Via Crooks and Liars, Keith Olbermann
interviews
Mike German, former FBI agent, now ACLU security expert, about a program in which DHS has enlisted the aid of
FDNY... yes, the Fire Department... to be on the lookout for questionable material in people's homes, to take
note of people who express "hatred" of or "discontent" with the U.S. ... and to report it back to the government.
Note that firefighters do not need a warrant to enter someone's home or business, not only during a fire
but also for purposes of fire inspection.
This is completely unacceptable to me, probably to you, and surely to many firefighters. If firefighters
decline to participate, possibly by simply not finding and reporting anything, what's next? Will there be a
"quota" system compelling firefighters to find material evidencing "hatred" or "discontent" in a certain
number of homes or businesses?
I don't know whether to quote Orwell or Bradbury, but I will say this: an official of any sort who has
no Fourth-Amendment-compliant warrant will NOT search my home and evaluate my personal library. No, I'll
save them the trouble: You're goddamned right I experience "discontent" with authoritarian measures, and
unrestrained "hatred" of anticonstitutional governmental thuggery. Put that in your... ah, never mind.
Ah, yes. Every creature enjoys the feeling one has after a satisfying meal. In this case, if you asked Samantha
and Tabitha, they would have told you that Stella and I had one, but that we were still holding out on the
felines. Well, it's true that they don't generally get the same food we do... but every creature in this
picture has just had a large, satisfying meal, and don't believe the cats if they tell you otherwise:
In keeping with my late mother's injunction that I should not speak ill of the dead, I offer for the occasion
perhaps my shortest doggerel ever:
Hyde
Died.
It is impossible for me to find anything to admire in this man's congressional career, so I won't fake it.
Nonetheless, my heart goes out to his surviving children and grandchildren.
Here
is an AP obituary.
As a summary of this man's approach to American government, and again in keeping with Mom's injunction, I offer
not my words but Rep. Hyde's own words (taken from
this wiki)
on the Constitution's statement that Congress has the power to declare war:
There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of
them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to
death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it
isn’t done anymore.
WASHINGTON - A lawsuit against Blackwater Worldwide alleges widespread use of steroids and other drugs by the
contractor’s workers in Iraq and accuses its bodyguards of abandoning their post shortly before taking part in a
shooting in Baghdad that killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
Filed this week in U.S. District Court in Washington, the complaint accuses North Carolina-based Blackwater of
failing to give drug tests to its guards in Baghdad — even though an estimated one in four of them was using
"judgment-altering substances."
The civil suit is based primarily on information provided by current and former Blackwater employees, according
to one of the lawyers representing families of Iraqi civilians killed in the Sept. 16 shooting in Baghdad’s
Nisoor Square.
...
"Judgment-altering substances..." and you probably didn't know they had any judgment to be altered.
... lest ye be thrown in the tank along with 45 other people whose cell phones were not the one that
rang
in Judge Robert M. Restaino's court:
...
Yesterday, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended the removal of a judge in Niagara Falls City
Court who had what the commission’s chairman called “two hours of inexplicable madness” when a cellphone rang in
his courtroom.
On the morning of March 11, 2005, the judge, Robert M. Restaino, was presiding over a slate of domestic-violence
cases when he heard a phone ring. According to the commission’s report, he told the roughly 70 people in the
courtroom that “every single person is going to jail in this courtroom” unless the phone was turned over.
...
The judge proceeded to attempt exactly that result: the jailing of everyone in the room.
I was once on a jury panel when another potential juror's phone rang during voir dire. The judge
went ballistic. I don't mean he reprimanded the woman; that would have been understandable. No, the judge
completely lost it. This is back in the day when cell phones were about the size of battleships and had no
"silent" or "meeting" setting. The woman carried the cell phone because her husband was in surgery and his
survival was uncertain. Yes, of course, I understand there are other ways she might have handled the situation.
But when the judge exploded at her, more people than just the offending juror were affected. Judges who cannot
handle such situations without gross breaches of judicial decorum should step down.
