Headlines - Sunday November 14

Profiles in Stupidity: Rep John Shimkus

 

###

 

Buried in a great article by Juan Cole on Obama's Asia trip is this comment on the Bush-Cheney "foreign wars" project. It's the clearest statement yet of what those two were really up to, and what they, and we, got for their trouble: http://www.americablog.com/2010/11/juan-cole-on-asian-century-what-bush.html

 

###

###

Yet another example of Obama trying to do the right thing, but not one Democrat had his back:

The accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, may remain behind bars without trial indefinitely because of disagreement over his trial location, according to the Washington Post.

The Obama administration has concluded it can't go ahead with its original plan to have the trial in federal court in New York because of opposition from lawmakers and local officials, the Post said. There is little support for reviving an effort to hold a military trial at Guantanamo Bay, according to the Post.

Obama administration officials said Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators can be held under laws of war, until a trial location is agreed on, the newspaper reported.

The latest coward to run like hell was none other than the Governor-elect Cuomo. Why? Who knows. He would have had four years for the issue to die down, but he caved prematurely. And the rule of law is even on Cuomo's side!

And it has been like this on any number of issues. Remember the Senate vote on Gitmo? Appropriating funds for the Supermax prison? And on and on. The White House gets a rep in certain circles for not fighting, yet every single time they try to fight, our cowardly, sniveling Democratic congress undercuts him. Yet rest assured, Obama will receive all the blame.

It really is disgraceful what a bunch of wimps Democrats are. Such a shame that Grayson lost. At least one Democrat would say the right things.

###

 

This is how Michael Caine speaks.

 

###

The Palin numbers.

The number of Americans viewing Sarah Palin unfavorably has hit the highest point since she burst onto the national stage over two years ago, according to a poll out Friday.

The Gallup survey conducted in the days after the Nov. 2 election found more than half of Americans — 52 percent — hold a negative opinion of the former Alaska governor. Only 40 percent viewed her favorably, which ties her lowest score from about a year ago.

Amazingly, the poll also indicates that a full 80% of Republicans hold a favorable view of Palin.  Hopefully this is one time when the right's delusional tendencies will benefit Democrats if Palin is encouraged enough to run.

(Shhh…no one tell her that 81% of Dems and 53% of independents view her unfavorably. Run, baby, run!)

###

 

The uppity negro meme is back

Was checking the local newspaper and was appalled to see the Virgin Ben on the op-ed pages:

Third, Obama's childhood shows us that he was always a narcissist concerned with his own power. Not only did he want to be president, he thought the presidency was all about him. Soldiers were there for defending him; businessmen were there for supporting him. Presidents were kings. That's why he wanted to be president.

The other day, one of the stooges at Tucker Carlon's vanity project was calling Obama the "Narcissist in Chief," and now a Weekly Standard flunky is out with the following:

Why has Barack Obama failed so spectacularly? Is he too dogmatically liberal or too pragmatic? Is he a socialist, or an anticolonialist, or a philosopher-president? Or is it possible that Obama's failures stem from something simpler: vanity. Politicians as a class are particularly susceptible to mirror-gazing. But Obama's vanity is overwhelming. It defines him, his politics, and his presidency.

The title of the piece is "American Narcissus," and like the Virgin Ben, it quotes from his books to draw a deeper, more sinster meaning that all the rest of us missed.

Do they coordinate these memes? Or is there just a rotating file of bullshit and sometimes it just seems like they are coordinating.

###

 

A group of scientists NOT affiliated with either the government or the company that manufactures and distributes the backscatter scanners that are now being used in an increasing number of US airports, has sent a letter of concern to Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology about the safety of these scanners.

http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/11/security-theatre-update.html

 

###

 

 

###

 

Election fraud by bible: freakazoids intimidate black voters

 

Yeah, tell me again how if it's xian it's true-blue murkin and not to be questioned.

