin thug-gods, recently Fifty "Silent 2nd F" Cent and The Game.
Even the Times loves T.I. and can't bring itself to bash him back for all his crack-handin-out evil.
But, worse, we Americans let thugs get into not only our music (instead of reppin real MCs like MF DOOM, LyricsBorn, most of Little Brother, Mos, &c.) but into our government. As much as we balk at Bush's commutation of Scoot's sentence, we should also balk at the Bush plan to invade frickin Persia...
Aiyaiyai, I gotta drink some ice tea and think about something calming, like how much money I owe the government... or how my cat just tried to eat the last of my toilet paper... again...
Bush Spares Libby 30-Month Jail Term
By SCOTT SHANE and NEIL A. LEWIS
President Bush commuted the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr., who was convicted of perjury in the C.I.A. leak case.
U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.’s
By JOHN F. BURNS and MICHAEL R. GORDON
A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said that Iranian agents and veterans of Hezbollah helped plan a raid in Iraq in which five American soldiers were killed.
Meaning everybody's so pissed off at Bush about Libby, they're liable to let him go to war with Iran... (If some are to be believed - and I think there's reason to hear them out: The anti-Iranian press will ramp up; the "incidents" with "Iranian nationals" will increase in frequency and intensity; it's the Spanish-American War/I mean 'Nam/I mean 'Raq all over again...)
But the Libby thing is really a kick in the nards, ain't it?
This from Kenneth L. Adelman, former Defense (originally War) Department official and Libby-liker:
“This is not a man who deserves to go to jail in any sense of the word... Whatever he did wrong, he certainly paid... This is a good person who served his country very well and is a decent person.”
Yes, if a cop caught me smoking rocks on the corner and I was humiliated and talked about in the media (perhaps because I was an important public official), I would not have to go to jail; I'd have served my time via the public spotlight, as it were.
Yes, if I revealed the identity of an American spy... Fuck it, you get the point.
But enough Americans don't seem to get the point about these cheeseball Neocon warmongers. We just love thugs too much. We can't see their bad sides. We don't like em to perjure, to get caught, or say names - but Cheney et Co. can do damn well what he pleases. Who do you think is writing the official version of every incident with Iran?
Here's a little something from the NYTimes' review of T.I.'s new album:
Listeners transfixed by his entertaining interjections (“O.K.?!”) and exaggerated pronunciation might easily have overlooked the rigorous poetic construction. But that’s a neat little quatrain: four lines, six syllables apiece, each building to an trisyllabic oblique rhyme. Somehow, T. I. delivers supertechnical raps without ever sounding as boring as that last sentence.
Supertechnical my ass. He rhymes "attitude" with "dude" (more than once) and talks about beatin folks up. And not ala the Iliad or Biggie's best verses on life as a poor black American, but just in plain, pro-wrestler, prosaically-themed, overly-metered platitudes. He'll beat you up - not make you cry talking about having to beat some guy up to help his mom.
Now, all you really need to know about T.I. for the purposes of this essay is that the man is a low-down, woman-beatin, gay-bashin, drug-smugglin thug. He revels in thuggery. As Mos Def said, "Thug is the drug," and T.I. is one the best-selling rappers in mainstream hip hop, having two albums ago joined the elite pantheon of other woman-beatin, gay-bashin, crack-smokin thug-gods, recently Fifty "Silent 2nd F" Cent and The Game.
Even the Times loves T.I. and can't bring itself to bash him back for all his crack-handin-out evil.
But, worse, we Americans let thugs get into not only our music (instead of reppin real MCs like MF DOOM, LyricsBorn, most of Little Brother, Mos, &c.) but into our government. As much as we balk at Bush's commutation of Scoot's sentence, we should also balk at the Bush plan to invade frickin Persia...
Aiyaiyai, I gotta drink some ice tea and think about something calming, like how much money I owe the government... or how my cat just tried to eat the last of my toilet paper... again...
Monday, July 2, 2007
And a little dance couldn't hurt either....
There is a massive drought in Alabama. The National Weather Service has called it the worst in decades. But the Governor there, Gov. Bob Riley, has a solution - prayer! Yes, folks, the Governor asked all Alabamians (Alabamists?) to pull together and pray for rain. That should do it.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
28301-016
That may just be the prettiest number I've ever seen! It's Scooter Libby's INMATE number. Ah, justice.
