Bring it On!
This web site seems to think it would be a great idea when Hillary loses the Democratic nomination but they are forgetting one very small detail;
Most of Hillary’s supporters don’t own or know how to use a computer so they’ll never see this website. When you write Hil’s name on the ballot in November your next step should be to fit your kid for a military uniform and a casket.
Two substantive political issues are the federal budget deficit and the war in Iraq. Now, if you’re electing Democrats to control government spending, then you’re marrying Angelina Jolie for her brains. This leaves the Democrats with one real issue: Iraq. And so far the best that any Democratic presidential candidate has been able to manage with Iraq is to make what I think of as the high school sex promise: I will pull out in time, honest dear.”
So what if I was marrying Angelina Jolie for her brains? It still comes attached to the rest of the package.
It’s tempting to compare the immeasurable tragedy in Burma/Myanmar to the New Orleans devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. After all there are plenty of parallels.
Both were natural tragedies (“Acts of God” if you prefer) which caused untold loss of life and massive homelessness. (Yes I know the deaths in Myanmar were many many times higher than the deaths in New Orleans. I’m taking some leeway…)
And both tragedies were made immeasurably worse by the pathetic spastic “response” of a useless corrupt festering government.
But let’s be fair to the dictatorship in Myanmar. There’s at least one crucial difference between these two tragedies: the junta in Myanmar has warned against profiteering from the misery. There’ll be no Disaster Capitalism here, thank you very much. If you want to pull that kind of sleazy amoral shit, go to America.
This means: Blackwater — stay the fuck away.
I have shuddered at the thought that most, if not all, of the individuals to be tried in BushCo’s kangaroo court known as the military tribunals would be found guilty. That they would be found guilty on shoddy or non-existing evidence coerced out of them by torture and certainly without any decent representation.
Great gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands has occurred on this topic for me. I want the guilty to be found guilty…but I doubt that even a third of the people still being held in Gitmo are guilty of anything, even though they are considered ‘high value’ detainees by the people in charge.
Recently, one of those high-value guys saw the case against him dismissed. The alleged 20th hijacker, Mohammed al-Qahtani’s case came to an abrupt end. The reason? He was tortured and tortured…and tortured some more. As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick notes:
The decision not to try him comes from the convening authority for the commissions, Susan Crawford. She didn’t give an explanation for halting the prosecution, but, then, we don’t really need one.
Lithwick’s column states the reason that we might never see any of the ‘high value’ detainees tried and automatically convicted is because of the military itself. In her and Emily Bazelon’s mind, there are honorable men and women involved in the Gitmo military commission hierarchy. While I have no doubt that some of the people involved are honorable and have a conscience, I still don’t trust the majority of them to do the ‘right thing’ and end the Gitmo madness.
Dahlia and Emily start with Charles Swift, the defense lawyer from the Navy’s Judge Advocate General Corps who was appointed in 2002 to represent Salim Hamdan. Mr. Swift was a good and honorable man, to be sure. He has even publicly voiced his opposition to the military commissions. His opposition most likely cost him his military career.
Next, they lay out the case for Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for the tribunals. He is an honorable man only because when it came time for him to actually prosecute detainees, which he had completely backed, he was stunned to learn which cases he was given. Cases without merit…but plenty of torture. From the Slate write up:
He resigned last October and went on an op-ed tear, writing that “full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system” because it “had become deeply politicized.” Davis, who still maintains that the charges against Mr. Hamdan are “warranted by the evidence,” was called to testify in Hamdan’s case last month by the defense because of his indictment of the system.
Keith Allred is a military judge. That is pretty high up the food chain if you ask me. Allred bounced a biggie from Hamdan’s trial. Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann has been removed from any further participation in Hamdan’s prosecution by Allred because he determined that Hartmann directed prosecutors “to use evidence that the Chief Prosecutor considered tainted and unreliable, or perhaps obtained as the result of torture or coercion.” (Allred also made a finding of fact that while interviewing Davis for the chief-prosecutor position, Department of Defense Gen. Jim Haynes told him, “We can’t have acquittals. We’ve got to have convictions.” So now that’s the official account. Good to know.).
As I read further, I relax a bit. I realize that all might not be lost, that inherently good, honest people will not throw away their conscience just because their boss tells them to…they believe in the rule of law. The article rattles off four more names of individuals whose conscience trumped their bosses orders in BushCo’s kangaroo court in Gitmo:
Four others-Maj. Robert Preston, Capt. John Carr, Capt. Carrie Wolf, and Lt. Col. Stuart Couch-have also left, apparently because of micromanagement and the interference of which Davis complained, including the demand that they use what they deemed to be unreliable coerced testimony.
That these individuals have sacrificed their careers in order to hold onto their belief system makes me feel that much better. It takes a lot for someone who is a career military officer to say fuck it and go very public with their opposition to the bullshit that is the Gitmo military commission.
We can only hope more of them are waiting in the wings. Beause there is still too much time left before January 21st gets here and the next Democratic President can put an end to the madness down in Guantanamo and shut the doors forever.
I realize I should be excited about the California Supreme Court’s decision to remove the ban on same-sex marriage…but the pragmatist in me simply won’t allow it. I’ll explain my thinking after the following excerpt on today’s ruling.
SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two measures that would have authorized same-sex marriage, today said he would abide by the court’s ruling.
“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” he said in a statement. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
But as early as November, voters could be asked to render their opinion on an amendment that would again attempt to ban same-sex marriage.
A coalition of religious and conservative activists has submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify the amendment, which would say that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the initiative’s sponsors, said the Supreme Court decision is a boost for the measure because opponents have been saying there is no real threat that same sex marriages will happen.
