Kagan Should Not Respond

It appears that the extreme right is pushing the Republithugs to question Kagan's sexuality.

I say she should pull a Laine Hanson and refuse to answer the question if they have the balls to ask it. Laine Hanson is a character from the 2000 movie, The Contender. Joan Allen plays Laine.

Laine Hanson, a senator who is nominated to become Vice President following the death of the previous office holder. During the confirmation process, Laine is the victim of a vicious attack on her personal life in which stories of sexual deviancy are spread. She is torn as to whether she should fight back, or stick to her high principles and refuse to comment on the allegations. Although it isn't easy, she sticks to her guns, and in the end she is rewarded for it.

I know life isn't the movies and movies are not life but Laine Hanson's reasons for not responding are valid -- if she responded to the questions it meant that the questions were appropriate. I don't care whether Elena Kagan is gay or not but I do deeply care that some people think it is an appropriate criteria to judge whether she can perform as Associate Justice.

I searched the record of the David Souter hearings and despite his being a life long bachelor no one ever asked him about his sexuality. Roberts married late in life and had some strange views about women and one could read things about this picture. But no one ever asked him about his sexuality.

If Kagan addresses this subject it will become the litmus test forever in the future. She should pull a Laine and refuse. It is irrelevant and inappropriate to ask.

UPDATE: No matter how many times Condoleeza Rice answered questions from the Senate and Congress, no one ever asked her about her loan partner, business associate, home co-owner, friend. It wasn't relevant.

WA State Republithugs Find Their Senate Candidate

The Republithugs have found their candidate to face Patty Murray: Superbowl hero Washington Redskin Clint Didier. He has a website for donations with the requisite waving flag and Reagan quote and states:

I am not a practiced politician. I am commited to representing you "the people" to the best of my ability. A team effort will be required to bring our Government back to its original definition under the Constitution.

Interesting since in his interviews and speaches his trademark issue is that we should abolish the separation of Church and State. I guess his Constitution that he always carries around with him is missing a page or two.

Is Hillary Kidding?

Hillary posted a message on the State Department website commemorating the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square.

She states in part:

China . . . to take its rightful place in global leadership, should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.

How can she even suggest this while at the same time playing the party line of "we're not looking back" when it comes to investigating our use of torture and warrant less searches?

Hypocrite.

Constitution?

It should be interesting to see how many Republithugs resurrect the 'respect for the Constitution' as a rationale to oppose any pick Obama will make for the Supreme Court. Will any reporter ask them when they start spouting this stuff where they were when the First Amendment was being violated when Amy Goodman, a credentialed reporter, got roughed up and arrested at the Republithug Convention? Will any news person ask them where were their objections when the warrantless wiretapping became known? Or when CIA Director denied that the 4th Amendment included a requirement for a warrant? Or the 6th and 8th Amendments when Padilla was thrown in jail and in isolation without trial? Habeas Corpus when they talked about government databases of prescription use?

I could go on and on . . .

Good Take on Why Should Never Torture

Kevin Drum has an excellent post on why we should NEVER torture.

I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information.

The whole point of civilization is as much moral advancement as it is physical and technological advancement. But that moral progress comes slowly and very, very tenuously. In the United States alone, it took centuries to decide that slavery was evil, that children shouldn't be allowed to work 12-hour days on power looms, and that police shouldn't be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects.

Amen

McCain

McCain was just on Face the Nation and was pitching for us to just move on from trying to hold people accountable for torture. He says he's against torture and said it will never happen again. I started to think the old John McCain was back . . . and then he said our enemies will always follow the Geneva Convention because they know there will be retribution.

Does he not see that by not insisting on accountability for our people who ordered these torture memos to CYA, who ordered this torture, and who lied about it need to be held accountable will be held as precedence that torture can be done with impunity?

What's wrong with these people??!!

Isn't This a Confession?

From Karl Rove's Twitter:

Precautions taken 2 guarantee compliance w/ federal prohibition on torture. U might characterize diligence as overcautious. #TCOT #SGP #HHRS
about 13 hours ago from TweetDeck

Bring the Torture Authorizers to Justice

Every time one of these Republithugs talks about torture as a 'difference of opinion' or 'difference in tactics' they make the case even stronger for bringing the enablers to justice.