Brad Friedman:

"did anyone else have to swear on a bible that their address was correct before they were able to vote? just wondering, because i did," Philadelphia voter Lindsay Granger wrote on her blog after voting in last Tuesday's mid-term election. "i had to lay my palm on the good book and state my name and address before i was allowed to sign my name in the voting log and enter the booth. they called it an affirmation. i call it creepy... and a little offensive..."

Granger notified VotersUnite.org last week after the incident which, she told the non-partisan election watchdog organization, made her "extremely uncomfortable because i'm not a Christian, and when i brought that up I was told to do it anyway."

In her blog item, Granger, an African-American, admitted to being "hypersensitive" given "the historical context of black people voting in america".

When informed of the incident, Bob Lee, the Voter Registration Administrator for the Philadelphia City Commissioners, confirmed to The BRAD BLOG that Bibles are, indeed, included in the package of election materials provided to each polling site, but says no such oath is required before casting a vote.

Stop right there. A bible is included in election materials? Out of what maggot-infested brain did that idea get vomited?

The incident reportedly took place at Philadelphia's Ward 15, Division 01 polling place at Trinity Baptist Church on Poplar Street. It was Granger's first time voting at that precinct after having moved recently from another area in the city.

Lee conceded that, based on Granger's description of the incident --- which he hadn't heard about until we contacted him for comment --- it sounded like the election board at the precinct "needs some training"...

Uh, no. Every single member and employee of the Board of Elections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needs to be run out of town on a rail and replaced by sentient human beings who grasp the concept of secular elections.

He says that few voters had complained about the bibles at polling places in the past, though "occasionally" his office will receive a complaint about one being placed on the voter sign-in table.

"The bible has been there for ages," he explained. "I think it's there for when the board is sworn in to take an oath before opening the polling place, that they're going to carry out their duty in a non-partisan manner. It's in every polling place in the city. It's included in the election pack."

Another irrefutable argument for eliminating the idiocy of touching a bad translation of a worse Bronze-Age fable when swearing an oath.

Granger's brief report to Voters Unite noted that she'd never been asked to swear on a bible --- or at all --- in previous elections. "When I voted in 2008 in a different precinct in Philadelphia (not at a church), that was not the case. My voter registration card was sufficient."

She was also concerned that other voters may have had to go through the same process. "The Bible was sitting out in the open, and the procedure wasn't done in secret, which leads me to believe that I am not the only person who was asked to do that," she wrote.

Read the whole thing.

 

###

 

Perfect epitaph for George Bush

A Small Fraction Of A Man

After a blistering summation of some of George W Bush's more egregious high crimes, misdemeanors and other failures, Mr. Pitt sums it up thus:

I don't know what this George W. Bush Reputation Rehabilitation Tour will actually accomplish in the end. The same 20% of the country that kept his approval ratings from slipping into single digits - said group now being known as the "Tea Party" - will go out and buy his book. They will lap up his mealy-mouthed pabulum like cats into the cream, and some of our "mainstream" commentators will try to shoehorn the idea that he is missed into the national conversation.

He is not. George W. Bush was, and likely will forever be, the single worst American president in the nation's history. To outstrip his remarkable record of failure, criminality and disgrace, a future president will have to personally cause the Earth to crash into the sun.

All I can do for now is avoid the TV, stay away from the newspapers, and pray to God on High that this small fraction of a man will soon retreat back into the ignominy from which he has emerged. There is no salvaging him, and thanks to him, there may be no salvaging America in his aftermath.

We are all children of this bastard fool now. The least he can do is stay in the shadows where he belongs, while we toil and sweat to repair what he wrought.

Small fraction of a man.  Is there anything anywhere that more aptly describes George W. Bush?  This should be his epitaph, carved deeply into his no doubt ornate tombstone and the label or caption for any official portrait or other representation or publication dealing with his presidency.

My compliments Mr. Pitt.  

###

Yellow Dog: Forgiving war criminals and other liberal crimes

If you've been here before, you know I am a Fighting Liberal and vocal advocate of Liberals always Staying on Offense and Fighting Dirty.