Thanks to David Kurtz of TPM
for seeking and obtaining statements on the matter from several Democratic candidates.
Actually,
Obama
was a bit squishy in his opposition, but seems to have clarified and
firmed up
his position.
Chris Dodd,
Hillary Clinton
and
John Edwards
are now on record, clearly opposing permanent bases.
Good... we need a bit of consensus sanity around here. There's certainly none to be had from the
White House.
Dennis Kucinich has announced his first pick for running mate, and it is (dramatic pause…..):
Call it the liberal-libertarian ticket, where left meets right and Democrat Dennis Kucinich picks Republican Ron Paul to be his vice president.
Kucinich, the Cleveland congressman running in a longshot bid to become president, suggested it himself today.
“I’m thinking about Ron Paul” as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together “to balance the energies in this country,” Kucinich said.
Here is a quick segment MSNBC did on the news of this hot ticket.
(Click through, above, to Crooks and Liars to view the news clip.)
If this is for real, that does it for me: I cannot accept any ticket with Ron Paul on it. And to think I almost
endorsed Kucinich outright.
I've watched Ron Paul a couple of decades longer than most of my non-Texan readers. He's a nutjob... not a
conventional right-wing neocon fascist nutjob, no, nothing so simple... an economic nutjob who has delusions
difficult even to present, let alone explain. Forget it.
As to Kucinich's announcement, he needs to retract this bit of insanity promptly. Yes, of course: I am very
disappointed.
UPDATE 11/28:hipparchia
points us to a
post by Sara of Orcinus
that explains the perils of Paul better than I ever could. The bottom line is the same: he's a scary guy.
White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 11:12AM
So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House
and the Maliki government have
released a joint declaration
of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation."
Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a
morning teleconference.
...
And I'll bet you were naive enough to think that even a legitimate president could only conclude a treaty with
the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate. Think again. For the Bushists, that old Constitution is so "quaint" that
they don't have to pay any attention to it.
(Forgive my hasty departure, but I have to go to the dentist now. There hasn't been enough pain in my day
already.)
looseheadprop of Firedoglake
explains what is publicly known about these electronic surveillance programs, and wonders which of them could
be "the program the President has confirmed," as Gonzo repeatedly testified.
Forget beef. (Please.) Impeachment is on the table. Let's tuck in, says
Linda Boyd
in her op-ed in the Seattle PI:
...
Impeachment is squarely on the table, and momentum is building. A year ago, almost no elected official breathed
the word impeachment. Now impeachment has hit the House floor, and our electeds have gone on record. Millions of
Americans are demanding an end to executive abuse of power.
After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and
occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government
and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law.
Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are
free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the
Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing.
Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney. "Never in
our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it,"
writes local author Richard Behan.
...
Ms. Boyd provides an excellent list summarizing the reasons Rep. Kucinich offers for impeaching the veep, as
well as others clearly available to those drafting the resolution:
purposely manipulating intelligence to fabricate a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an attack on Iraq;
deceiving Congress about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida;
threatening aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States.
These violations of the Constitution and international treaty are just the tip of the iceberg. More articles of impeachment can be added at any time, and ample evidence to convict is on the public record. Representatives need to introduce articles regarding:
illegal war, in violation of both international treaty and the Constitution;
widespread domestic wiretapping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony. Bush already has admitted to this;
condoning torture in violation of federal laws and international treaties;
rescinding habeas corpus, the cornerstone of Western law since the Magna Carta;
obstruction of justice regarding U.S. attorney firings;
subversion of the Constitution, abuse of signing statements and rescinding habeas corpus.
Yes, I agree: this barely begins the true list of crimes against our Constitution that the Bushists have
committed and continue to commit. But it is most certainly enough to initiate an impeachment investigation
against at least Cheney, inevitably leading to the same against Bush.