Republican candidates imploding all over the damn place!
Um, did you hear the one about Mitt Romney strapping his dog to the roof of his car for a 12 hour drive home from Ontario to Boston?? I guess the dog (in a dog carrier, but still) didn't like it so much and shit all over the roof and windows -and this story was used as a cute little anecdote on the campaign trail. Too bad it's illegal. Romney also is currently employing a campaign chair who has a penchant for impersonating police officers.
Over in the Giuliani camp, Rudy's campaign chair was just arrested for DEALING CRACK (and though not illegal, he didn't like 'the blacks' so much) and his other close personal friend and campaign consultant is staying on the job even after it's come to light that he was accused of child molestation (he's a priest) AND was responsible for stopping investigations into other priest abuse cases.
I wonder how this plays to the Pat Robertson crowd? I mean, they already think Mormons and Catholics aren't real Christians. This should just about put the final nail in that coffin...
Over in the Giuliani camp, Rudy's campaign chair was just arrested for DEALING CRACK (and though not illegal, he didn't like 'the blacks' so much) and his other close personal friend and campaign consultant is staying on the job even after it's come to light that he was accused of child molestation (he's a priest) AND was responsible for stopping investigations into other priest abuse cases.
I wonder how this plays to the Pat Robertson crowd? I mean, they already think Mormons and Catholics aren't real Christians. This should just about put the final nail in that coffin...
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Lugar Leaves Dark Side; Dark Side Completely Surprised, Consoles Itself With Cherry Garcia While Crying Into Phone To Friend
Great news for those of us who want some sort of withdrawal from Iraq, now:
Republican senator and warmaker Richard Lugar now disagrees with Generalissimo Bush and the current administration's all-war all-the-time no-withdrawal plans, which Lugar had previously backed, on every vote, in every way.
So this is not a wishy-washy person. Lugar supported a policy. He saw that policy steadily go wrong. In his words, "The costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved... We’re talking $620 billion. We’re talking over 3,500 people killed. I have a picture of one of our marines that’s on my desk so I don’t forget, O.K.?"
And now he wants to change that policy. (The policy being America's state religion, Constant Warfare, or more recently Constant Antithetical Counterinsurgency [Generating Endlessly Reinvigorated Insurgents].)
Says Lugar:
"The administration and Congress must suspend what has become almost knee-jerk political combat over Iraq. Those who offer constructive criticism of the surge strategy are not defeatists, any more than those who warn against a precipitous withdrawal are militarists."
Also in the news today, a poll (though we are suspicious of polls) indicating that America's youth are increasingly progressive-minded, and that Obama and Hillary are the only candidates that register in their immediate consciousnesses.
This surprises no young person I know: I grew up in an predominantly black area, and I was raised to believe that women and men deserve the same rights. I would much rather vote for - or are at least am much more intrigued by the thought of being a citizen during the presidency of - a black or woman president than another white man. Seems about time.
Of course, the psychology behind voter-volition - who we vote for and why - is more complex than race, gender, party, or individual charm, though it is certainly influenced by all of these factors. I would never recommend voting on someone purely because that someone is black or a woman. I simply note that the succession of white men who mired America in small-to-medium wars with real, really impoverished people during the latter half of the twentieth century have left something of a bad taste in the mouths of many.
The psychology behind torture - much discussed today in a New York Times article about the CIA, now-and-then (meaning of course 'Nam and 'Raq), as well as in an older call-to-arms for the mental health community on Alternet - is not so complex. Torture is wrong; the use of torture indicates, as William James would say, a "sick soul."
The Times' CIA article includes a graphic comparing tactics used in the seventies to tactics used today; the side-by-side, tale-of-the-tape effect is chilling: While it is true that there is no evidence of the government monitoring peace groups the way it did during Vietnam, tactics still in use against anyone Bush considers a terrorist or possible terrorist include eavesdropping, "waterboarding, heat, cold, and sleep deprivation."
Meaning that there are still three classes of Enemy, in the minds of the priests of Constant War. There are national criminals, who are arrested and tried in an Enlightened manner. There are extranational soldiers, who, if captured, are treated as honorable combatants to be held accountable for their non-American government's actions according to international law. And then there are the Really Bad People, the ones who can be disappeared (under Pinochet in Chile), or spied upon or poisoned (see the CIA vs. Dr. Rev. M.L.K., Jr., or Castro), or tortured (Gitmo).
