Enemy Combatant
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Boo- yah!
Sticking with the subject of outspoken immigrants, it should be noted that George Soros has now written and delivered the "Eff you, and the horse you rode in on" letter to little Denny Hastert, predicate to suing his ass (I predict) for defamation:
I must respectfully insist that you either substantiate these claims -- which you cannot do because they are false -- or publicly apologize for attempting to defame my character and damage my reputation.
Sounds to me like George has been consulting with wartime consigliere.
The Luddite Detour On The Way To The Voting Booth: A Modest Proposal
The more I hear and read about touchscreen voting, the push among some swing states for e-voting by overseas troops, the apparent efforts to remove from office or bypass California's Secretary of State before November (given that he recently "decertified" touchscreen voting throughout the state, because it leaves no paper trail for accurate recounts), the more firmly I secure my tinfoil hat onto my noggin.
The fact is, there is a method readily available, inexpensive and low-tech, with a proven history of accuracy for casting and counting votes: Paper ballots. Hand-counted, in a perfectly "transparent" process. Canada -- a country with nearly as many citizens as we have California residents, still uses hand-counted paper ballots exclusively in their federal elections -- and they manage to complete the vote count in a matter of hours.
What's more, there's a bill prepared, but evidently not yet introduced in Congress -- the Federal Paper Ballot Act of 2004 -- that would immediately put these safeguards in place here in the U.S. for the upcoming election.
Last time around, the election hijackers wore black robes. This time, I'm thinking, they'll have ways to keep the count from even getting that close. Ask yourselves this: If we can't trust the vote count, this whole democracy thing really is a sham, isn't it?
GOP To Wounded Vets: Go Cheney Yourselves
Republican Convention delegates have been "mocking" John Kerry's Vietnam War wounds (and by extension, those of every other wounded American veteran, ever), "by sporting adhesive bandages with small purple hearts on them."
Come the next terrorist attack (Allah forbid), I hope all Purple Heart recipients, past and present, will choose *not* to assist or defend any of these people; they should be required to defend themselves.
And I think they've now provided the answer to Joseph Welch's rhetorical question put to Sen. Joe McCarthy: No; at long last, they don't have any sense of decency.
Monday, August 30, 2004
The Horse Whimperer
Well, if we've got to sink lower than the swiftboat bottomfeeders in order to catch those voters yet "undecided" between restoring democracy and oh, let's call it raging kleptocratic incompetence, I think a promising fishing hole can be found on Bush's horse-free "ranch."
Honestly, have you *ever* seen Bush anywhere near Man's Favorite Equine Companion?
You know, "it's been widely reported" that the little drugstore cowboy is askeered (as they say in Texas) of horses. If so, I think we need to "swiftboat this thing along" for a few weeks on television.
I mean, what does it say about the "character" of a "cowboy" -- who's really a Horse Whimperer?
And there ain't but one way Bush can lay this whole thing to rest. Saddle up, pardner!
Saturday, August 28, 2004
An Historical Perspective
Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly . . .
. . . and yet, they turn . . .
Hare Krishna Moonlanding Debunkers For Truth
Quick -- somebody call CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News! I've got a hardcore group of people -- thousands, in fact, located all around the world -- who will swear the whole NASA moonlanding program is and always was an outright hoax; that we never went there.
Plus -- unlike the Swiftboat folks -- they're not just blowing smoke up your ass; they've got photographic proof -- forensic evidence! -- to back up their claims.
What's more, they're "pious, religious folk" -- so the cable news shows can angle for inroads into reaching those potential viewers . . .
. . . C'mon, now: Wolf, Sean, Chris, Ken, Aaron -- let's get these folks booked on your shows, and let's hear some honest skepticism about "the official record" for a few weeks, eh?
Shouting "Fire" In A Crowded Political Theater
Wow. Bill Maher's concluding remarks last night, on his HBO series Real Time, were something else. (Fortunately, I taped it:):
You can't claim you're for peace unless you're willing to disturb it.
Now at the Republican Convention next week New York City is attempting to buy off angry war protestors by giving them discounts on restaurants and Broadway shows in exchange for a pledge not to all congregate in one place and to keep the noise down -- you know, like it's a high school band trip.
"What do we want?" "PEACE!"
"When do we want it?" "NOW! -- but we'll settle for dinner for two at Red Lobster."