I've heard replies of the nature, "Why bother? their terms are almost over." Oh, come on. This should be
obvious to any high school graduates who passed their American government classes: If Bush and Cheney are not
impeached for their "unitary" government, implemented in blatant violation of every principle established in our
Constitution of checks and balances among the branches, any future president may use the precedent to do the
same: namely, to act directly in spite of Congress and the courts. If Bush and (especially) Cheney are not
challenged now, on constitutional grounds, we can reasonably expect our government to mutate into
de facto Executive branch rule, with no checks and balances.
This attempt by the Bushist government to implement exclusively Executive rule is not unprecedented in history...
Nixon comes to mind... but it is not American in any meaningful sense of the term. We can impeach Cheney and
Bush... or we can expect Hillary (or whoever... Dog forbid a GOP president) to exercise the powers of a "unitary
Executive" as outlined by the execrable John Yoo. I hope you plan, as do I, to vote for the Democratic nominee
in the 2008 presidential race. But whoever you vote for in 2008, we have a task to accomplish first: we must
put an end to the notion of the "unitary Executive." It is nothing but a monarchy... an unconstitutional
monarchy... under another name.
If you don't remember what the Court of Star Chamber was, please read
Scott Horton's article
in Harper's. Indeed, please read it even if you do know... because Bush is attempting to establish a new Star
Chamber.
Descriptions of the original Star Chamber in my history classes early in my school experience terrified me. It
was not at all difficult to see where our Founders got their notions for our Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments,
as well as this provision of Article III Section 3: "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Open court... now there's a notion the Bushists are not fond of. It is difficult to obtain purely political
convictions in open court. And make no mistake, that's what the Bushists are about: the manifestly political use
of the judicial system. You don't believe that? Consider a few passages from Horton's article:
When the Founding Fathers looked for a model that reflected the abuses they objected to—in short what they
intended to forbid by their new Constitution and Bill of Rights—they turned to an English institution, the Court
of Star Chamber. It was a state security court with ancient roots which flourished under the Tudor and Stuart
monarchs. The Star Chamber court operated in secrecy, was not bothered by the picky evidentiary rules that
emerged in other courts, and did not believe that those appearing before it on state security charges had many
rights—certainly not the right to counsel, nor even the right to conduct a defense.
...
That sounds familiar, doesn't it. More:
Although scholars have been complimentary of the Star Chamber for its work on commercial matters, when politics
was at issue, we see that it acted with little independence from the monarch. It was a tool for lashing the
political opposition. And freethinkers were its particular victims. ... In
the end, the Court of Star Chamber stood as an image for the tyrannical excesses of King Charles. And the
American colonists, being overwhelmingly Roundheads, were among the loudest voices raised in opposition.
The Bush Administration is slowly introducing the Court of Star Chamber to the process of American justice. We
see its elements everywhere. In the farcical Combat Status Review Tribunals created in Guantánamo, now
repeatedly denounced even by judges serving on them as a travesty. In the Military Commissions, crafted in
conscious avoidance of the standards both of American military and civilian justice. And in the steady press to
lower the standards of our federal courts to introduce practices that continually tip the scales of justice in
favor of prosecutors. Reports have begun to circulate that the Administration has put together a group of
scholars headed by a right-wing activist judge to craft legislation to introduce a new court of Star Chamber,
perhaps to be floated in the coming year. As we see in the public pronouncements of the Bush Administration,
accusations leveled at detainees in the war on terror are leveled for political effect, and often to parallel
partisan political campaigns. ...
This simply must not be allowed to happen. It must be stopped, pure and simple. Whatever it takes... whatever it
takes... to prevent the institution of a Star Chamber in our government, it must be done. It is my hope, though
not my confident hope, that the Democratic Party will block this atrocity against democracy. If they do not...
well, we'll discuss that if it happens.
No, not "bookstore," though we certainly went to one of those today (Half Price Books)... "bookscore." That's
a suitable exclamation when one finds a book s/he didn't even know was available, but which is perfectly suited
to one's taste. Today, in my case, the bookscore is Margaret Truman's Murder on K Street, apparently the
latest in Truman's Capital Crimes series. Yes, Annabel and Mac are in this one, as well as some characters I
don't recognize. The holidays just got brighter for me. See the LibraryThing links in the right sidebar for an
Amazon link to this book.
