Bin Laden is Dead

I have strong emotions about the news, which I read last night and woke up my wife to tell her. Three quick thoughts:

1. This is a real victory. He was shot to death, identified by experts, and buried at sea. He was being protected by Pakistan, and killed not on a battlefield but in his Wisteria Lane hidey-house. It's crucial to remember that for megalomaniac murderers, the most important goal is to be alive and in power. When Saddam and Bin-Laden are captured and killed it sends the message to other freak-show killers that their chosen path has a definite and predictable end. Moreover, as I learned in my studies of the Holocaust, the loss of a single charismatic leader is devastating. He was a symbol to terrorists that you can beat the Americans, he was a symbol to America that we could be beaten. No more. We caught him like a mad dog and put him down.

2. For that reason, I am hoping that this will have a long-term effect in raising American morale about our perceived feelings of decline. Bin-Laden's continued existence showed that we were weak. It also kept the 9/11 siege mentality alive; it was an unclosed grave. Now we've killed him - it can feel, and feelings are important here, that we can move on. And we really need to move on.

3. Lastly, I hope this will change the perception of Obama and of Democrats. The Press has been a disgusting promulgator of nonsense and dissent in our country. Obama released the long form of his birth certificate (the POTUS equivalent of a poll-tax) not because of Trump but because of the media's fascination with this complete nonsense. Because the Press is fickle and stupid, they can now have flashy evidence of what has been happening since January 21, 2009 - that Obama has been systematically and effectively cleaning up Bush's messes.

This is why it took 10 years to get bin Laden - because 8 of those years were under the complete schmucktard Bush.

That the killing of Bin-Laden happened 8 years to the day after Bush landed on the aircraft carrier, dressed up in a costume and acting like a blowhard punk, is icing on the cake.

Obama's ability to clean up for Bush helps with #2 above. As a social scientist, I can tell you that perception is very important for how a society will advance or decline. Killing bin Laden, I am hoping, will show America and the World that we have also cleaned up from Bush. Just last week, Obama's reaction to the tornadoes of Alabama was praised for it's swiftness and effectiveness. So he cleaned up Katrina and 9/11 in one week.

We'll see if the Press takes this ball and runs it in the right direction. We could be now getting out of our decade long malaise. Obama could announce we're drawing down in Afganistan, that we can wear shoes on airplanes, that we can be sane again!

Pain of Living the Past

As you've noticed, I'm going through a lot of backposts, and while much have to deal with the 2008 election, I'm also fixing up the earlyblog which takes me back to 2004. Oh boy, if you're finding yourself not hating Bush as much as you used to, go back and read newspapers from 2004-2005. That'll get you hating again.

America's Might

Just a brief thought about American military might. I can't recall if I've written this recently, so forgive me for repeating myself...

The non-Styx Claim: I've read many people claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have emboldened our enemies because it demonstrates that the US is not all-powerful and that sustained guerrilla warfare will undermine the American resolve. The conclusion of these pundits is that the wars have weakened the culture of intimidation that the U.S. needs to maintain in order to scare the world into loving us. Or something like that.

The Styx Response: OK, here's the deal. We need to make a distinction between the way that idiots think and the way that our enemies/allies think. Idiots will believe propaganda, myths, and won't read newspapers. Generally speaking, idiots aren't powerful and don't run countries - this is especially true for autocracies whose leadership are often cruel, canny mobsters. Alas, it's possible that democracies can elect idiots - and this happened to us back in 2004 with Bush (because, it bears repeating, Bush lost the election in 2000, although because he got very close some could say that it matters - and, sadly, this *is* something I repeat over and over and never ask forgiveness despite my polite request at the beginning of this post).

So, yeah, GWBush and his ilk were idiots and did not actually pay attention to the real facts (e.g. they believed there were no difference between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq). And this had real consequences. But generally this is not true and it's wise to behave as if the other countries of the world are led by people who endeavor to know real facts and to plan consequences accordingly. And, I'd posit, the more powerful the country, the more likely the leaders are to know the true facts.