You know what? I want to see some REAL protests next week -- the kind I watched as a kid from the Democratic Convention in Chicago in '68. I want to see THIS guy --
[makes twisted, angry face, flipping off cameras -- reminiscent of a photo of an angry Chicago protestor flipping off armed cops]
-- remember that guy? I mean, isn't that the least we as citizens can do? Isn't this one of those moments when democracy can show it's not afraid to be in the streets? Because you know who has peaceful, planned demonstrations? Totalitarian states, like North Korea and Disneyland.
Therefore, tonight, I am urging all the protestors in New York next week TO RIOT!
I'm talking about good, old-fashioned rioting -- the kind that made Whitey move to the suburbs!
{Guest interjection: "That's why Detroit looks like that!"}
Look, Protestor: You spent two weeks making that papier-mache Dick Cheney mask? [rolls eyes] Now, light it on fire and TORCH THE NEAREST GAP STORE!
Two lesbians with a "LICK BUSH" sign is NOT going to make the nightly news -- pick up a garbage can and throw it through a Starbucks window!!
I don't want to see a candlelight vigil -- this is New York, there's a bodycount at Simon & Garfunkle concerts!
If anything with "Trump" written on it is standing after September 3rd? You're a bunch of pussies who aren't worth the hemp in your Timberland shoes!
I want to see cabdrivers so nervous they stop picking up the white people!
We're Americans, damnit! We burn cars over basketball games! Let's MAKE some noise; let's KICK some ass! If I want to turn on the TV and see nothing . . .
. . . I'll keep watching the Olympics.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Swift Boat Incredulants For Proof
Turns out that -- when backed to the wall -- Swift Boat Nixon hitman John O'Neill does pretty good "nuance," too. From the Associated Press this morning:
During an Oval Office conversation in 1971, John O'Neill tells President Nixon he was in Cambodia in a swift boat during the war — a claim that is at odds with O'Neill's recent statements that he wasn't in the country.
"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," O'Neill is heard telling Nixon in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md.
In an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon on June 16, 1971, but he insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.
"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months," O'Neill said of the conversation. "I was about 100 yards from Cambodia."
* * * * *
In the book [he co-authored "Unfit For Command" -- Regnery White Supremacist Press, 2004], O'Neill wrote that Kerry's accounts of having been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968 "are complete lies."
He wrote that "Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there."
Uh huh. And that danger of court-martial is surely why O'Neill took great pains -- in that recorded 1971 conversation, directly with his Commander-in-Chief -- to make it crystal-clear precisely where he himself had been in relation to the Vietnamese-Cambodian border. Right!
Glad we cleared that up!
Monday, August 23, 2004
Liar Or Flip-Flopper? You Decide
Thanks to Atrios for retrieving this out of the memory hole:
So Ambassador Bremer has been talking about a seven-step plan: constitution, followed then by elections and then by the transfer of sovereignty. And it makes perfectly good sense to do this as soon as possible, but to do it in a way that is responsible. And I think that the -- as all of us have said, the French plan, which would somehow try to transfer sovereignty to an un-elected group of people, just isn't workable.
-- Condi Rice, 9/22/2003
Welcome To The Working Week
Well, I know it don't thrill you
I hope it don't kill you
If we can ever get our stultifying media to focus on something less new and shiny than the Swift Boat Liars' Choir for maybe five minutes, Kerry might try to change the subject, to point out that the Wrecks-All Wrangler in the Oval Office has now gutted much of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, by revoking overtime pay for millions of Americans.
Yes, that's right; of course the Bush Labor Department will claim that it's extending overtime pay to lots of Americans, but we've all seen this particular hand of Three Card Monte, on this particular streetcorner, before.
Maybe if Kerry got his numbers together, very quickly, (say by tomorrow) and pointed out that Bush just cut most people's paychecks (or extended their already-onerous workweek), without even extending them the courtesy of a reacharound, we might get this class warfare thing up and running nicely in time for the Coronation (uh, I mean the GOP Convention in NYC).
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Pretty Fly For A Dem Guy
It turns out Sen. Ted Kennedy has now made the airline "no fly" watchlist. Hey, maybe they'll extend it to all Democratic Senators (or maybe just Senators from Massachusetts).
That ought to make the last weeks of the campaign more interesting, no?
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Advice To GOP: Don't Assume The City That Never Sleeps Has Got Your Back
New Yorkers read the papers; plus they've got looong memories.
What was that Oedipal saying about payback again? Oh, yes!
