Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The Last Temptation of George W. Bush

We thought State of Denial was the most withering literary attack W & Co. were going to face this political season, but apparently David Kuo has a legitimate shot at the title (heh).

From MSNBC:

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.

The office’s primary mission, providing financial support to charities that serve the poor, never got the presidential support it needed to succeed, according to the book.

Entitled “Tempting Faith,” the book is not scheduled for release until Oct. 16.

“Tempting Faith’s” author is David Kuo, who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003. A self-described conservative Christian, Kuo’s previous experience includes work for prominent conservatives including former Education Secretary and federal drug czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Kuo, who has complained publicly in the past about the funding shortfalls, goes several steps further in his new book.

He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly “nonpartisan” events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races.

{snip}

In fact, the Bush administration often promoted the faith-based agenda by claiming that existing government regulations were too restrictive on religious organizations seeking to serve the public.

Substantiating that claim proved difficult, Kuo says. “Finding these examples became a huge priority.… If President Bush was making the world a better place for faith-based groups, we had to show it was really a bad place to begin with. But, in fact, it wasn’t that bad at all.”

In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on “compassion” social programs, Kuo claims he discovered “we were actually spending about $20 million a year less on them than before he had taken office.”

The money that was appropriated and disbursed, however, often served a political agenda, Kuo claims.

This really does sound like the book "the nuts" ought to spend all of November 7th digesting in their Lazy-Boy at the house. I think it deserves that kind of thoughtful, patient attention. Really.

Comments on the Swift Update

Reddog kicks things off:

In CMDR Swift, a fighter for truth and justice has been created. More will be motivated to fight because of his treatment.

It is inexcusable that a career in the military is no longer about service to the nation but service to political expediency. Politics should play no part in the military estblishment. CMDR Swift was not making a political statement by doing the job assigned him. To fight against tyranny is also not political, but an act to preserve and protect the society in which we live.

Chap responds:


Gravatar

"In CMDR Smith, a fighter for Truth and Justice has been created...."
Ack. Come on. The man's a JAG who did a high profile case while on shore duty, not Superman.

Figures the NYT would screw this up this badly. And I've apparently wasted my time on addressing this; I've taken hours to clearly and specifically delineate how the promotion process works. Your commenter has presented nothing to show he has any idea what the man did before this, and most importantly how the man compares to the rest of the JAGs up for promotion. As far as I can tell he just knows one data point and doesn't even know what the scales are.

And he presumes to tell me what a military career is about from that, and tell me what to think.

Gravatar Hamdan v. Rummy is hardly any high-profile case. Andrew McCarthy of the esteemed National Review said it was "the most important case of the Court's term." Michelle Malkin said it was the "most important case on the War on Terror." For once, she and I were in agreement.

When Swift was handed the booger, W's numbers and the popularity of the War on Terra were near their zenith while the job of defending people who were portrayed (correctly or not) as wanting to blow up more Americans was described as being as unpatriotic as one could get as Matthews encapsulated perfectly:

MATTHEWS: What about the charge made recently, just a couple minutes ago by Kate O‘Beirne of the “National Review,” that people who fight us who are not in uniform, who do not represent countries who are party to the Geneva Convention shouldn‘t be free riders? They shouldn‘t get Geneva Convention treatment. They should be treated like thugs.
Swift pulled Defend the Thug duty and did it beautifully, period.

And I'm not sure what the Times "screwed up". You wanted them to write that there were, quite possibly, reasons that weren't political, or issues of comparative competence, or unknown issues such as less-than-stellar fitness reports that may have thwarted Swift's promotion.

Fair enough, maybe they should have included that but those musings don't comport with what we *do* see and what we *do* know -- that the guy took a shit job, one that he and everyone else knew would win him no friends in the Navy and in the broader body politic outside us carriers of ACLU cards, and he kicked serious ass.

Every right-wing pundit railed against the Hamdan case, basically positing that scum like Hamdan shouldn't never be given standing in an American court much less be provided zealous counsel and a victory.

But forget the pundits, it's about Rummy/W/Cheney and their running rough-shod over the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution. It's been their position since the first prisoners were taken in Afghanistan that these guys have no rights, not even the rights accorded POWs. It's ok to torture them and then use those confessions to convict. That was the philosophy that gave a whipped-up electorate a collective erection: "Hell, yeah, waterboard their towelhead asses!"

"But what if they're not guilty, what if they were accidently scooped up, what if one of their personal enemies pointed a finger just to get a reward?"

"They're ALL guilty man -- they don't need no stinkin' trial."

That's the philosophy that Swift opposed and the Supreme Court of the US agreed with him 5-3.