OK, that's my ground-rule to analyzing the above claim about the current two wars.

My conclusion is that the wise, fact-loving countries still fear the United States' might, possibly at the same level they did before these two wars. Why?

(1) We still have enormous numbers of nuclear weapons and as such can destroy every country in the world. This is not the Styx getting all jingo on you and posturing for the mirror, this is part of how the other nations see us. We can destroy them all - many of them without a serious counter-strike.

(2) While #1 is known and cited, the next point is the same one but for conventional forces. I claimed here that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were botched, but I misspoke: the war part of those wars went well, it's the recovery and reconstruction that was botched. This is a big difference, especially if you are an enemy of the U.S. We had the power then, and have the power now, to utterly and unilaterally destroy a foreign government. If we as a nation weren't so moral as to be concerned with rebuilding, if all we wanted to do was destroy another nation, then our wars were successes!

Please remember that: from the standpoint of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, they are no longer in power. And that matters a lot for our enemies. You can ask why we haven't done that more often (e.g. to Cuba, since the fall of the Soviet Union) and I assume it's to maintain the general ability of US military supremacy (which I define, in part, as our ability to act unilaterally).

So the botchedness is from the position of 'nation building' not fear and destruction - which is the whole argument of the above idiots.

(3) While we are definitely hurting because of the two wars - all war is expensive - we haven't raised taxes nor called a draft. As such, from our enemies standpoint, we are running the wars rather easily. Unlike Vietnam, Korea, and especially WWII, these two wars have had comparatively little impact on everyday American lives. Yeah, you know that already, but just apply it logically to the above question: if we know it, other countries know it (because the knowledge is freely available). And even though our economy is in the dumps now, and while I think extricating from Iraq will help alleviate the dumpitude, the one didn't directly cause the other.

(4) Related to point #3 is that just as we are not sacrificing too much to run these wars, our enemies know that if we wanted to we could thus gear up to fight even more wars. Granted, most experts claim that we are at our military's limit right now. The Iraq surge before and the new Afghanistan surge have stretched us to the utmost. But that's within our volunteer-army sacrifice-less guidelines of no draft and no tax. I'm not denying the enormous sacrifices of our military - including the hapless sods who joined the guard many years ago and were thrust by Bush-Cheney into unagreed commitments and stop-loss madness. All true.

But the country hasn't sacrificed for the two wars because Bush-Cheney were trying to steal them. They didn't want us to question how and why the wars were being fought. We were sold lies about Iraq and 9/11, and since we didn't have to pay up front, Congress and the GOP were able to ignore the consequences. This is why the wars are so hated now: because the lies have been exposed.

But were we to face a true existential threat then that would change. So, quiz, based on what I've said above: if the American people were convinced that the only way to stop Iran from becoming a rogue nuclear state hell-bent on destroying America with nukes, then would we be able to fight that third war?

First of all, I need to deal with the cynics who would say: the American people won't believe the threat because of the lies of Cheney and Iraq.
The Styx says: if the threat were credibly stated, and if it were real, then our government would be able to prove the claim without the smoke and mirrors Bush needed to employ to dupe Congress/the Press. So for the purpose of this quiz, the threat is credible and believed.

So the idiots would say: we cannot fight a third war because we're stretched thin!

The Styx would say: of course we could fight a third war. We fought World War II in three major theaters (1. Europe (North Africa to Italy to France), 2. Pacific (Australia to Indonesia to Philippines to Japan), 3. India-China-Burma). We did so because of a draft and rationing at home. And we can do so again if existentially threatened.

Last point: many wags try to compare the current U.S. position/empire to the Romans or the UK. I'd refute the comparisons with two facts: the US is both an isolated island 'empire' (like UK) but with a huge land-size and natural resources. We run contiguously from coast-to-coast. Our borders are with a wussy frozen North and a chaotic developing nation to the South. Running an empire from England was always a stretch because they lacked the internal national resources to conduct their wars; the same for Rome, except they had major border issues as well. We don't. More anon if needed.

