Liberalism

Digby:

Contrary to christianism, with its unhealthy obsession on deadly punishment and diseased sex, liberalism is a world view that is life affirming. It posits that human beings have the ability and the will to construct a moral life, and a happy, prosperous one in a civil community regardless of our differences. That is what is meant, in a political context, by "all men are created equal." And liberalism has succeeded. It is in states where liberalism is in short supply that poverty reigns, and ignorance, and a great deal of crime.

Amen.

Balance of Power

1. Congress creates a law.
2. President secretly breaks the law.
3. Press reveals the illegal activity.

What happens next? You guessed it:

4. Congress changes the law to suit the President.

How about that for the checks and balances the Founding Fathers built in to our little democracy? Senator Roberts (R-Kan.) had this little gem of wisdom to say:

"Whether or not an investigation is the right thing to do at this particular time, I am not sure."

So, Bush breaks the law (or, as the American Bar Association puts it, he "does not have legal authority to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"), and Senator Roberts "is not sure" whether there should even be an investigation.

Forced Birth

Pat Robertson says:

Studies that I have read indicate that having babies is a sign of a faith in the future.

Maybe that's why the fundies want to force people to have babies.

Fascism Du Jour

From The Washington Times, no less:

Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.

Of course, only in the insanest district is an appearance by the thirty-nine percenter going to help with a candidates re-election prospects.

Bizarroworld

[Update: Turns out, Mr. Dipshit never actually graduated.]

I've been reading posts throughout the blogosphere about this article in the New York Times. But I still can't really believe what I'm reading. According to the article, there's this 24-year-old journalism grad dropout who works on the Bush/Cheney campaign and then gets an appointment at NASA in public relations. Then this arrogant little fuck decides to write a letter to some NASA scientists. Repeat: a 24 year-old journalism student dropout is writing this to some of the world's top scientists:

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

What in the holy living fuck has this country come to? This is a public employee, a smart-ass kid, a journalism student dropout, for Christ's sake, on the public dime, telling NASA scientists to shut the fuck up if they're not going to preach about God as part of their official duties.

Mister Dipshit continues:

"This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

So, in addition to massively misunderstanding what a theory is (working at NASA), he also believes that it's NASA's job to argue the religious side to the drooling knuckledraggers in this country who believe that the Big Bang is a science vs. religion argument instead of a well-tested scientific theory.

And there are people out there who will defend this dipshit. People who think it's okey-dokey for public employees to be out there preaching their religion (and requiring others to do so) as part of their official duties.

Party Above Country

On lunch break I just watched Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) question Attorney General Gonzales about the domestic spying scandal and I'm really just blown away by the extent to which an elected representative of the people will intentionally put in the Congressional record statements which he knows to be intentionally misleading, incomplete, half-truths.

For example, he talked about the Hamdi case, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the government's right to detain an American citizen without charges or a trial. See? What's a little eavesdropping when the military can just come into your home in a time of war and whisk you away without charges? Here's the catch: Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. It has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, there are no similarities. Sessions knows this, but puts the analogy in the Congressional record anyway.

In another example, he cited the Clinton Justice Department authorizing physical searches without a warrant as being part of the President's Constitutional authority. Only he doesn't mention that, at the time, that may have been true. And that subsequently the FISA law was amended to include physical searches. Apples to oranges, yet again. He was so off base on this one that the Attorney General himself had to point out the sequence of events to him.

How do people take these guys seriously? I mean they were so obviously intent on filling the record with misleading statements and half-truths that the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee refused to swear Gonzales in, even after he volunteered to do so.

Oh well. The people who voted for these assholes deserve what they get.

Freedom of Speech and the Gummit

One point of clarification on why it is unacceptable for the Joint Chiefs of Staff to write intimidating letters to the press: The people of this country have a freedom of speech based on the First Amendment to our Constitution; however, the government does not have this freedom. Think about that for a second.

This is why the righties (especially the fundamentalists) are so frustrated right now. They can't stand the judiciary because it keeps the rest of the gummit right by the law. They also can't stand the ACLU for the same reason: the ACLU fights government when its speech or actions overstep the boundaries that are set by the Constitution. To illustrate: The ACLU will never go after an individual for preaching Christianity; but they will go after the government if it tries to preach Christianity. People have more rights than the government, and isn't that how we all want it?

The fundies feel like they are entitled to more than our system of checks and balances allows. Luckily, our system has been designed to be robust enough to survive the attacks currently being launched against it in the form of radical lawmakers and partisan judicial nominees. Let's just hope the nation wakes up to what's really happening before the death of a thousand cuts.

Ah Yes, the Cartoons.

So rioting mobs are burning down embassies and military leaders are writing letters over cartoons. Not the same cartoon, mind you, but different cartoons. The rioting mobs are angry about the depiction of Mohammed. The military leaders are angry about the depiction of an injured soldier.

In concept, it is interesting the similarities between the offended parties. Both feel that the content of the offending cartoon was serious enough to be a threat in some way. Both feel that this particular exercise in free speech was just a little over the line. But that's pretty much where the similarities end.

In the first case, the reason some Muslims are rioting is that it is against their religious law to have depictions of Mohammed created by human hands. This is a very serious issue for them. As a matter of fact (as Josh Marshall points out), the Manhattan Appellate Courthouse removed a statue of Mohammed in the 1950's in response to requests from some Muslim nations. So you can be sure that it is offensive to probably all Muslims, to some degree or other. But most Muslims are not rioting or burning down buildings. Now, is it enough of an offense to justify rioting and embassy-burning? No. And here's why: The people who created those cartoons are not Muslim. They are not bound by the laws of the Koran. It is okay to insist that the members of your religion be bound by your common code or be kicked out. But to insist that everyone in the world be bound by your religious code is a little much. That's not to say that the cartoons were not insensitive or even stupid. But that kind of thing tends to correct itself over time. Do you see any offensive racist cartoons against blacks or asians in the mainstream press? Not often. That kind of bigotry is reserved for gay people these days.

Now, onto the letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Washington Post. They actually said this in their letter:

We cannot let this reprehensible cartoon go unanswered.

You can't? Why not? I understand you may be offended, but please tell me which part of your job description requires you to answer a cartoon? You are the heads of the United States military. I do not expect you to police the free political speech of this country. I expect you to protect it from its foes. The fact that you believe that you are not allowed to let this cartoon go unanswered tells me two things:

1. You believe that your military responsibilities are greater than just protecting us from foreign threats; and/or
2. You believe this particular cartoonist, and/or the people who share his beliefs and/or use their free speech rights in a manner similar to the way he has, constitute a "foe" which much be confronted militarily.

You know, the letter was an official one, on military letterhead, personally signed by the heads of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and their joint chairman. It doesn't get any more official than that.

From the Department of "Duh"

The Washington Post reports:

"Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president," said Banaji, "but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

And why is that? Because prejudice is based on fear, as is this President's support.

Oh yeah, and if you add two to two, you get four.