If it's just a political difference than the next time the Republithugs are in power we can go back to torturing with immunity. By not bringing them to justice we are condoning it and setting a dangerous precedence.

It is not too much of a stretch in my mind that Rudolph W. Giuliani would use torture. He's already on record supporting it.

Scott Horton's Essay on how the USA Became 1984

Revealing the Secrets in Room 101
By Scott Horton

On Thursday the spirit of George Orwell visited America, three times.

The first visit can be found in four memoranda prepared by Bush Administration lawyers which gave the actual go-ahead for the use of specific torture techniques on specific individuals, thus demolishing forever the absurd contention that the torture lawyers were ever only engaged in some abstract exercise without any direct application to incidents of torture. Here, we discover that Room 101 of the Ministry of Love (Miniluv) has been faithfully recreated by the Bush Team...

Orwell made his second appearance in a statement issued by Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis Blair in which he drew a stomach-turning comparison between Americans who sacrifice for their country in uniform and those who perpetrated war crimes under orders from higher ups in the Bush Administration. But perhaps the first lines of Blair’s statement were intended to send a signal of the deceit that lay within. “We will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos and those guidelines,” he says, because they acted in the wake of 9/11, whereas “read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, [the memoranda] appear graphic and disturbing.” Blair’s name echoes Orwell’s actual name, Eric Blair; his words remind one of 1984: “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”

Then Orwell visited us a third time. This time the message came straight from Miniluv, whose never-resting eye keeps watch over every enemy of the state, foreign or domestic, real or, far more often, the creation of paranoid delusion combined with political convenience. Eric Lichtblau and James Risen of the New York Times report:

The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews. Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

...Indeed, we learn that Miniluv even attempted to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant or any form of special authorization because Miniluv was convinced that the congressman was communicating with a person they distrust.

Miniluv’s voracious appetite is chronicled a bit further in a follow-up piece yesterday from Lichtblau and Risen in which we learn that it is on the verge of perfecting its ability to “collect and analyze every e-mail message, text message, and Google search” you’ve ever performed. But this is the least of it. They know your favorite pizza toppings, the medications you use, the color of your socks, the size of your t-shirt, the books you thought about buying on Amazon.com, and the movies your ordered from Netflix—as well as the ones you paused over, thinking to order. They will use all of this information to protect you. Unless, of course, some day you find yourself invited to Room 101.

I especially agree with Horton's conclusions:

Can anyone be surprised to learn that the new guardians of these vast and unchecked powers, while piously promising to reform and stop breaking the law, also feel that there is no really compelling reason to enforce the law–in the process breaking the oaths they just took a few weeks ago to uphold that very law? Is it not indeed amazing that these claims can be made on the public stage without being greeted with the peals of derision they deserve? Now comes the test of our democracy–will we close the door and walk away, or demand to know what’s been done in our name and hold those who guided any abuses to account for their misconduct? President Obama tells us there’s nothing to see here, just move along. But this will be a test of whether we have a citizenry worthy of that name.

Third Time Disappointed

Today Obama released the torture memos. In announcing their release, President Obama stated, in part

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release....

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

Torture will never be a "thing of our past" until there are consequences. He says our 'national greatness is embedded the America's ability to right its course . . . ' but the precedence is there. Torture can be used.

The memos make me physically sick. The intent issue is especially specious. Why else would someone want to engage in these activities besides to inflict pain so that the person will be motivated to talk? The lawyers seem to say since the end game or OBJECT is not to inflict pain but instead to gain intelligence, then you're covered and it's not torture since you have to have intent to inflict pain.

To follow that logic -- I want to be rich. That's my intent. So it's not bank robbery if I get the money from the bank -- I don't intend to rob them. I just want to be rich.

It is also offensive to have lawyers making determinations as to the level of sever pain or suffering. It is disgusting!

I am extremely disappointed in Obama for not holding these disgusting individuals accountable for this offense to all citizens. They tortured in our name and I am ashamed.