To review/conclude: our allies know that we're still the strongest around. Our enemies, because they're run (usually) by intelligent fact-loving despots who want to maintain a hold on their seized wealth, also know that. Our paramount strength has not been undermined by our two wars because (a) we still have the most nukes, (b) we have shown we can act unilaterally and while we may botch nation building we're awesome at government destruction, (c) we're running our wars without a draft or raised taxes, and (d) if we wanted to tax and draft, we'd be even more destructive.

First pic from here, second from here, third pic from the Wiki.

Back When I Cared About Krugman

As you can tell, I'm heavily into cleaning up my backposts and I felt this was timeless enough to post in real-time. It's a peek back to the bad Bush years and the temporary hero of the moderate-progressive majority of America.

The link below was originally posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 11:34 PM, back when the Times was behind a pay-firewall and the only thing I cared to read was Paul Krugman. Ironically, it was the last column of his relevancy. Because after the 2006 Midterms, we discovered that the country actually hated the GOP (and by extension Bush) and Krugman's role as lone crusader was replaced with his anti-Obama hate. Ah well, good times to remember the Bush Dystopia of 2004-2006.

Hey, I managed to get the Krugman today! Here's the basic text. Yummy:

"Limiting the Damage" By PAUL KRUGMAN.

President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office."

When will Krugman be redeemed? Maybe, if as I predicted, he'll become the next Secretary of the Treasury.

Good Points by JMM on TPM about KSM

Those acronyms: JMM = Joshua Michah Marshall, TPM = Talking Points Memo, KSM = Kentucky Sizzled Mohammad.

JMM has right ideas about why it's good for KSM to have a fair trial (bold is from me):

...This isn't just a matter of wanting to see punishment. It also vindicates our system of justice and values -- and for it all to happen here, the scene of the crime, among the people of this city, not out on some island or in some secret jail.

Listening to the questions at Attorney General Holder's press conference, I'm hearing again fears about giving the defendants a platform "to air their hateful views." But really, who is so cowardly as to worry about what these five say? Is our standing and self-respect so brittle?

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says it makes New York City more of a target for attacks. And there's at least some logic to the argument. But fundamentally, I don't think terrorists aren't attacking New York because they don't think there's enough reason to do so. And I trust the appropriate officials will keep the city's people safe.

There's a widespread belief that many seem to have that calling these people criminals and treating them as such somehow elevates their status and diminishes the fact that al Qaeda has effectively been making war on the United States. I've never understood this mindset. The key point in World War II is that at the end of the war the Allies would not deign to accord the leaders of Germany and Japan the respect accorded to defeated armies. They were tried as criminals. Because that is what they were.

Whether it's fear that our justice system can't mete justice out to these men, or worry that KSM or the others might mouth off about us at their trial, or concern about future attacks, I am continually surprised that the voices of cowardice and fear manage to convince themselves and others that they speak for courage and determination.

There does seem to be two Americas, the cowards and the brave. And the brave are those who believe, truly, in the Constitution. The cowards seem to be the ones who love America because their mom happened to be on a particular piece of dirt when she gave birth.

Thank God: Obama Orders Secret Prisons Closed

See the NYTimes: "Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed."

This really was the most important step of the new administration - more than ending the Iraq War, ending domestic spying, or even the financial meltdown. This action is the crucial step to restoring America.

And it's something that would *not* have happened under Palin-McCain.

Bye bye Bush era; you were truly horrible.

Gang of Clowns

The picture to the left, by Annie Lebowitz, is from December 2001 and features the gang of clowns that nearly destroyed the country in their illicit time in office - from the 5-4 vote that put them in, to the attorney purges that reelected them in '04.