“This decision draws a line in the sand and makes it clear that this is the last chance for voters to have a say,” Pugno said. “This is proof positive for voters that the courts are out of control and the voters have to step up.”
First, the timing of this ruling isn’t advantageous. As we approach a critical election in which the Democrats are poised to take the presidency as well as additional seats in the house and the senate, giving the rabid right wing an issue to rally around is apt to boost the GOP’s fundraising, motivate evangelicals to get out and vote, allow John McCain to exploit the differences between the GOP and the Democratic Party with regards to same-sex issues (including forcing the Democratic nominee to clarify his or her position on the ruling and same-sex marriage), and give supporters of an amendment to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the California constitution ample ammunition to fund and promote their ballot measure (every right wing organization is going to pour money into this ballot initiative).
Secondly, I believe that the mood of voters had changed since the 2004 election. That change included less of an emphasis on values driven politics and more of a focus on issues that endear voters to the Democratic Party. Today’s ruling may return us to the days of God, guns, and gays…with a particular emphasis on gays. Should that happen, it would allow the detractors of the Democratic party to reemphasize the fact that they are generally in favor of extending more rights to gays, accepting of court rulings that expand rights even if the voters wouldn’t vote to approve them, and in favor of appointing more judges with similar views.
Let’s look at the chronology to better understand the shift that took place since 2004 and the likelihood that this ruling could facilitate a step backwards in terms of renewed voter resistance. Following on the heels of Massachusetts allowing gay marriage as a result of a 2003 court ruling, in February of 2004, San Francisco and other municipalities began issuing marriage licenses to gays. While all of these actions felt empowering and led to numerous celebratory moments, it was short lived (except in Massachusetts) and likely assisted in the passage of amendments to ban same-sex marriage in eleven states.
Following the 2004 election, Iraq, the economy, and other issues pushed the values agenda to the back burner as voters focused on other concerns. The outcome of the 2006 election supports that contention. As we’ve approached the 2008 election, the general perception has been that God, guns, and gays had fallen into disfavor with voters (or at least been overtaken by other priorities) and would not play a significant part in this election cycle.
If one believes that history repeats itself…and that the U.S. has a history of vacillating between left and right (in a manner reminiscent of a pendulum) when it comes to issue of morality…this ruling could create the momentum needed to effect a shift to the right…or at the very least a halt to the current swing leftward. While these back and forth swings seem inevitable, the timing of this ruling may be the accelerant that sets in motion the unfavorable shifts noted above…sooner than they would have otherwise occurred. That would be a classic example of an unintended consequence…but an unwelcome and unfortunate one no less.
Look, I also believe that the affording of rights can’t always be scheduled for maximum advantage…nor should they be delayed accordingly. History will undoubtedly view this ruling as one of the important steps in the chronology of granting gays equal status. Nonetheless, the journey between now and then may well include events that (similar to this ruling), at the time they occur, seem to be a step forward but that ultimately precipitate a temporary step backwards. As such, the soldiers need to be prepared for the times when retreat and retrenchment are the order of the day.
Today is a time for celebrating…but tomorrow may be another story. It is imperative that we remain vigilantly mindful of the impact our actions will have on the ever shifting political terrain. This means that it is essential for us to be aware of the positions each of the combatants holds on the battlefield. In the end, regardless of the victories and defeats, the march towards equality must never cease. Today we’ve won a battle…tomorrow the war proceeds.
From MSNBC:
The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.
Of course the haters already have a petition drive underway to change the state constitution to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.
The ruling can be viewed here.
Can we impeach now? WTF!!!!1!!1!!
Keith Olbermann has the story.
When I woke up this morning it was 2008 and not 1968. Trust me, my five children let me know that fact is true every single day. In 1968 I was five years old and now I have my youngest that is five. In each of their eyes they do not see the color of a persons skin but the heart of the friends they choose. Race is not an issue in their eyes or heart and I thank God above that we as parents have been able to raise them without that ugly personality trait.
America was a very separatist society back before 1968 and in the progress that has been made in all that time since many African American’s have prospered and were finally free to be the potential person that they could become. My child has the potential that is the same as any African American and all they have to do is work for it and earn it. That is the American way. Then you hear the draw back on the polling numbers and reports of whites verse black voters and race lines in the vote and it all disgusts me to the bone. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX did a non stop reporting of why white people would not vote for Obama in West Virginia and the undertone that I perceived as a viewer was that they were playing the race card simply because one of the candidates is a black man and the other is a white woman. Basically, they labeled everyone that didn’t vote for Obama as a racist.
We don’t need hate in America for or against fellow American’s in any form, function, or broadcast. It serves no purpose other than to divide us as a people and prove out that ignorance of another human being is not only contagious but full of contempt. In the past decade we have seen separation of American’s based on wealth and this kind of thought on race bashing only serves that style of degradation of our people even further. It’s truly up to you as an individual to say enough is enough.
I’m just guessing but I think there are several different America’s and in parts of our nation there is still a racial problem. All of the MSM made West Virginia sound like the KKK headquarters and frankly that scares me. They single handedly manipulated the race for President into a racial bias and they sold it all across the airwaves and then the newspapers the next day.
My kids will grow up color blind and wear one pink sock and one blue sock to the school of life and if they are happy then so am I. No offense intended to the people of West Virginia that voted on the issues and not the color of a persons skin but the MSM made your state look like the racist capital of the United States.
Papamoka
Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk
Feel free to link to this post…
And fuckwitted to the max..KO and his latest Special Comment this evening. H/T to the good people at Crooks and Liars for getting it up so quick for all of us to d/l. 