UPDATED 4-17-09

As usual Andrew Sullivan is eloquent on this topic. I especially like his hopeful conclusion:

Mukasey and Hayden complain that the president has tied the hands of future presidents in this. Yes, he has. What Obama understands is that what is truly vital is that this dark and shameful period not become a workable precedent. It must be repudiated at the very heart of the American political system, and removed like the cancer it is.

I hope Andrew is right and Obama is able to allow us to repudiate it even if it's without anyone being hels responsible or consequences. I fear that you need the enforcement or another president in the future will allow this to occur again.

Obama Continues Attack on Habeas-Corpus

Obama is continuing Bush's attach on our Constitution. This is so disappointing.

From the New York Times:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

Where is the change and when will we see it?

I'm Disappointed in Obama

From credoaction.com:

In the heat of the presidential campaign, then Sen. Barack Obama cast his lot with major telecommunications companies -- and AT&T specifically -- by voting to give big telecom retroactive immunity for allegedly helping the White House illegally spy on Americans. It was one of the most disappointing moments of the campaign.

However, he did forcefully oppose the Bush administration's use of the "state secrets" privilege to get cases thrown out of civil court. According to the Obama/Biden campaign web site:

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

But now, to the dismay of civil liberties groups, President Obama is using the "state secrets" defense to make the case that the United States government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying and can never be sued for surveillance that might violate federal privacy statutes.

That's what happened on April 2, when President Obama's lawyers invoked Bush's radical theory of executive power to argue for the dismissal of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans.

Of course, the government should be able to argue before a court that the public release of some information would unacceptably damage national security. But many courts have handled national security information with appropriate safeguards, and the mere assertion of "state secrets" without persuading a judge with evidence is just plain wrong.

When it comes to the abuse of "state secrets" defense, we agree with candidate Obama, not President Obama. If EFF's case against the NSA is dismissed, we may never know the extent of the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans.

Obama isn't going to change things like I hoped. This is really disappointing. I thought he'd at least stand up for the Constitution.

Chief Justice Robert's Messing the Oath

Most of the talking heads when commenting about the Chief Justice Roberts’s verbal stumble while administering the Presidential oath, focus on the adverb “faithfully.” Adverbs can be placed almost anywhere in the sentence and in most cases will not change the meaning.

On the other hand, not one of the pundits I've seen have talked about Robert's changing of “of” to “to” in the phrase 'President of the United States'. That slip is a much bigger deal. It changes the meaning and diminishes the Presidency.

Here's the way the Constitution says it should be administered:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

But this is the transcript:

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack...
ROBERTS: ... do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ... that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ... that I will execute...
ROBERTS: ... faithfully the office of president of the United States...
OBAMA: ... the office of president of the United States faithfully...
ROBERTS: ... and will to the best of my ability...
OBAMA: ... and will to the best of my ability...
ROBERTS: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.

The phrase President of the United States is not open to variation. In what context would we ever say “President to the United States?”

One can speak of “an ambassador to the United States” or “an ambassador of the United States.”

In the first instance, to makes it clear that the ambassador belongs somewhere else. He may be attached to the United States, but it’s as an outsider.

In the second instance, the of makes it clear that the ambassador is carrying on the work of the United States.

So why would Chief Justice Roberts come up with the unprecedented “President to the United States” while delivering the oath of office?

Freudian slip maybe?

Harry Reid Should Shut Up

From Politico:

The Majority Leader thinks former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens shouldn't face jail time for his seven-count federal conviction last year, telling our Manu Raju, who was also in the room, "My personal feeling, you guys, I don't know what good that [would do]... He was a real war hero too, you know. He's been punished enough."

Members of Congress, he added, had long been used to not disclosing gifts until the rules had been tightened. And he said the 85-year-old Stevens simply did not adapt to those changing rules.

"It's a different world we live in, and Stevens did not understand that," Reid said.

What kind of entitled class are these Senators? Harry Reid obviously has no respect for the laws. I guess laws and ethics are only for us little people not for those privileged few who live in the ivory tower of the Senate. Shut up, Harry. You are an embarrassment.

Rep. Brian Baird (WA03) -- EUCK!

The campaign committee for Congressman Brian Baird e-mailed me with a request for a contribution to his campaign.

HA!