This picture accompanies an article that many have described as one of the best retrospectives yet of what these murderous clowns did: "An Oral History of the Bush White House" by Cullen Murphy and Todd S. Purdum in Vanity Fair.

I haven't read it yet (30 printer pages!) but it should be smack in the head.

No Bush Pardons?

I predicted here that Bush will give a blanket pardon for his whole administration. Did that happen and I just missed it or did the probable gambit (not indicting Cheney etc to allow future non-GOP prosecution) work?

He has 90 minutes left, maybe it will come. If not, then we all have a chance for prosecution of the war crimes!

Update: Some stories about Bush's (lack of) pardons. SF Chronicle. Toronto Star.

My Idea! Pardon Prevention

I see from the TPM that Cong. Nadler has put in legislative words and idea I hafd for some time:

Nadler, who two weeks ago introduced a resolution demanding President Bush not issue 'pre-emptive' pardons of officials in his administration, said his amendment would bar presidents from pardoning members of their own administration for official acts. The president would retain the power to pardon the secretary of state for, say, beating his wife, Nadler said, but not for actions taken in an official capacity.

The presidential pardoning is a scary thing and especially for a criminal like Bush. Considering that his father was able to exonerate all his Iran-Contra co-conspirators is proof enough that we should be worried.

[Update from 11-11-2009 - I am still shocked, til this day, that Bush didn't actually cheese out and pardon everybody. My main theory why he didn't was to contrast with Clinton; i.e. people are still angry - from the Left, nukh - over Clinton's pardons, which tainted an otherwise remarkable presidency. Bush knew he was in trouble with the critics and craven pardons probably would have unleashed a vindictive backlash. As we see, he's has managed to avoid a lot of the opprobrium in the past few months, because he has lain low. Not so for Cheney...]

Backpost, finished Nov 11, 2009. Pic from here.

Goldblog: Ketziot & Abu Ghraib

I've rapidly changed my opinion about Jeffrey Goldberg. When I read his pieces in the New Yorker, he sounded like just another American leftist against Israel. But then I found out that he actually lived in Israel and served in the IDF - which is way better than what I've done. So his Zionist bona-fides are greater than mine and as such, I allow him his left-wing opinions. I say 'allow' and not 'agree' because I can still think he's wrong - but since he's paid his dues and comes to his opinions from real experience, he's an "Israeli" voice in my mind, and not a Diaspora Jew.

That said, read his post about comparing his IDF service as a prison guard in Ketziot to the reports about Abu Ghraib. Here's the first few lines to whet your appetite. How Ketziot Never Could Have Prepared Me for Abu Ghraib:

When Sy Hersh first told me about Abu Ghraib, I could not understand him, and not merely because he begins sentences in the middle of sentences. This was a problem of cognition. I had long ago built a template in my mind about these sorts of issues, and the story Sy was telling me did not fit.

This template was something I devised in the 1991, when I was a military policeman at the Ketziot Military Prison Camp in the Negev Desert of Israel. I had moved to Israel at the age of 20. I was drafted, and after many strange and discomfiting turns, I found myself in Ketziot, where I didn't want to be, for several reasons, including a) it's very hot in the Negev and I have the melanin of a Finn; b) I was raised as a socialist Zionist, which meant that I was a Jewish nationalist who opposed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; c) the job itself, which was to maintain order in a prison holding 6,000 Palestinians, most of whom would kill me if given a chance. This is not to say that I wouldn't die for Israel. I just didn't want to die enforcing an occupation I thought morally and politically dubious.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-06.

The Hagiography of Russert

Jack Shafer, one of the best things about Slate magazine, agrees with me about the selfish wasting of airspace and attention of the death of Tim Russert (for an example, see Remnick at The New Yorker.) Basically, they are treating him as an important world leader when, basically, he's just another of the pack of journalist-talking heads who emphasized the horse-race over real substance. Every prominent journalist who was working from 2001-2008 should be ashamed about what they let the Bush Administration get away with.