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. We had planned to meet earlier this week with Stella's father and his wife
(as noted before, Stella's mother passed away long ago), but her father is likely to be just barely home from
the hospital tomorrow, and the weather may be inclement, so we will probably celebrate either at home or at
some nearby eatery. Last year's Tofurky™ was really good, but neither of us has the energy to prepare it
for just the two of us. Believe me, we are thankful we still have plenty of food, a roof over our heads, our
family not far from us, and no gunfire in the street (well, most of the time). Our thoughts go out to people who
lack any of those necessary things; may they be blessed in the coming year. And I am thankful for a group of
regular readers who are intelligent, articulate and not the least bit shy. Thank you. Thank you.
Pentagon Demands Wounded Soldier Return Re-enlistment Bonus
By Spencer Ackerman - November 20, 2007, 4:42PM
Just in time for the holidays, there's a special place in Hell just waiting to be filled by some as-yet-unknown
Pentagon bureaucrat. Apparently, thousands of wounded soldiers who served in Iraq are being
asked to return
part of their enlistment bonuses -- because their injuries prevented them from completing their tours....
No Bushist or neocon wants to spend money on... or be associated with... the "losers" who were injured badly
enough to be unable to complete their tours. Except... those are the folks who actually did the fighting, wno
put their bodies on the line, who sacrificed in ways most of us can only imagine. One may deplore the entire
concept and realization of preemptive war, as I do... but one cannot legitimately deny the courage of those who
fought and died, or (in some ways worse) were seriously injured. Demanding that they return their reenlistment
bonuses is like... well, make up your own simile. It's like allowing returning veterans to waste
away homeless on the streets of the cities. It's like allowing the V.A. hospitals to deteriorate, and the care
they are funded to provide to decline. It's like treating people the way one treats toilet tissue.
We ask a great deal of our armed forces. The way things look now, despite the hardships already inflicted on
the troops, despite the illegitimacy of the war with which they have been tasked, we, or at least the Bushists,
are about to ask still more of them... while depriving them of legitimate income. At a minimum, America must not
play games with the legitimate compensation of service members.
Mr. Bush, you can put a stop to this. Do we, the most determined and regular of American voters, have to tell
you twice to do so? Our memories are long, and yes, we will respond to your actions with votes detrimental to
your successors. I know you can't count very well, but you can count on that. We will not forget what you and
your congressional caucus do to our overstressed troops. And you and your GOP will... not may, but will...
suffer politically for your misdeeds.
This is Blumenthal's last column for Salon presumably until after the election, as he
joins the Hillary Clinton campaign as a senior advisor. Blumenthal examines the obvious failures and the
startling and frightening successes of the Bush preznitcy. Here's a short sample:
...
In his waning year, Bush is pointedly indifferent to the predictable consequences of his collapse. According
to those who have met with him recently, he envisions himself as a noble idealist having made moral
decisions that will vindicate him generations from now.
Despite the obvious shortcomings of his policies, he has startlingly succeeded in reshaping the executive
into an unaccountable imperial presidency. And Bush's presidency is now accepted as the only acceptable
version for major Republican candidates who aspire to succeed him. All of them have pledged to extend its
arbitrary powers. Their embrace of the imperial presidency makes the 2008 election a turning point in
constitutional government.