Now, given the INCREDIBLE political investment that the Bushies put into their moral righteousness in running Gitmo the way they did and creating the military tribunals the way they did it, it is reasonable to expect that they were, say, less-than-thrilled with the Hamdan decision. Their surrogates, both in government and in the chattering class described the Hamdan decision as a severe blow to Western Civilization. And more importantly, to Messrs Bush and Rumsfeld, the decision made them de facto war criminals.

And we are asked to believe that those gentlemen or more likely, the fear that those gentlemen inspire *had nothing* to do with the pass-over?

You're asking too much.

You made a great case (as usual) that another reasonable explanation does indeed exist for the pass-over. But no matter how high you stack the data and how eloquently you present it, you can't negate the more-than-just-barely-possible case that Swift was torpedoed by his own success in an environment that expressly didn't want to see him succeed. And that's all the Times piece is saying: "...here is no denying the chilling message it sends to remaining military lawyers about the potential consequences of taking their job, and justice, seriously."

Consider the case of John Adams who had a similarly odious assignment of defending the British Redcoats charged with homicide in the famed Boston Massacre. Adams succeeded in getting the soldiers acquitted or merely branded on the thumb, winning him no friends. Adams said of the affair:

"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right."
obloquy OB-luh-kwee, noun:
1. Strongly condemnatory or abusive language or utterance.
2. The condition of disgrace suffered as a result of public blame, abuse, or condemnation; ill repute.
Adams bounced back ok, once cooler heads than the one of his cousin Sam prevailed.

UPDATE: Chap took the ball over to his sandlot if you care to follow....

Swift Update

Mountain Philosopher reader and attorney Danya Ledford Vanhook points us to an editorial in today's New York Times regarding the story of Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift:

{Swift} did his duty and defended his client. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in June that the tribunals violated American law as well as the Geneva Conventions.

The Navy responded by killing his military career. About two weeks after the historic high court victory in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Commander Swift was told he was being denied a promotion. Under the Navy’s up-or-out system, that spelled the end of his 20-year career, and Commander Swift said last week that he will be retiring in March or April.

With his defense of Mr. Hamdan and his testimony before Congress starting in July 2003, Commander Swift did as much as any single individual to expose the awful wrongs of Guantánamo Bay and Mr. Bush’s lawless military commissions. It was a valuable public service and a brave act of conscience, and his treatment is deeply troubling.

{snip}

The Navy gave no reason for refusing Commander Swift’s promotion. But there is no denying the chilling message it sends to remaining military lawyers about the potential consequences of taking their job, and justice, seriously.

Damn right.

New Blog Feature: Ask Mr. Pink



Mr. Pink is not a licensed therapist nor does she play one on TV. But she has mountains of pithy, common-sensical advice and the price is right. Email me -- jdeville-at-gmail.com -- and I'll forward the query on to her and the response will appear here at Mountain Philosopher so all might benefit.

Mr. Pink: Italian Train Strikes are Easier to Navigate than the Federal Bureaucracy

If you've ever been to Italy, you are brutally aware of the train strikes. If you haven't been to Italy, you've likely heard of the train strikes.

There are few experiences which match travelling through Europe via train. The scenery, the conversations, the wine you share -- it's a moving outdoor cafe'. Except, when it's not.

I was stranded in Italy twice in two different locations because of the notorious train strikes. I avoided 3 other strikes because I became a more savvy traveler. But, I was never savvy enough to protect myself from the fear of being stranded in an Italian train station. Some of that fear was the result of not speaking the language; some of that fear was because I was travelling alone; some of that fear was that I had checked out of my pension and knew I couldn't get back in because they were booked solid.

But, sometimes, there was on a loophole with the strikes: Sometimes. you could find a train going to another country. This may have not been the country you chose to visit next on your itinerary, but if it got you out of the country, that's all you needed. Because once you escaped the Italian border, you could find a train which would take you where you wanted to go.

In other words, with some stamina and some research, I was able to press "O" and talk to a representative for assistance.

What has been a great disappointment to me over the past few years is that I've been unable to press "O" with government agencies I've dealt with. They are all underfunded and understaffed.

It's quite a surreal experience to realize you have a better chance to escape Italy during a train strike than to reach a U.S. government agency representative (person-to-person) you pay for with your tax dollars.

Every year, since 2002, dealing with INS has become a bigger and
bigger nightmare. You can't reach them. Tricks I used a year ago or
6 months ago no longer work. I need to make an appointment with them for the kids, but I can't reach them. I wrote a letter hoping that
will work.