Here's a choice quote from Shafer's piece, The Canonization of Saint Russert:

I wonder whether the media grievers gave a moment of thought to how this Russert torrent they produced played with viewers and readers. Did the grievers really think Russert was so important, so vital to the nation's course, and such an elevated human being that he deserved hour upon hour of tribute? I wonder whether any of the responsible journalists paused to think, Hey, this is really weird. We're using our unchecked editorial power to soak the nation with our tears about our friend, and that's unseemly!

On days like this, I, too, hate the press.

Join the club, Jack.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-06.

Torture Update

So the Times reports that the Canadian government officially believes that the United States tortures!:

Late last month, a federal judge in Canada ruled that the United States had violated international conventions on torture and the rights of refugees.

This is a matter of international law! How long will the US Press use the Cheney-Orwellian language to obscure the fact - clearly known by every other country but ours - that we torture! This is despicable.

Pic is the well-known Abu Ghraib torture still. Backpost finished on 2009-11-26.

Torture

There are people who believe that the Bush Administration hasn't consciously created and enforced a policy of torture. These people are either (a) seriously not paying attention (about 80-90% of the US population), (b) are credulous folk who believe the nice George when he says "[Read my lips] We do not torture," (c) the rest are Republican meat-heads who will echo whatever Bush/Rush/Headvoices tell them to believe.

There are people who do believe it's now American policy to torture. These people are either (a) Michael Moore types who believe that Bush regularly rapes kittens and purposely eats chili so he can use the Constitution as a Ty-D-Bowl wipe; (b) hardline Republicans who dearly hope we are torturing people because what's the point of being powerful if you don't boot people in the head? And then there's (c) people who read the papers/internet.

When my children ask in 10-15 years, "Daddy, what did you do when our government turned criminal?" I'll need a good story to tell them. I spoke out about the issue from the pulpit, I've written to my representatives. But, sadly, until it becomes a proven fact, I can't do much more. Before the Press and Congress confirm the facts, anyone who claims we torture has only circumstantial evidence.

However, there's some more recent evidence that not only do we torture, but that it's international knowledge. Other countries' governments know we torture, but Congress is still in the dark. [Barfing sound.]

Scott Horton, from Harpers, on December 1, cites two disturbing examples of how this plays out internationally:

Is America a nation that tortures? The question is being asked all around the world. It’s not a matter of idle speculation. Under international treaties, which many nations, not being liberated by the law-what-law?mantra of the Neocons, treat very seriously, there are specific prohibitions about cooperation with nations which torture. In particular, there is article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which forbids any state party to return a prisoner to a nation where he is likely to be tortured.

In 2006, I had an off-the-record discussion with the chief law enforcement officer of one of America’s most important allies. Having read the torture memoranda out of the Justice Department, and having seen the reports issued by the Department of the Army dealing with abuses in Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantánamo, I asked, is your Government in a position to engage in prisoner exchanges with the Americans or to allow American interrogators unfettered access to persons in your Government’s custody? He responded in a manner that showed the question had been studied carefully. “I can assure you that we take our obligations under article 3 very seriously. We will not speak publicly about this, but of course we have terminated cooperation with the United States in ways that would violate article 3. And of course we have reached the only possible conclusion, which is that the United States has embraced torture as a matter of formal policy.” This is a nation which continues to be one of our dwindling number of allies, but it faces increasingly steep challenges in cooperating while it complies with the requirements of law.

And this judgment is a very broad one—now shared almost universally by America’s allies. We don’t have to consider what the enemies think.