Conason begins with the subhead, "The true story of policing in New York under Mayor Giuliani is less
flattering than he would have us believe." Some may find that an understatement. Conason then makes a
persuasive argument that the decrease in crime during Giuliani's terms as mayor is more likely explained
as part of a national phenomenon that included "San Diego, Seattle and Austin, Texas[]" among cities
that enjoyed a marked decrease in crime beginning in 1991. (Giulani became mayor in 1993.) But in addition
to Giuliani's fortune in riding a no-crime wave, he also enjoyed the benefit of his predecessor's action:
Many believe that one of the most important factors in New York's crime drop was the addition of thousands
of new officers to the NYPD -- a policy decision costing a billion dollars that was made by David Dinkins,
the predecessor whose mayoral record Giuliani often derides. While Giuliani kept hiring more cops, nearly
half of those added to the force during his first term were financed by a tax surcharge that Dinkins
demanded and won. But the city's first African-American mayor is usually blamed for a crime wave that rose
well before he took office and rarely wins any plaudits for his role in stemming the criminal tide.
It doesn't get any prettier for Rudy from that point. Read the whole "less flattering" article.
Note: I have some cat-healthcare-related program activity this Tuesday afternoon, and will not be posting until
late afternoon or early evening.
I love clever word-and-number plays like this. Be sure to read Lincoln's
Gettysburg Address
(choose your draft), of which this is the seven-score-and-fourth anniversary. You know you need the
inspiration; go do it.
If Kucinich is a weirdo nutcase, then America needs a lot of weirdo nutcases, yes, probably including one as
president. Eventually I'd like NASA to send people back to the Moon and onward to Mars. But we have some higher
priorities that demand the best minds among our scientists and technologists. Kucinich appears to understand
that. And NASA surely has in its vast organization some brilliant minds (no, I'm not being sarcastic; I've met
some of those people, and quite a few of them deserve to be called "brilliant") who could add a lot to the
efforts Kucinich advocates.
The
Progressive Populist Caucus,
which is the self-described "Democratic Wing of the Texas Democratic Party," offers
A Comprehensive Counter-Voter Suppression Program For HCDP
(HCDP is the
Harris County Democratic Party).
Discussed in this article are voter registration obstacles, purges and "suspense" files of voters already on
the rolls, deliberate Republican disinformation campaigns about voting locations and dates, voter
qualifications etc., as well as incorrect pollworker training leading to improper disqualification of voters.
Also addressed is the need for technically competent Democratic volunteers to study problems in our eSlate
voting equipment, counting station and recount irregularities, etc. If you are involved in the voting process in
Harris County or surrounding parts of Texas, you may want to contact the Harris County Democratic Party, which
is forming a committee and some task groups to assist in addressing all these voter suppression issues.
Note: the linked page is dated 11/1. I don't know how much has been done since that time. And at my age and in
my condition, I'm unlikely to participate directly. But many years ago I had an encounter with the problems of
our county voter registration system (we won that one), so I am here to tell you that this kind of thing
happens, and can make a difference in close elections. Everyone has a stake in honest elections with full
participation. Please volunteer if you're able.
Sidr was worse than I expected. "The Bangladesh Red Crescent Society, the Islamic equivalent of the Red
Cross, warned the toll could hit 10,000 once rescuers reach outlying islands." My heart goes out to the
families.
That probably should read, "Young Americans reading a lot fewer dead-tree publications." A report was
released by the National Endowment for the Arts, a source which will render the content immediately suspect
to the more fundie Republicans out there... after all, you need to read the Bible and nothing else, right?
The article lists some fairly alarming statistics, or at least they are alarming if the study is not falsely
equating "reading" with "reading books and newspapers printed on dead trees." These days, I read about half
as many books as I did 10 years ago, and rarely read a physical newspaper. That's not a sign of intellectual
rot on my part; reading books and (especially) newspapers has simply been displaced by reading web content.
(Sigh.) It is a rule of thumb that one should use the simplest technology that will do a job well
and reliably. As surely as the web does a better job of distributing news than most print newspapers, a
bound book is a less expensive, more reliable technology for distributing information with a longer useful
lifetime. There are probably niche applications for e-books, but I do not have a desire to own one.