It is, in the end, the only way we ever win. (No, the oh-so-polite-dems 2008 election was NOT a liberal victory.)

I have no patience with the being-nice-is-more-important-than-winning crowd, and could not be bothered to address Rachel Maddow's abomination of an interview with the unspeakably appeasing Jon Stewart.

Fortunately for all of us, Digby has more fortitude.

In the wake of Rachel Maddow's interview with Jon Stewart and his explanation as to why he does not think it's right to call President Bush a war criminal, one of her readers sends in a very thoughtful email, explaining and agreeing with that position:

SNIP

So, I guess my question is, how do we "learn" from his presidency if in addition to giving him a pass on his crimes, we aren't even willing to have an honest conversation, using real words with real meaning about what happened? If we dance around these things as if it's wrong to call white white and black black and insist that someone who ordered war crimes shouldn't be called a war criminal then I see a very different lesson being taken from that example than the one this commenter anticipates.

Yes, it's pretty to believe that the country will self-evidently come to the right conclusion without any legal or even social condemnation of what went wrong. We'll just "know" going forward that we need our leaders to have more patience, and be more thoughtful and less bellicose in the future. But I think this defies human nature and it certainly defies the reality of the world in which we live.

People are subject to a barrage of information and stimulation and the lessons they take from things are highly manipulable. There's a reason that wealthy, conservative plutocrats (who know just a little bit about PR and marketing) are spending billions to influence elections and create an alternative media to sell their ideology and discredit liebralism. Being passive in the face of that onslaught, pulling our punches, being unwilling to be unpleasant and confrontational in this environment is highly unlikely to even be noticed, much less appreciated. It certainly will not create the space for average people to consider both sides and make a thoughtful, reasonable judgment about their government and their society -- the necessary information simply can't rise above the din to make itself heard.

I understand the impulse. If one believes that people are basically good and that they aren't by nature irrational creatures, it's reasonable to put your faith in their better angels to see them through times like these. But human civilization was created not just to allow our creative and social aspirations to flourish, but also to keep the not-so-better angels from overwhelming the good. And history has shown that there are times when being passive and failing to sound the alarm about those bad angels is a tragic mistake.

We are living in an era in which very powerful people are being allowed to commit crimes with impunity while millions of others are being imprisoned and worse. Regardless of how the people see that (and the plutocrats are working overtime to ensure they see it their way) it's clear that the lesson the powerful are taking from this is not that Bush or any of them are "cautionary tales of poor leadership". They are being perfectly insulated even from harsh words and uncomfortable references to unpleasant historical analogies, so they are being assured every day by well meaning liberals and cynical conservatives alike that they will not even suffer social disapprobation, much less be held personally accountable for what they've done. They have learned that they get away with anything.

And in perhaps the most clever turn of all, these same well meaning, thoughtful liberals are suggesting that their fellows turn the other cheek when they in turn are characterized to many millions of people every day as "vermin" and "infectious diseases" which must be purged from the body politic. It is a perfectly defensible moral position, proposed by a guy named Jesus Christ, so who am I to argue? But I'm not sure that passive resistance works without the resistance part. And in our cacophonous political culture I just don't think you can persuade anyone to moral action without strong and meaningful rhetoric. "Yes we can" is great, but if the whole country is in distress and other side is calling you the "disease" that caused it, I'm not sure it gets the job done.

The conservatives created this hostile and aggressive discourse and now we all have to live in it. I wish I had the faith that others have that "good" will come to the fore without any necessity for liberals to defend themselves, but I don't. I think it's important to be truthful and to try to be fair, but I don't think we'll get anywhere by denying that war criminals are war criminals or covering over the fact that we have people on our airwaves dedicated to the dehumanization of their fellow Americans who call themselves liberal. Unfortunately, I see a strong liberal indication to pull back and rely on simple faith in the truth coming out in the end. I sure hope it works out.

Read the whole brilliant thing.