More evidence of this phenomenon in a very important decision handed down on Thursday by Canada’s Federal Court. Professor Jaya Ramji-Nogales, who’s been patiently tracking the matter, furnishes a report:

Yesterday, the Canadian Federal Court issued an opinion in the case Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International, and John Doe v. Her Majesty The Queen. This case challenges the “Safe Third Country Agreement” between Canada and the United States that came into force in December 2004. This agreement provides that, with limited exceptions, individuals who first enter either Canada or the United States and then attempt to cross a land border into the other country in order to lodge an asylum claim must be returned to claim asylum in the first country they entered. In assessing the constitutionality of the agreement, the Canadian Court found that the United States does not comply adequately with Article 33 of the UN Refugee Convention, which prohibits return to persecution, or Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits return to torture — specifically naming the Maher Arar case as an example of the United States’ failure to protect.

As one of the experts who described the ways in which U.S. asylum law (in particular, the one-year filing deadline) violates international law, I am proud to note that the court found “the Applicant’s experts to be more credible, both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports” and “more objective and dispassionate in their analysis and report” than the government’s experts. Of particular note, the Court found that “it would be unreasonable to conclude that the one-year bar, as it is applied in the U.S., is consistent with the Convention Against Torture and the Refugee Convention” and that this bar “has a disproportionate impact on gender and sexual orientation claims” for asylum. The Court also found that women making asylum claims based on domestic violence are not sufficiently protected under U.S. law. The long decision is well worth a read, and while it bodes well for asylum seekers in Canada (assuming that the judge’s final order, after further submissions, follows this opinion, and that the decision survives appeal), it reads as a damning critique of the treatment of those seeking protection in the United States.

That’s the long version. Here’s the short version: “We do not torture?” That claim has been formally reviewed by a court and found to be a lie.

Just to review: according to two close allies, Canada and an as yet unnamed country, have legally considered our country to be one that tortures. Is that proof enough?

The ticking sound you hear is the silence from Congress. Grrr.

{2009 Update: First pic from here, second from here.}

Mukasey

I read all over the news and the liberal blogs that the Democrats surrendered again by allowing Mukasey to be Attorney General. See Sunday's Frank Rich, and the NYTimes editorials. Schumer, especially, is criticized for capitulating and blah blah blah.

Alas, this is another case of poor analysis and poor priorities. Read Schumer's op-ed on why he voted for Mukasey. Everything he says is plausible and reasonable. Here's the summary:

1. Chuck Schumer (CS) sympathizes with those who want to reject Mukasey over his bad answers.

2. But Bush has threatened that if Mukasey is rejected, there won't be another nominee. Rather a low-level staffer, who has not gone though Senate review, would be acting attorney general until Bush leaves office:

Should we reject Judge Mukasey, President Bush has said he would install an acting, caretaker attorney general who could serve for the rest of his term without the advice and consent of the Senate. To accept such an unaccountable attorney general, I believe, would be to surrender the department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington. All the work we did to pressure Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign would be undone in a moment.

3. Mukasey has said that if the Senate passes a law to clarify the waterboarding issue, Makesey will abide by it, even against the Unitary Executive horse-manure shoveled by Bush & Co.:

On Friday, he personally made clear to me that if the law were in place, the president would have no legal authority to ignore it — not even under some theory of inherent authority granted by Article II of the Constitution, as Vice President Cheney might argue. Nor would the president be able to evade a clear pronouncement on the subject from the courts. Judge Mukasey also pledged to enforce such a law.

4. Schumer felt that rebuilding the Justice department was far more of a serious issue than the ambiguity about waterboarding, especially given the Senate's ability to clarify issues with an actual law.

Yes, it's terribly disturbing that Mukasey isn't up-front about waterboarding as torture, but is the Senate's job to (a) prevent an otherwise important cabinet officer over that issue or (b) to actually make a law saying that waterboarding is torture. Just to remind you viewers at home, the Senate is part of Congress which - until the GOP took both houses over - is the body that makes the laws that govern the executive branch.

Schumer's points are correct: while torture needs to be rejected (and it's unbelievable that we're even talking about it as ambiguous - thank you Bush voters!) it's WAAAAAAY more important to actually clean up the Justice Department. Why? Because of (a) warrant-less wiretaps and (b) the vote-suppression tactics perpetrated by Karl Christian Rove and Alberto Gonzales.