These last can be tortured indefinitely in good conscience because they are not fellow capitalists on a mission from a power whose thoughts on market regulations differ from those of the GOP's; these enemies are Satans who must be Crusaded against, kept from view, and finally expunged from the record of gentlemanly combat.
And the war can never end against these Enemies, who are as Protean as they are numerous: For every defeated insurgency, for every toppled Soviet Union, there comes a Bin Laden, an Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia.
Roses to Lugar; thorns to the military psychologists who should know better than to condone - much less operate - torture operations at Gitmo. And thorns finally to CIA agents who, in the course of defending freedom or whathaveyou, cross a stark line and become the very icons of those who least embody freedom, least embody nobility, peace, or justice.
Republican senator and warmaker Richard Lugar now disagrees with Generalissimo Bush and the current administration's all-war all-the-time no-withdrawal plans, which Lugar had previously backed, on every vote, in every way.
So this is not a wishy-washy person. Lugar supported a policy. He saw that policy steadily go wrong. In his words, "The costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved... We’re talking $620 billion. We’re talking over 3,500 people killed. I have a picture of one of our marines that’s on my desk so I don’t forget, O.K.?"
And now he wants to change that policy. (The policy being America's state religion, Constant Warfare, or more recently Constant Antithetical Counterinsurgency [Generating Endlessly Reinvigorated Insurgents].)
Says Lugar:
"The administration and Congress must suspend what has become almost knee-jerk political combat over Iraq. Those who offer constructive criticism of the surge strategy are not defeatists, any more than those who warn against a precipitous withdrawal are militarists."
Also in the news today, a poll (though we are suspicious of polls) indicating that America's youth are increasingly progressive-minded, and that Obama and Hillary are the only candidates that register in their immediate consciousnesses.
This surprises no young person I know: I grew up in an predominantly black area, and I was raised to believe that women and men deserve the same rights. I would much rather vote for - or are at least am much more intrigued by the thought of being a citizen during the presidency of - a black or woman president than another white man. Seems about time.
Of course, the psychology behind voter-volition - who we vote for and why - is more complex than race, gender, party, or individual charm, though it is certainly influenced by all of these factors. I would never recommend voting on someone purely because that someone is black or a woman. I simply note that the succession of white men who mired America in small-to-medium wars with real, really impoverished people during the latter half of the twentieth century have left something of a bad taste in the mouths of many.
The psychology behind torture - much discussed today in a New York Times article about the CIA, now-and-then (meaning of course 'Nam and 'Raq), as well as in an older call-to-arms for the mental health community on Alternet - is not so complex. Torture is wrong; the use of torture indicates, as William James would say, a "sick soul."
The Times' CIA article includes a graphic comparing tactics used in the seventies to tactics used today; the side-by-side, tale-of-the-tape effect is chilling: While it is true that there is no evidence of the government monitoring peace groups the way it did during Vietnam, tactics still in use against anyone Bush considers a terrorist or possible terrorist include eavesdropping, "waterboarding, heat, cold, and sleep deprivation."
Meaning that there are still three classes of Enemy, in the minds of the priests of Constant War. There are national criminals, who are arrested and tried in an Enlightened manner. There are extranational soldiers, who, if captured, are treated as honorable combatants to be held accountable for their non-American government's actions according to international law. And then there are the Really Bad People, the ones who can be disappeared (under Pinochet in Chile), or spied upon or poisoned (see the CIA vs. Dr. Rev. M.L.K., Jr., or Castro), or tortured (Gitmo).
These last can be tortured indefinitely in good conscience because they are not fellow capitalists on a mission from a power whose thoughts on market regulations differ from those of the GOP's; these enemies are Satans who must be Crusaded against, kept from view, and finally expunged from the record of gentlemanly combat.
And the war can never end against these Enemies, who are as Protean as they are numerous: For every defeated insurgency, for every toppled Soviet Union, there comes a Bin Laden, an Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia.
Roses to Lugar; thorns to the military psychologists who should know better than to condone - much less operate - torture operations at Gitmo. And thorns finally to CIA agents who, in the course of defending freedom or whathaveyou, cross a stark line and become the very icons of those who least embody freedom, least embody nobility, peace, or justice.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Two Interesting Points...