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Cornered
"And, Mr. Bush, PLEASE stop telling us, over and over and over again, that we've 'turned the corner.'
If we've 'turned the corner' already, why are YOU still here?"
Bill Maher, in a monologue on his HBO series "Real Time," last night
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Worthless Justice
The latest news in the Hamdi saga should get you all hopping mad, if you take seriously at all the ideals of freedom and justice in this country:
Until late last year, the Pentagon insisted that Hamdi was a threat and refused to allow him to meet with lawyers. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Hamdi's case, Defense Department officials allowed Dunham to meet with his client under tightly monitored conditions.
At that time, the Pentagon said it had determined Hamdi no longer had any intelligence value to U.S. authorities.
Huh. I guess "intelligence value" must be something like "radioactivity," with a calculable half-life.
In any event, now that the Justice Department has (once again) tipped its empty hand, I hope Hamdi's trial judge, Judge Doumar (who has proven himself to be plenty independent and feisty in the past) tells the prosecutors they can shove their "settlement proposal" where the sun don't shine -- that, given the Government's outrageous behavior, he won't accept any plea bargain of the case that requires Hamdi either to renounce his US citizenship, or forego his right to sue the Government for his mistreatment. I hope Hamdi himself refuses to accept such an offer (although, given the way he's been treated, who could blame him if he decided his US citizenship wasn't worth keeping -- I mean, honestly, other than his -- apparently-phyrric -- Supreme Court victory, what good has it done him? The Justice Department hasn't treated him with the respect and dignity I'd grant a stray dog).
It's too bad, too, that no enterprising reporter isn't asking Justice Clarence Thomas ("our youngest, cruelest justice" as the NYTimes deftly pegged him a dozen years ago) the equivalent of Kerry's "Iraq war" question -- that is, given what we now know, would he still have voted as he did in Hamdi's case? (Remember, Thomas is the ONLY justice to buy into the Bush administration's breathtakingly totalitarian argument that the President has the authority, unilaterally, to cast a US citizen into perpetual gulag, and -- not only is this permitted under the Constitution -- but US courts are powerless to even review such an action.)
Go ahead, ask Clarence if he thinks jailing Hamdi for three years on nothing but Emperor Tipsy Dixit's word, when it turns out (once again) that his word wasn't worth shit, was justified.
Let's hear what the constitutional subgenius has to say for himself . . .
Friday, August 13, 2004
Coming Home
Plus ça change . . .
Thursday, August 12, 2004
The "De-Processing" Of Due Process
I've been mulling over the California Supreme Court's decision today, particularly the part invalidating those same-sex marriages already performed. I have to say I've got a newfound respect for Justice Werdegar (a Pete Wilson appointee, believe it or not), who wrote this in dissent:
I do not join in the majority’s decision to address the validity of the marriages already performed and to declare them void. My concern here is not for the future of same-sex marriage. That question is not before us and, like the majority, I intimate no view on it. My concern, rather, is for basic fairness in judicial process. The superior court is presently considering whether the state statutes that limit marriage to "a man and a woman" (e.g., Fam. Code, § 300) violate the state and federal Constitutions. The same-sex couples challenging those statutes claim the state has, without sufficient justification, denied the fundamental right to marry (e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 383; Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12; Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, 714-715) to a class of persons defined by gender or sexual orientation. Should the relevant statutes be held unconstitutional, the relief to which the purportedly married couples would be entitled would normally include recognition of their marriages. By analogy, interracial marriages that were void under antimiscegeny statutes at the time they were solemnized were nevertheless recognized as valid after the high court rejected those laws in Loving v. Virginia. (E.g., Dick v. Reaves (Okla. 1967) 434 P.2d 295, 298.) By postponing a ruling on this issue, we could preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the constitutional litigation. Instead, by declaring the marriages "void and of no legal effect from their inception" (maj. opn., ante, at p. 70), the majority permanently deprives future courts of the ability to award full relief in the event the existing statutes are held unconstitutional. This premature decision can in no sense be thought to represent fair judicial process.
The majority asserts that "it would not be prudent or wise to leave the validity of these marriages in limbo for what might be a substantial period of time given the potential confusion (for third parties, such as employers, insurers, or other governmental entities, as well as for the affected couples) that such an uncertain status inevitably would entail." (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 75-76.) Nowhere in the opinion, however, does the majority note that any same-sex couple has filed a lawsuit seeking the legal benefits of their purported marriage. Nor is the absence of such lawsuits surprising, since any reasonable court would stay such actions pending the outcome of the ongoing constitutional litigation.