In fact, any partisan Democrat should want Mukasey over some DOJ hack because until the DOJ is cleaned up, there's no way we can trust our own US elections to be held safely... yet another think we need to thank Bush voters for.

Oh, and why was the vote done so swiftly (midnight Thursday)? According to the TPM it's because Sen. Reid made a deal with the GOP:

According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And because the Times and other mush-heads don't understand what Reid did, I'll explain. Mukasey was supposed to be a cake-walk for the GOP. Because of Democratic opposition - which still wasn't enough to prevent his confirmation - Reid was able to pass a bill that funded the military WITHOUT FUNDING THE CRAZY WAR.

Reid triumphed; Schumer chose the lesser of the two evils that have been forced upon us by the scumbag Bush crew. And, yet, the Democrats are blamed for rolling over and playing dead.

Why doesn't the GOP get such bad press for all the crap they do? To be honest, because of the liberal bias in newspapers: the journalists *expect* the GOP to be scumbags.

We Need a New Excuse

The Washington Post had a story last week about a bunch of veterans who were tasked with the Top Secret task of interrogating Nazis. And, no, they didn't torture.

Didn't torture Nazis? Didn't they realize they were in a war? Against Nazis?? Well, sure, they knew that. But it appears they didn't torture for two important reasons:

1. Torture is morally wrong (and especially when torture is the hallmark of your enemy... how can you use their hated tool?)
   
   
2. Torture DOES NOT WORK.

Here's the facts: the president has authorized torture. And against people who have largely turned out innocent. Congress seems to know that this is happening. Yet, the American people, so far, have not erupted in outrage. It looks like the President will not be impeached.

Here's the problem: HOW??!? I thought the American people have tacitly accepted torture because we were attacked on 9/11, so that allows the president to do whatever he durn well pleases to anyone he wants. Kill, torture, rape innocent people - why not? - because we were attacked. Wah wah, poor us.

Yet we were attacked in WWII, too. Remember Pearl Harbor, day live in infamy, ring a bell? No? It was like 9/11. No? It was a big deal, believe me. Anyway, we didn't turn into rabid, stupid monsters back then... so why now?

We need a new excuse.

P.S. Next time some moron says that great people don't make history, remember the difference between FDR and GWB.

{2009 Update: Great pic of the Torture Statue of Liberty from here.}

The Difference Between New York and Louisiana

Aside from the frequency of city-drowning hurricanes, it's the attitude towards Hate Crimes.

This morning, an African-American Columbia University professor found a noose hanging from her office door. New York considers this a pretty blatant hate-crime. Because, uh, a noose is a murder device that was historically used to terrorize and random innocent African Americans throughout the United States but mainly in the South. This was called "lynching" and it was considered a popular pastime for those who also like Rebel Flags and "Southern Culture."

Anyway, as you know there was a case a year ago in Jena, Louisiana where a bunch of nooses were hung in a racially divided high school that led to a year-long escalation of White-Black clashes. The people who hung the nooses were caught and were punished with the merest slap of the wrist possible. And, and, it was not considered a Hate Crime. Why? According to the Wiki:

District Attorney Walters stated that Washington had found no federal statute under which the teens could be prosecuted, just as he had found no applicable state statute."

The Bush Justice Department - whose civil rights division has been gutted in order to vigorously pursue voter fraud - was even willing to consider this a hate crime... but Louisiana does not considered it such. What's a few nooses between friends?

None of this will end well.

Puppy Shotgunning Update; Beyond Parody

Well, he did it. Bush vetoed the child health bill:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — President Bush vetoed the children’s health insurance bill today, as he had promised to do, setting the stage for more negotiations between the White House and Congress. Mr. Bush wielded his pen with no fanfare just before leaving for a visit to Lancaster, Pa. The veto was only the fourth of Mr. Bush’s presidency. “Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it,” Mr. Bush said in his veto statement, adding that he hoped to work with the lawmakers “to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first.”