CBS 60 Minutes and the Washington Post have shown that the technique known as "comparative bullet-lead
analysis," first used after President Kennedy's assassination, has been found to be "unreliable and
misleading," according to the National Academy of Sciences. The technique was used by the FBI to testify
against and frequently enough convict people of crimes until 2005, when the use of the test was
discontinued. But the FBI is still helping state prosecutors to preserve convictions obtained before that
time. There is some evidence that the FBI has known about the flaw in the method... apparently "false
matches based on a faulty statistical analysis of the elements contained in different lead samples" ... for
years, but has continued to refuse to allow retesting in the 2500 cases in which the technique was used to
obtain convictions, or even to release a list of the cases.
Accompany this with the Twilight Zone theme if you like:
At the end of October, Nobel Intent reported on a surprising astronomical event; periodic comet Holmes (17P)
brightened over one million-fold over the course of a single day. In mid-October, Comet Holmes was a
"nonentity" in between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars. Then, on the evening of October 24, backyard
astronomers the world over (well, in the Northern Hemisphere) saw a new "star" in the constellation Perseus.
At the time, no one was sure why this extreme brightening happened. Now, scientists have trained Hubble's
Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 on Holmes to attempt to shed—or more accurately receive—light on this new turn
of events.
This is about last night, from which I've only just now recovered. Stella and I heard a small jazz group at a
comparably small jazz venue, the club
Cézanne
in Houston's Montrose area. The room is very small, seating perhaps 50 around the stage area and in front of the
bar. It has wood surfaces more or less throughout, and a few Cézanne prints as practically its only
decorations. People come to listen to the music, not to drown it out with chatter; consequently, they STFU when
the music starts. (Please don't bring anyone here to chat them up. The regulars will not appreciate it.) In the
past few years, Cézanne has gone smoke-free, which makes it Stella-accessible and Steve-friendly. Cover
is low; drinks are pricey. Overall, it's a relatively cost-effective way to hear top quality live jazz in a very
civilized environment. And believe me, in an improvisational art such as jazz, live performance is so dynamic
that even the best studio recordings simply don't compare.
Last night we heard Stella's sax teacher Mark Holter (who also directs the big jazz band Catherine plays in at
HCC). Mark, playing mostly alto sax, with a bit of soprano sax, did a tribute to Cannonball Adderley and John
Coltrane, with (ahem) stellar locals Woody Witt (tenor sax), Joe LoCascio (piano), Tim Solook (drums), and
Brennan Nase (electric bass). The evening was very satisfying: each musician was a monster in his own right, and
even for a pickup job, the group had a very polished feel about it, as most of the performers have worked
together a lot in the past. All of these people have quality recordings on the market, and I've heard most of
them live before. Stella was thrilled; it was the first time she had heard her teacher in a commercial venue, in
his role as a star onstage rather than as a teacher. The only downside was one that is common to people who hear
such outstanding performances: we were wakeful for hours afterward. Sometimes it's worth it.
That's what the
L.A. Times
calls Nigersaurus taqueti, an approximately 110-million-year-old dinosaur discovered in the 1950s by
Philippe Taquet and recently CT-scanned to reveal a most amazing set of teeth:
...
Chicago researchers have identified the fossil of a 110- million-year-old dinosaur with a mouth like the
business end of a Hoover vacuum cleaner to feed its voracious appetite for grass, ferns and other low-lying
greenery.
The wide, flat mouth of the Nigersaurus taqueti was lined with as many as 500 tiny, sharp teeth that enabled the
animal to trim large areas of vegetation like a power lawn mower, paleontologist Paul Sereno of the University
of Chicago said at a Thursday news conference sponsored by the National Geographic Society.
A CT scan of the fossil skull showed as many as eight replacement teeth stacked up behind each cutting tooth.
With the stacking, worn-out teeth could be regularly replaced, Sereno said. "Among dinosaurs, Nigersaurus sets
the Guinness record for tooth replacement," he said.
...
The
New York Times
has more, including this quote from Dr. Paul C. Sereno of the University of Chicago:
...
“We have seen nothing like this dinosaur,” Dr. Sereno said. “It’s a puzzle that says, ‘Figure this out,’ and we
think it’s an extreme version of Diplodocus with the minimum amount of body structure it needed.”