The majority’s decision to declare the existing marriages void is unfair for the additional reason that the affected couples have not been joined as parties or given notice and an opportunity to appear. On March 12, 2004, we denied all petitions to intervene filed by affected couples. That ruling made sense at the time it was announced because our prior order of March 11, 2004, which specified the issues to be briefed and argued, did not identify the validity of the existing marriages as an issue. Only on April 14, 2004, after having denied the petitions to intervene, did the court identify and solicit briefing on the issue of the marriages’ validity. To declare marriages void after denying requests by the purported spouses to appear in court as parties and be heard on the matter is hard to justify, to say the least.
The majority counters that "the legal arguments of such couples with regard to the question of the validity of the existing same-sex marriages have been heard and fully considered." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 74.) But this is a claim a court may not in good conscience make unless it has given, to the persons whose rights it is purporting to adjudicate, notice and the opportunity to appear. This is the irreducible minimum of due process, even in cases involving numerous parties. (See Mullane v. Central Hannover Tr. Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 314-315.) Amicus curiae briefs, which any member of the public may ask to file and which the court has no obligation to read, cannot seriously be thought to satisfy these requirements. The majority writes that "requiring each of the thousands of same-sex couples to be named and served as parties in the present action, would add nothing of substance to this proceeding." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 73.) Of course, the same argument can be made in many class actions with respect to the absent members of the class, but due process still gives each class member the right to notice and the opportunity to appear. (Mullane v. Central Hannover Tr. Co., supra, 339 U.S. at pp. 314-315.) Here, notice has been given to none of the 4,000 affected couples; and even the 11 same-sex couples who affirmatively sought to intervene were denied the opportunity to appear. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 74.) What the majority has done, in effect, is to give petitioners the benefit of an action against a defendant class of same-sex couples free of the burden of procedural due process. If the majority truly desired to hear the views of the same-sex couples whose rights it is adjudicating, it would not proceed in absentia.
Aware of this problem, the majority offers a specious imitation of due process by ordering the city to notify the same-sex couples that this court has decided their marriages are void, and to "provide these couples an opportunity to demonstrate that their marriages are not same-sex marriages" before canceling their marriage records. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 80, 81; see also id., at p. 74.) This procedure may prevent the city from mistakenly deleting the records of heterosexual marriages, but it cannot benefit any same-sex couple. Notice after the fact that one’s rights have been adjudicated is not due process.
What I learned in law school was that "due process" requires, at a minimum, "notice, and an opportunity to be heard." Married gay and lesbian couples in California didn't get that today.
Cal Supremes To Married Gays: Re-Cork The Champagne
As expected, the California Supreme Court today ruled (unanimously) that SF Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority under the law to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians last year. What was not so expected (particularly after they declined to let any of those 4,000+ same-sex spouses intervene in the case, to argue the constitutionality of their own marriages) was the Court's ruling, 5-2, that those same-sex marriages were a legal nullity, and void from the outset.
Having slogged through their 114-page set of opinions (mostly superfluous blather about "a government of laws, not of men"), I must say I'm not optimistic that there will be a majority of four votes there (next year, it's estimated) to validate same-sex marriages in California. The knee-jerk test seems to be this: If, the day before the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, a interracial couple had a wedding ceremony before a preacher, would it be valid under the Constitution? Or null and void? The Cal Supremes seem to say the latter, by a vote of 5 to 2.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
New Headline Over At Yahoo News:
"Poll finds Israeli Jews want Bush over Kerry"
You watch -- this afternoon, he'll start "Operation Texodus" to airlift 'em over here, and grant 'em instant citizenship, so they can vote . . .
Salaam Doodie: Won't Get Fooled Again
The new Bush-Cheney TV ad — "Solemn Duty" — is available for viewing today, on their website.
In it, George and Laura sit side by side, in what appears to be a home office, wearing pained expressions on their faces, like they just got his latest polling numbers.
George speaks:
"My most solemn duty is to lead our nation, to protect ourselves.
(. . . and by "ourselves," I mean, of course, Laura 'n' me. And the girls. Oh, and I guess Unka Dick, too -- but that's it.)
"I can't imagine the great agony of a mom or a dad having to make the decision about which child to pick up first on September the 11th.
(I "can't imagine" it because I've got all kinda Secret Service people to handle them things now. At taxpayer expense. Honestly, how do all you poor folks manage?)