Here's my response:

I was extremely disappointed in your vote this week on FISA. You are not fulfilling your oath to protect the Constitution. So in the future, please don't request campaign contributions from me -- you don't work for me. Get your campaign money from AT&T and the other telecoms you decided to protect instead -- you obviously work for them.

And I sent his primary challenger some money. Cheryl Crist is struggling in her campaign but I'd prefer her to have my bucks than Blue Dog Baird. If you want to join me in supporting a worthy progressive Democrat -- go to her Act Blue page.

My Congressman Enables Bush's FISA Immunity

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Congressmen Baird and Smith both ignored this Amendment and voted this morning to pass the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The FISA Amendments Act provide legal immunity to telecommunications companies who helped the federal government with a warrantless surveillance program during the Bush administration, which gathered information about the phone records of American citizens.

According to a May 11, 2006 report by USA Today, "The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime." ... 60 Minutes did a segment on Mark Klein, a veteran telecommunications technician and computer network associate at AT&T, who described a secret room he says the National Security Agency had set up on the sixth floor of an AT&T building in downtown San Francisco. Klein said his employer was colluding with the federal government to siphon a copy of billions of domestic Internet communications into that secret room, every second of every day -- and all without a warrant.

Proponents of the surveillance program say it is in response to the attacks on 9/11, they only eavesdrop on terrorists, and it’s necessary to combat terrorism. However, the Washington Post reported on Oct. 13, 2007 that former Qwest executive Joseph Nacchio said in court papers, "the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

Qwest is the one telecommunications company who reportedly refused to cooperate with the NSA on the grounds they believed doing so would have been illegal.

Thanks to Congressmen Baird and Smith we will never have a private conversation again. They will claim that “new” exclusivity provisions in FISA mean no president will ever be able to ignore the established surveillance laws ever again. But these “new” provisions do not really differ from the old "exclusivity" provision of the old FISA law that was on the books when George W. Bush instituted his illegal programs:

[P]rocedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

Bush’s lawyers -- people like John Yoo -- said Bush that the president had the "inherent power" to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of "national security." So Bush did it -- despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

I think we now can see why they have both been against the impeachment of George Bush – they have been complicit by enabling and covering up Bush’s crimes and that might come to light if there was a real impeachment inquiry.

Shame on you Congressmen!

Torture

George Bush has made me sick a lot over many of his actions but there is nothing he's done that has upset me more than his ordering torture in my name. I am ashamed, mad, scared. Another blog set out the basic attempts to justify the use of torture are:

1. The Euphemism Gambit. The Torture Apologist has no better friend than the scare quote. Take any outrage against human dignity, stick it in scare quotes, and voila! You've suddenly announced that both the victim and the protestor against the outrage are faintly ridiculous bed-wetters we can all snicker at. So you write, for instance, "Some Defeatocrats who care more about terrorists than about the 3000 people we lost on 9/11 whine that waterboarding is "torture", but I think blah blah blah, etc." Also useful to the Euphemist is the Orwellian multi-syllabic word. Don't call it "strappado" or "the cold cell". That makes people think of the Spanish Inquisition or the terrifying basement of Stalin's Lubyanka. Call it "enhanced interrogation" (NOT "Verschärfte Vernehmung" even thought that means "enhanced interrogation"). That upbeat yet bland phrase makes people think "Our interrogation scientists in their clean white lab coats are making wonderful breakthroughs in the science of Keeping Us Safe!"

Case in point: Michelle Malkin

2. The "Appeal to the Extremely Hypothetical Extreme Situation" gambit (the Ticking Time Bomb, for instance).

Case in point: Alan Dershowitz

3. The "Pretend It's Impossible to Ever Know What Torture Is" gambit. This is done by saying, "Oh. I oppose torture, but could you please define for me *precisely* what torture is in a way that can never ever ever create the slightest semantic confusion in a forum of 2000 internet readers who are bound and determined to look for loopholes? I promise I am totally sincere!" In short, you pretend to be baffled about how to define torture for ever, reject all attempted definitions, refuse to offer your own, and then shrug that, much as you'd like to obey the Church, there's simply no way to know what torture is, so it's best to just maintain the status quo (which just happens to be that the Bush Administration can order the torture of anybody it deems an illegal combatant).