While INS were the one who let the hijackers in, they were also the ones who helped me adopt foreign children. I can't begin to express the difference since 1998. It was always a red-tape nightmare, but at least you could reach a PERSON. And, that person really wanted to help.

I'd love to see the stats on foreign adoptions over the past two years. I bet it's down to nothing. I couldn't do all the stuff I needed to do in this current system. I guess everyone has to use an adoption agency who knows how to bypass the horseshit, and I know how expensive that is.

I just want to get my Proof of Citizenship papers from the jerks and be done with them. Luckily, the kids don't need them right now. It's only something which will be required later (in theory -- that could change, too).

Anyway, I couldn't even reach Congressman Taylor's office (they're all on Lithium!) and I started to feel tears fill my eyes, and I thought, "Jesus Christ! Am I in Italy? Am I dealing with a train strike?!"

Then I realized the train strike was EASIER. And, I'm not lying.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Silliness and Accountability

"I now have Bushaccrountrabrillitry! North Korea controls the world!!"

Does the fact that President Bush has done nothing about North Korea other than to issue bellicose and grandstanding statements and to engage in magical thinking about how the Chinese were going to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle in any way entail that he bears any responsibility whatsoever for North Korea being a kinda nuclear power?

That, is a silly question.

From today's press briefing with the former (cough) FOX News purty-boy and current White House Press Secretary Tony Snow condescending to the Great Unwashed Press Corps:

Q Looking back, is there anything that the President would have done differently? Does he believe he has made any mistakes in this?

MR. SNOW: Oh, my goodness, that's -- you know --

Q It's a fair question.

MR. SNOW: No, it's a silly question.

Q Why is that a silly question?

MR. SNOW: Yes, yes, it is a silly question because --

Q You just talked about --

MR. SNOW: Well, let me ask you -- give me some characterization of what you might think. Because what typically happens is that any answer to that question is spun into, "President Made Mistakes, Regrets."

[snip]

Q The notion that that's a silly question, when you have a President who draws a red line three years ago and says, we will not tolerate nuclear weapons, and now you have a country that just tested a nuclear weapon -- you don't think it's fair to ask for some accountability as to what happened, or that there were mistakes made?

MR. SNOW: David, the accountability lies in North Korea, not in Washington.

And now a word from the Mountain Philosopher. As a social studies teacher, I have a passing awareness of world geography as well as civics. And I could have sworn that Accountability did indeed lie in Washington, DC. But I checked my updated, Pentagon-issued maps this evening, and DAMMIT!.....Tony Snow is RIGHT!!!...Bush Accountability does indeed lie in North Korea!....see for yourself:

We now return you to your regularly scheduled BS-fest already in progress....

Q That's it? There's no accountability for when this country engages in diplomatic activity or warfare, it doesn't have anything to do -- there's no accountability within this government?

MR. SNOW: This government is held accountable all the time. As a matter of fact, the President even gets held accountable when gas prices fall beyond his ability to influence --

Q You just said it was silly --

MR. SNOW: You know what, okay, let me --

Q -- it was silly ask whether lessons were learned --

MR. SNOW: Thank you. No, no, no -- it was silly to say, does he think he made mistakes and that kind of thing.

Q Right. You think that's a silly notion, a silly question.

MR. SNOW: I think what it is, is a gratuitous question in the sense that when it is asked, it is not asked in the context of, what are your strategic considerations, what is brought to bear. Instead it is asked -- and maybe I'm being unfair, Cheryl -- in the context of a "gotcha" question that is designed to paper over the immense difficulties that are involved in the activities of dozens and dozens of people who devote their lives to trying to get this right.

And then Mr. Snow walked out.....

Ralph Peters gives the finger to the Iraqi Government (and the back of his hand to W)

Uber-hawk, Operation Iraqi Freedom Cheerleader, and NY Post columnist Ralph Peters -- a Jacksonian Oracle if there ever was one -- has read the tea leaves and the bloodstains in the streets of Bagdad and has made the following pronouncement to what passes as the Iraqi central government: "No more troops fellas and you guys get one year to get it together or we're all outta there."

From the NY Post:

WITH 26 American troops dead in Iraq in the first nine days of October, the combination of bad news and pre-election politics has those on one bench arguing for bailing out immediately and those on the other bench frantic to pile on.

Neither position is realistic. We're not going to pull out of Iraq overnight - no matter what happens in November. The "bring the troops home now" voices always blended arch political cynicism with willful naiveté - it's always been about Bush, not Iraq.

But remaining in Baghdad requires a new sense of reality. "Stay the course" is meaningless when you don't have a course - and the truth is that the administration still doesn't have a strategy, just a jumble of programs, slogans and jittery improvisations.