"We cannot hesitate,
(Well, not more'n seven minutes anyway . . .)
"we cannot yield, we must do everything in our power to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again."
('cept for a couple side wars Unka Dick and Wolfie say we gotta get handled in Iraq and Iran first.)
Translation: Give us another chance. This time, we won't get caught flatfooted, with our thumbs up our asses, like before. Honest!
Do I see the glisten of flopsweat on his brow? Do I detect that acrid smell of desperation?
Well, as those unintentional comedians on FauxNews constantly like to say,
We Report. You Decide.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Co-Author Of Unfit For Command Says His Virulent Anti-Muslim And Anti-Catholic Online Freeper Rants "Taken Out Of Context"
My, my, my. The deeper one digs, the more craptacular this whole story (and those spreading it) gets.
It seems Jerry Corsi, co-author of the aforementioned anti-Kerry screed, is an equal-opportunity religious slanderer, displaying a disturbing obsession with faith-based buggery.
Doubtless our crack American Media will soon get to the bottom of this, just as they've done with the entire sordid "Swift Boat Liars for Bush" affair.
What? They haven't yet? Well, fortunately, eRiposte Media has already done their work for them.
Feel That Warm Trickle Down Your Back? That's The Rainmakers
Bush, at his Potemkin-village Meetup yesterday in Annandale, VA, explains the economics of Preemptive Plutocracy to the huddled masses therein assembled:
Bush criticized Kerry's plan to eliminate the tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 a year, saying that the "the rich in America happen to be the small business owners" who put people to work.
Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."
Monday, August 09, 2004
Dozens Throng To See Squanderer-In-Chief
Well, I'm watching Bush's "town hall meeting" in Annandale, VA, on CSPAN just now. It *looks* impressive, but according to this news report, there were "more than 600" supporters present -- WOW! (Visible minorities countable on one hand.)
Folks, Kerry and Edwards are drawing 10K-20K-30K+ crowds. Regularly. Everywhere they go.
Nope, it's clear that the ONLY thing we have to worry about is getting "Diebolded" on the vote count.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Go Get 'Em, Howard! YEAARRRGH!
Here's a bit of "must-see TV" for today: On CNBC's "Topic A" this evening, Dr. Howard Dean is guest-hosting in place of Tina Brown. Dean's guests include: Bev Harris, of blackboxvoting.org (who will demonstrate how quickly and easily touchscreen voting can be hacked into, and the results changed); California Sec. of State Kevin Shelley; Jon Stewart, of "The Daily Show"; and comedienne Margaret Cho.
Something tells me the Good Doctor had a hand in selecting his guests . . .
Saturday, August 07, 2004
What? The Bush Administration Blows Yet Another Ongoing, Long-Term Undercover Operation For Short-Term Political Gain?
I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you!
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Chronicles of Wingnut Hypocrisy, Chapter #5,487
Seems the same group that tried to get the FEC to ban TV ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" on the grounds that it violated campaign finance laws is now seeking an exemption from the same rules so it can advertise a book called . . . (wait for it) . . . "The Many Faces of John Kerry: Why This Massachusetts Liberal is Wrong for America.''
Yes, they have no shame. But they're counting on you having no memory.
Truer Words Were Never Spoken
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
-- George W. Bush, upon signing the $391 billion defense bill, 8/5/04.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Seriously, Did You Ever Think You'd Live To See
a black Southern carpetbagger?
Monday, August 02, 2004
Riddle Me This, Ralphie
Q. What do Ralph Nader and John Ashcroft now have in common?
A. They've both lost in balloting where the voters knew they were supporting an opponent who wouldn't be able to serve even if elected. (Crisco Johnnie lost to a dead man; Ratf*ck Ralphie just lost California's Peace & Freedom Party nomination to Leonard Peltier, who sits in federal prison.)
More and more, Ralphie's starting to look like Harold Stassen . . .
Sunday, August 01, 2004
TANG-Tied
Well, I, for one, am looking foward to the Presidential debates! Just the thought of John Kerry getting to mix it up verbally with Tipsy Dixit, showing which one does a better job of making sense extemporaneously, and which one can more honestly and forthrightly recount his successes and account for his shortcomings, gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
Ordinarily, I'm not a big fan of horror flicks, but I'm making a BIG bowl of popcorn to sit back and watch The Great Texas Cheerleader Massacre.