By our Board Chair Colin Greer - essentially noting that there is no American "center," no "mainstream" voter base. There aren't a million-million Joe Blow McAverage Republicrackers out in Iowa or Idaho or wherehaveyou, voting for evil Supreme Court fuckers who would prefer to overturn the social progress we've made in the last century. America instead consists of individuals who will vote sensibly if they're not confuzitized by the Republicans. Not that every victory would go to the Dems - far from it. Greer notes (and I think many at CP would agree) that truly Independent candidates are the goal...
And by some dude named George Lakoff who Greer doesn't really like - but has a great point about Prez. Bush's perceived "incompetence," which I've long said is a mask for the competence of his evil. Lakoff's whole "how to speak to conservatives" thinking points are interesting just because - like Colin's quite funny, easy to take in but hard to disagree with notes about who really votes for what, when - they provide us not-so-scholarly, perhaps not-so-eloquent progressives, radicals, reformers, etc. with new ways to combat old challenges.
And both articles ultimately give us cause for hope: Eventually, sense will prevail, as long as we aren't intimidated by the Bushes of the world. He may be a competent tyrant, but we can't let ourselves be incompetent voters or bad thinkers. As Larry Wright pointed out, America isn't going to fall to some Outsider with an alien agenda. But America might fall because of greedy, competently immoral Americans.
And by some dude named George Lakoff who Greer doesn't really like - but has a great point about Prez. Bush's perceived "incompetence," which I've long said is a mask for the competence of his evil. Lakoff's whole "how to speak to conservatives" thinking points are interesting just because - like Colin's quite funny, easy to take in but hard to disagree with notes about who really votes for what, when - they provide us not-so-scholarly, perhaps not-so-eloquent progressives, radicals, reformers, etc. with new ways to combat old challenges.
And both articles ultimately give us cause for hope: Eventually, sense will prevail, as long as we aren't intimidated by the Bushes of the world. He may be a competent tyrant, but we can't let ourselves be incompetent voters or bad thinkers. As Larry Wright pointed out, America isn't going to fall to some Outsider with an alien agenda. But America might fall because of greedy, competently immoral Americans.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Race Changes; The Race Remains The Same
Bloomberg quits the GOP, and my ex-republican friend starts sending me happy emails about how the guy represents the center and is going to turn water into freedom nuggets. Ba-humbug. The old white guys are still the old white guys; War is still the state religion of America.
Obama's the real deal, as say I and some at The Nation. My ex-republican friend says Obama's not qualified, not a strong enough leader. Bullshit. The man's been leading the unofficial Fuck No We Don't Want To Go To War With No Fucking Iraqis party since Day One.
And Obama--like our own Lear deBessonet, like Hitchens, like me--believes you can't just ignore religion, religiosity, and spirituality in America.
By the by, here's an interesting study on religion and intelligence, and here's another one.
I wonder if some centrist, stubbornly faithful parallel exists between politics and religion; i.e., if the vast majority of Americans want to believe in both a moral, anthropomorphic, skyey God as well as an upright, well-qualified, having-it-both-ways (conservative-and-liberal, or so-seeming) President or Presidential candidate.
Is Bloomberg the right blend of New York no-bullshit-git-R-done-pro-environment-pro-War and popular? Will his Perotism detract from my Obama/Mos Def ticket's chances at success? WILL WE EVER HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS NOT A YALIE WITH A BAD HAIRCUT?
Stay tuned...
Obama's the real deal, as say I and some at The Nation. My ex-republican friend says Obama's not qualified, not a strong enough leader. Bullshit. The man's been leading the unofficial Fuck No We Don't Want To Go To War With No Fucking Iraqis party since Day One.
And Obama--like our own Lear deBessonet, like Hitchens, like me--believes you can't just ignore religion, religiosity, and spirituality in America.
By the by, here's an interesting study on religion and intelligence, and here's another one.
I wonder if some centrist, stubbornly faithful parallel exists between politics and religion; i.e., if the vast majority of Americans want to believe in both a moral, anthropomorphic, skyey God as well as an upright, well-qualified, having-it-both-ways (conservative-and-liberal, or so-seeming) President or Presidential candidate.
Is Bloomberg the right blend of New York no-bullshit-git-R-done-pro-environment-pro-War and popular? Will his Perotism detract from my Obama/Mos Def ticket's chances at success? WILL WE EVER HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS NOT A YALIE WITH A BAD HAIRCUT?
Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