Jon Stewart remarked about this the other day, that Bush has gone beyond parody. The president has rejected health care for poor children - going so far as to use a veto, which he rarely does - while claiming it's actually to *help* poor children. What can anyone do with that? It's Goebbels level propaganda; so bald-faced that it's startling.

Considering that he's the lamest duck president since Hoover, you'd think Bush'd be doing things that he'd *like* to do, regardless of the political consequences. And that may be. He really really may hate: kids, the poor, compassion, justice, and (given the previous items) God Hisself.

St. Bush

During the Bush Honeymoon Period (from 9/11 until Katrina), when he seemed unstoppable, triumphalist Christers would state proudly that they love the fact that a devout Christian was in the White House. Even back then, I was advising them to not adopt him as their own as he appeared to be a mean and stupid person. We can't always choose who will be successful from our ethnic/cultural subgroup, but we can choose to adopt the person as a hero. As a Jewish-American, I want to adopt Albert Einstein (even though he wasn't very religious) and not Jonathan Pollard (who has found Jehovah in prison, I've been told). So it is with religious Christians and Bush... don't adopt him! - he's a cruel moron! - but I'm not sure they've gotten the message yet.

Here's a list of 50 quotes from Bush about his religious faith from the Aug 8 2007 London Times, compiled by their Religion reporter Libby Purves.

In the list are famous lines (like #17 "I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah" - White House, Dec. 10, 2001), but also just inane statements of his "simple" faith. I say simple because he seems as committed to religious terminology but not religious behavior. He probably likes praying because it's done alone and in direct communication with his chosen, self-defined Deity. As such, it is an act of egotism, not devotion. Minyan forces you to pray with others, to depend on others. Kneeling on your rich carpet to communicate one-on-one with Heaven as if you were a modern-day Moshe Rabbeinu is barely tolerated in halakha.

And outside of prayer, what does Bush do that can be called religious? I doubt he gives much to charity (I'm trying to find the numbers online; download his disclosures here). And let's not forget about the last president who was gloriously touted as a religious man who'd bring Christian principles to bear on White House policy: James Earl Carter.

America vs. Constitution

Because the Bush Administration seems on a mission to ignore and/or destroy the Constitution, I just wanted to make a quick point:

America = the Constitution.

Being anti-Constitution is being anti-American... and nothing else.

The Travesty of Justice

TPM's Paul Kiel gives a rundown of who has resigned at the Dept. of Justice recently. The following is my editing of his data:

1. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 8/27/07.
   
2. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, 5/14/07.
   
3. Acting Assoc. AG, William Mercer (the Dept. #3), withdrawing from the nomination 6/22/07
   
4. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, 3/13/07.
   
5. Department White House liaison, Monica Goodling, 4/6/07
   
6. Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff, 6/15/07
   
7. Executive Director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys Michael Battle, mid-February.
   
8. Bradley Schlozman, an attorney in the Counsel to the Director staff at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, formerly the U.S. attorney for Kansas City and a former acting assistant attorney for the Civil Rights Division, mid August.
   
9. Assistant AG for the Civil Rights Division Wan Kim, 8/23/07
   

To recap: The AG, his chief of staff, his 2 senior deputies, and other heads of offices. Resigned. Their families must have been lonely, eh?

While the morons of the world still think that the Attorney Scandal is just an 'overblown personnel matter' - and it's not - the scandal did reveal that the DOJ is filled to the gorge with incompetents, blind ideologues, and scoundrels.

It's hard to explain to the detached American voting public - whose brains seem stuck on an endless TiVo loop of monkeys in clown suits - that this is a bad thing. But the department of Justice is important. More important than American Idol and Paris Freakin' Hilton, if you can imagine.