###

 

Pickup truck thanks satan for Barack Obama window

 

Here is a pickup in Indianapolis that is very thankful that Barack Obama is our president. Whoa, slow down there, truck! It's not even Thanksgiving yet! Leave something to be thankful for!

Obama here is wearing his usual "The Batman" comic-book Halloween costume, so that this truck window works for Thanksgiving and Halloween. And around Christmas time he can add a little green garland around it. How creative and festive!

Yes, it's too bad it took Obama a full two years to kill that Constitution. Black presidents are so lazy, right? It's kind of funny how that document survived the suspension of habeas corpus and other threats, but it couldn't withstand the fact that it allowed the election of a black president. The Constitution kind of sounds like a pussy, if you ask us. And it makes sense that this truck would honor such a pussy document; it doesn't even have truck nutz. Shameful.

Anyway, yes, thank you Satan for making this very nice truck window design. [thanks to Wonkette operative "Pete" for the photo]

###

 

 

 

###

 

Mitch McConnell: party before country

By September 2006, the situation in Iraq had deteriorated horribly and Democrats were calling for a reduction of troops in Iraq.  Sen. Mitch McConnell, outraged, lashed out at Dems.

"The Democrat leadership finally agrees on something — unfortunately it's retreat," McConnell said in a Sept. 5, 2006, statement in response to a Democratic letter asking Bush to change his Iraq policy. Using blistering language, McConnell continued:

"Whether they call it 'redeployment' or 'phased withdrawal,' the effect is the same: We would leave Americans more vulnerable and Iraqis at the mercy of al-Qaeda, a terrorist group whose aim — toward Iraqis and Americans — is clear."

Understandable.  McConnell was concerned about endangering American lives.  Furthermore, the Senator, compassionate man that he is, had the well-being of Iraqis in mind.  Sweet.  I had always thought of McConnell as being little more than a scumbag.  Might I have been wrong?  It's difficult to not respect a man who places country before all other considerations and shows compassion for the citizens of a nation of which he had a hand in blowing up to hell and back .  Quite a guy that Mitch McConnell.

In passing, here's a passage from President Bush's Decision Points...

In September 2006, with the midterm elections approaching, my friend Mitch McConnell came to the Oval Office. The senior senator from Kentucky and Republican whip had asked to see me alone. Mitch has a sharp political nose, and he smelled trouble.

"Mr. President," he said, "your unpopularity is going to cost us control of the Congress."

Mitch had a point. Many Americans were tired of my presidency…

"Well, Mitch," I asked, "what do you want me to do about it?" 

"Mr. President," he said, "bring some troops home from Iraq."

What?!!?  What happened to Mitch's concern about weakening national security and leaving Americans more vulnerable?  What about al-Qaeda evildoers terrorizing innocent Iraqis?  Surely the lives of Americans was more important than winning a stinking midterm election, was it not?

C'mon Mitch, say it ain't so, you two-timing, hypocritical weasel!

That folks, is your Republican Party of America – a party that never ceases to find new ways to screw and deceive you.

Scumbags, the entire lot.

UPDATE.

McConnell's hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, had this to say in an editorial.

At the time that Sen. McConnell was privately advising Mr. Bush to reduce troop levels in Iraq, he was elsewhere excoriating congressional Democrats who had urged the same thing. "The Democrat[ic] leadership finally agrees on something — unfortunately it's retreat," Sen. McConnell had said in a statement on Sept. 5, 2006, about a Democratic letter to Mr. Bush appealing for cuts in troop levels. Sen. McConnell, who publicly was a stout defender of the war and Mr. Bush's conduct of the conflict, accused the Democrats of advocating a position that would endanger Americans and leave Iraqis at the mercy of al-Qaida.

Unless he is prepared to call a former president of his own party a liar, Mr. McConnell has a choice. He can admit that he did not actually believe the Iraq mission was vital to American security, regardless of what he said at the time. Or he can explain why the fortunes of the Republican Party are of greater importance than the safety of the United States.