...
Please read the rest of both articles for details... and don't neglect to watch the video at the L.A. Times.
Michael Crichton, please stand down: our world's prehistory is stranger than any fiction could depict it.
(Afterthought: I didn't post a thumbnail picture because I could not do justice to the pictures and videos at
the Times and the Times. Please go view those; they're quite amazing.)
OK, the actual question put to Hillary by a UNLV student brought in by panelist Campbell Whatshername was,
"Diamonds or pearls?" But the reference was unmistakable, and the intention was clear: to demean and trivialize
everyone involved, especially Senator Clinton.
I confess I watched only
TPM's video summary
of the alleged debate. Watching even a real debate is a marginal use of my time; watching what CNN calls a
"debate" demands drastic editing down, if I am to feel as if my time has not been completely wasted.
Some actual debate took place in this one, despite best efforts of the moderator and the panel to turn it
into a Hillary-bashing game of "gotcha." As far as I can tell, Hillary never got got. Say what you will about
her policy positions (and yes, I'm troubled by some of them), Senator Clinton is focused, disciplined, prepared
and on-message almost 100 percent of the time. For example, she responded to the inevitable "you're just a girl"
question simply, directly, powerfully and with a force that makes it unlikely any of the panelists will repeat
such questions soon: she is being attacked by other Democratic candidates not because she is a woman, but
because she is ahead. Yep. Now the panelists' motivations, those one may well question, but Sen. Clinton had
the good judgment to see that it's not about the panelists, it's about the candidates and the voters, and to
respond accordingly.
One quality any president needs is an ability to think and respond on his or her feet, with a clarity and
accuracy on which literally earthshaking matters may depend. Those are things our current preznit almost
completely lacks: without his handlers or a script, Bush is incompetent to say "Good morning."
My increasingly likely primary candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich... remember, my primary vote affects nothing...
has considerable agility in speaking. So, I now believe, does Sen. Clinton. (Her ability was on display last
night; unfortunately, Kucinich's was almost invisible. He got the least speaking time of any candidate, less
even than Senator Chris Dodd. See FDL's
Talk Clock.
Perhaps the moderators ran out of "short jokes" and UFO quips.)
So... did Hillary redeem herself? Will I be voting for her? Not in the primary, and not with a spring in my
step in the general election. But if she keeps up this level of performance, I think it is likely I'll be voting
for her, spring-in-step or not, a year from now. I don't have a crystal ball, and things may change, but I think
we all may as well get used to the idea.
Oh, and... you panelists? Find another line of work. You are not journalists. You are not even entertaining
show people. I have seldom been so embarrassed in behalf of anyone on live TV as I was for you. Give it up.
UPDATE:CNN pressed the UNLV student
to go with the "diamonds or pearls" question. She had several questions prepared, and wanted to ask one about
the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository, which she had studied in some depth. This is how CNN teaches our youth
about our government and our media.
"Youth these days... pfffh! I never did anything like that when I was a kit!"
Samantha
(image right):
"Let's see what happens if I stick my head through this opening..."
(Note to anyone who is not a regular visitor: notwithstanding the TV characters of the same names, this Tabitha
is considerably older than this Samantha.)
Click any permalink below to go to the original article on a previous page.
Click a comment link below to add a comment to the original article.
Your comment will be noticed, by the YDD at least:
HaloScan has a page allowing me to view recent comments, no matter which post they refer to.
Marking Up RESTORE - UPDATED
UPDATE: Though there seems to be some confusion, it looks as if Senate Judiciary
has reported the bill out WITHOUT the retroactive telecom immunity provision.
Christy Hardin Smith
points to a very short
Wired news article
as the source of this information. While this doesn't mean that an immunity provision won't be reintroduced on
the Senate floor, it certainly is good news if in fact it's absent in the version reported out of committee.