Perfect example: Michael Mukasey and here's a good YouTube
...

5. The "Human Rights are Only for *Legally Recognized* Human Beings" feint. This is a favorite for people who fancy themselves masters of international law. The argument is basically the same as Catholics for a Free Choice. Point to some loophole in human law and use it to trump the law of God. The Catholics for a Free Choice person says "I can't see where a fetus is a human being in the image and likeness of God in US law, so let's kill it!" The torture advocate says, "I can't see where an illegal combatant is a human being in the image and likeness of God in international *or* US law, so let's torture it!"

As defined by George Bush himself. Cheney and Rumsfeld also concur.

6. The "We Can Kill People in Wartime, So Why Can't We Torture Them Too?" maneuver. The key is to will yourself to be too stupid to recognize the difference between shooting somebody in combat and mowing helpless prisoners down with a machine gun. Once an enemy becomes a prisoner, you can't shoot him anymore because he possesses certain rights as a human being in the image of God. For the same reason, you can't torture him.

Tom Stephens wrote extensively about this

7. The "These Bastards Deserve Whatever They Get!" shout. While cathartic, what this line of emoting fails to attend to is that we have now departed the last shred of sanity in justifying torture and made clear that the purpose of torture is not "gathering intelligence" (it is notoriously bad for that) but working out our vengeance against and hatred of the enemy. That is one of the reasons the Church opposes it: it degrades us. The victim suffers the pains of this life, but we endanger our own souls with the everlasting pains of hell. In addition, it overlooks the fact that some of the people we have tortured did not, in fact, "deserve" it. 80% of the victims at Abu Ghraib had not been charged with anything. Maher Arar: perfectly innocent. Abdallah Higazy: innocent. Dilawar: innocent. So the result is very often that you lose your soul and get *nothing* in return. Or else you get bad intel like the "confessions" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that sent us off on wild goose chases (confessions extracted after threatening to torture his *children*, by the way).

We saw Mitt Romney support this during the Republican YouTube debate
...

10. Also popular is the "So you're saying we should give the terrorists a kiss and a glass of warm milk and tuck them in at night!" This is a favorite straw man approach from people suffering from the bipolar notion that the only alternative to war crimes is delusional happy face pollyanna unreality. Such people forget that this is not the first war we've ever fought and that we do have a long experience of treating prisoners humanely without torturing them.

We know this because Cheney told us that the detainees are being treated better than they would be by any other government on the face of the earth.

11. This amnesia also accounts for another favorite rhetorical trope: The "9/11 Changed Everything" cry of Generation Narcissus. Being a Generation that fancies itself the summit of all human history, it is a generation that tends to talk as Never Before Have We Faced Such Evil. Therefore, war crimes are okay because it not like we're fighting pantywaists like Nazis and Communists. We are the grand exception to the general rule against war crimes because our enemies are uniquely, extra-special super-duper evil. Ours is a high and lonely destiny, etc. blah blah.

Again from VP Cheney
...

I'm sick of this. We have GOT to stop torturing and atone!

Brothers Foist Staged Election

Bush, when questionned about Fidel Castro's retirement, said that he expects the Cubans to hold free and fair elections --- "and I mean free and fair, not those staged elections the Castro brothers try to foist off on the people."

I had to do a Scooby-Doo "Huh?!" and almost caused whiplash on myself.

I want to ask him "You mean an election like the one you and your brother Jeb foisted off on us in Florida in 2000?"

Of course I have to do that in my fantasy life because no journalist will ask the question.

We Are Through the Looking Glass . .

. . . and we are Alice (the pawn).

It is shocking to have Harry Reid present this version of the FISA bill today (2 months prior to it's expiring -- why the hurry, Harry??) and we have Democrats debating Democrats. We should for now on refer this as a 'Jabberwocky' -- or debating yourself as in a mirror. The Republicans (the crows) must all be wetting themselves laughing at us. Feinstein is an embarrassment defending retroactive immunity -- she says it should be up to a court to decide if the wiretraps were legal BUT she wants immunity for the phone companies -- it's Humpty Dumpty discussing semantics and pragmatics:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
"They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Meanwhile the Republicans are sitting on the sideline, controlling the strings, laughing at us but ready to do a "booga, booga" and the spineless Democrats are falling for it AGAIN!

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.

GAWED! Can't we throw ALL these bums out! The Democrats are woosies! What a mess.


UPDATE: 12-18-07

We had a temporary success. Harry Reid decided to pull the bill off the floor. Hurrah for Kennedy, Dodd, Feingold, Boxer and the others who spoke passionately to get rid of retroactive immunity and stand up for the Constitution but where were the others? Expect Reid to sneak it back once the political pressure lessens or we get distracted by another white woman in trouble or some other non-sense. Remember the Dudai Port sale deal? When we're not paying attention it will slip by.

Yep. It's the Blogger's Fault

Helen Thomas asked NBC White House correspondent David Gregory what was responsible for the polarization, Gregory answered:

I think it’s because of the internet largely. The polarized atmosphere in the internet and blogs and whatnot have been a major contributor to that.

Richard Powers has a great response to Gregory:

Yes, of course, it was the bloggers who polarized the US body politic.

The bloggers spent $50 million plus on Ken Starr's rogue investigation, which was coordinated with the work of the privately funded, reich-wing "Arkansas Project."

The bloggers shackled Susan McDougal and sent her to jail.

The bloggers impeached a popular President at a time of peace and economic prosperity over testimony in a civil suit involving sexual intercourse.

The bloggers issued that voluminous report on Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, and posted it on the WWW.

The bloggers ignored accurate US intelligence on Al Qaeda pre-9/11, leading to the slaughter of thousands of innocents at the WTC, and the bloggers distorted accurate US intelligence on Iraq post-9/11, leading to the deaths of thousands of US military personnel, and the maiming of tens of thousands more.

The bloggers swift-boated John Kerry in 2004, morphed Max Cleland's face into Osama bin Laden's in 2002 TV ads, and smeared John McCain in South Carolina in 2000.

The bloggers gutted the surplus, and took the leash of the federal deficit.

In 2000, the bloggers stopped the counting of the ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, and installed the man who lost, as the counting, finished later by researchers, would confirm.

In 2004, the bloggers made sure there weren't enough voting machines in the poorest and blackest districts of Ohio.

The bloggers caged voters. The bloggers purged voters from the rolls.

The bloggers intimidated voters.

The bloggers jammed the phones of the Democratic Party on election day 2002 in New Hampshire.

Yes, it was the bloggers who wasted seven years the planet could not afford to waste clinging to denial and disinformation about the nature, causes and implications of global warming.

The bloggers prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on false charges.

The bloggers fired eight US Attorneys for pursuing Bush-Cheney associates and not pursuing Bush-Cheney adversaries. The bloggers made Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights optional.

The bloggers established a Gulag system, instituted torture and rendition, and started disappearing people. The bloggers stayed on vacation while New Orleans drowned.

The bloggers blocked federal funding for stem cell research.

The bloggers tried to make certain that the brain-dead Terri Schiavo would be kept on a feeding tube indefinitely.

The bloggers betrayed US secret agent Valerie Plame, and then made certain that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby -- the man who was convicted of obstructing Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation -- would not spend a single day in prison.

Yes, of course, the bloggers have polarized us all.

The sad fact is that if the David Gregorys of the US mainstream news media had fulfilled their special responsibilities as the "fourth estate," which are articulated in both the US Constitution and the writings of the Founders, most us who have served as citizen journalists and commentators would never have gone into blogging.

Blogging is really simply the pamphleteering of our age.

If Tom Paine were alive today, he would, of course, be a blogger.

But this time there is no need for a revolution, only for the restoration of the democratic institutions that were won in the revolution, including a press free of both governments and corporations.

In the 1960s and 1970s, we only need one I.F. Stone; because, in large part, the US mainstream news media still did its job, at least on some stories concerning egregious wrongs, e.g., Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. But now, after decades of media consolidation, we need an Internet-based Information Rebellion, and that is what we have delivered.

What David Gregory is really saying is that he and those who write his checks are scared of the future. And they should be. They are on the wrong side of the digital barricades, and the wrong side of US history.