The House version, without an immunity provision, is likely to be voted on and passed tonight. The venerable
Rep. Rush Holt speaks eloquently
against telecom immunity. (Note: you'll have to use Internet Explorer to view the video. It isn't merely wired
to Windows Media Player; it requires an ActiveX "shim" component from Microsoft... which can be run only in IE.
I don't have to tell you what I think of that.)
UPDATE 2 (about 17:15 CT):
Glenn Greenwald
has also been following the proceedings closely, and echoes in his
Update IX
that there is great confusion over whether the bill is being reported out without the immunity (amnesty)
provision, citing Wired and ACLU as saying the bill reported out indeed lacks the provision. I'll try to post
more later as these sources gather more information to clarify matters.
UPDATE 3 (about 18:25 CT): Glenn Greenwald (see link above) has added a tenth
update. It appears the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out the bill with no recommendation either way on
amnesty... they neither stripped it nor advocated it, leaving it to a Senate floor fight. Stay tuned.
UPDATE 4 (about 19:50pm CT): Greenwald has a summary of what this result means
in his
Update XI.
As it is the clearest explanation I've seen, and is short compared to his entire post, I'm taking the liberty
of quoting the full update. Greenwald:
UPDATE XI: Having just spoken with several people involved in today's morass, I have a lot more clarity
about what happened. What I described in the prior update is accurate. Now, the next step will be focused on
Sen. Reid. He has virtually unlimited discretion to decide what version of the bill to introduce to the full
Senate. He could introduce the Intelligence Committee version (with amnesty), the Judiciary Committee version
(without amnesty), the House version, or he could just introduce something entirely new altogether, something
that gets negotiated between Rockefeller, Leahy and Reid.
Even under the best-case scenario -- namely, Reid introduces a bill which does not contain amnesty -- anyone can
(and certainly will) offer an amendment to include amnesty in the bill, and no matter what happens, it will be
necessary to find 41 Senators willing to support Dodd's filibuster to keep amnesty out of the bill. As
indicated, today is a good result in that it's preferable for the bill to have left the Committee today without
amnesty in it (especially given the 3 Democratic members' support for amnesty) -- and that's not nothing -- but
there is no grand "victory" in the sense that there is now some huge hurdle to having the Senate's bill include
amnesty.
I'm not sure I really expected or expect the retroactive amnesty (and presumably ongoing immunity) to be
removed from the final reconciled bill. Powerful forces are arrayed in favor of it... members of Congress and
the telecoms that own them. And of course Harry Reid can make or break anything he wants, irrespective (word
chosen advisedly) of anyone else's wishes or the good of the nation. Nonetheless, I feel pretty good about
today's course of events: the bill was reported out without any immunity provision in it; three Democrats
(Feinstein, Whitehouse and Kohl) revealed themselves as favoring the corp's over the rule of law; at least
some basis has been established for hope that the Senate is not wholly owned. This would have been easier if
Feingold's amendment had passed... what a courageous representative (in the best sense of the word) he has been
in this matter. And the end result may not be what we hope. But all in all, this markup ended better than I
had expected.
The laugh line of the day, for me at least, comes from the
ACLU:
"... the ACLU applauds the Committee for not letting the bells off the hook." Hmm...
Bells not off the hook:
Bells not off hook:
(Original post follows.)
Christy Hardin Smith
has such details as are available, and is updating from time to time. (The feed from the House is down for
some reason. Anyone surprised?) Go. Read. There is nothing more important to Americans than the outcome of this
debate. Much of the comment thread is worthwhile also.
Blogging will continue to be sparse here until... well, enough; I don't want to whine. I think there will be
cat blogging tomorrow; please check back.
Better the occasional faults of a government that lives
in a spirit of charity than the constant omissions of a
government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
- FDR
I belong to the Democratic Party wing of the Democratic Party.
- Paul Wellstone
I am a Democrat without prefix, without suffix, and without apology.
- Sam Rayburn
Not only am I posting this a day early, as you can tell, I'm desperate for a picture. You might even say I'm...