Our Army and Marine Corps urgently need increases in personnel strength. They've been stripped to the strategic and tactical bone. We need more boots. But not on the ground in Iraq.

Peters ain't an oracle of the caliber Walter Cronkite circa 1968. But you add him up with Baker and Warner and you almost get a Cronkite. Peters attempts to put distance between himself and the pathological Bush detractors ("guilty, your Honor"). But the fact that he's issuing this call when W is on the ground already in deep political pain, less than four weeks before a crucial mid-term election speaks of the column's deliberate and calculated aims: Peters and his ilk want a mandate for a change of war management policy. One that's based on reality.

A Perfect Storm of Reality

"Good God! With the war cover-up gone, our dysfunctionality exposed, and with the nation's Ambien supply running out, there's just no way we're gonna make it!"

How did the Dems shoot up so quickly in the polls from just a little over a month ago? The folks at Firedoglake have the correct diagnosis -- a perfect storm of reality:

Even if you're a determined pessimist like Markos, you have to admit that things don't seem quite so bad now. What happened to undo the seemingly indestructible Bush PR juggernaut? Reality happened, that's what. Karl Rove and his minions can build the Shrub-in-Chief up as a king all they want, but ultimately he can’t command the waves of reality — and whether those waves erode his sand monument to himself slowly (as in the agonizing, gradual disintegration of Iraq) or suddenly (as with Hurricane Katrina last year), eventually people can see for themselves how little substance is really there.

Over the past couple weeks, a perfect storm of reality — the Mark Foley page-stalking scandal, the official National Intelligence Estimate that we're losing ground against terrorism due to the Iraq debacle, and the revelations of Bob Woodward's book State of Denial — came together so fiercely that even largely inattentive Americans couldn't shut it out, and the Bushites' grotesquely fabricated celebrations (ghastly as it sounds, that's what they were) of the fifth anniversary of September 11th were washed away.

This turn of events is both a lesson and a (hopefully) unique opportunity. On the one hand, we've discovered our ultimate weapon against the forces of mendacity, if only we can learn to make the best use of it. On the other hand, we'd best master it quickly, since it's horrifying to think how much worse things would have to get for Democrats to win if reality doesn't do the job on its own this time.

Go read the rest of their most excellent analysis.

Bankruptcy Judge Declares W's Policy and Proxy Morally Bankrupt

From Chron.com via AP with a hat tip to First-draft:

WASHINGTON — A judge who usually constrains his opinions to the technicalities of bankruptcy law broke from habit last week and denounced U.S. policy on the detention of "enemy combatants" as "the tactics of the old Soviet Union."

In an e-mail message to National Public Radio that was read aloud on NPR's "Morning Edition" program Friday, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Leif Clark attacked the views of a former Bush administration official who had framed the White House policy on the detention of suspected terrorists. The official, John Yoo, argued that such prisoners are ineligible for the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

"The very idea of holding anyone without trial, without the right to see the evidence that was used to justify naming them an enemy combatant, and depriving them of the ability to challenge why they're even there, is so repugnant to a constitutional democracy that I'm shocked this man actually claims to be defending American values," Clark said in the e-mail. "These are the tactics of the old Soviet Union, not of a country that stands for freedom and the rule of law."
Yep.

Mr. Pink: The Best Mechanic

I fail to comprehend the loyalty of many towards a Republican party currently held in contempt.

The rationale seems to be "I don't want to abandon my party. I've invested X amount of years in supporting them, and while I currently disagree with them, I will still vote for them because I hope to one day reclaim MY party."

Yes, it's important to find candidates with whom you agree. Yes, it's important to fight for your party. But, IF your party is failing you, don't vote for them until they have EARNED your vote.

Because as long as you continue to take your car to the service
station who doesn't fix it, your car will never run properly. The
ONLY way to get your car to work properly is to take it to a service station who WILL fix it, even if that service station does other stuff with which you don't agree. If your goal is to fix your car, then you should go to the best mechanic.

Sure, you feel bad leaving the service station you've gone to over the years, but if you and others don't quit getting your car fixed there, that service station won't realize they need to hire new mechanics. They'll keep thinking they're doing a good job.

And, IF that service station cares about you as a customer, they will work even harder trying to win back your patronage. Then, you can feel good about taking your car there again.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Meet the New Russia, Same as the Old Russia..

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

A RUSSIAN journalist renowned for probing corruption and the brutality of Russia's military campaign in Chechnya has been gunned down and killed in the lobby of her apartment building.

Anna Politkovskaya, 48, who had chronicled nearly every major story in Russia in the past decade, was killed on Saturday. Her reports often clashed with official versions of such events as the hostage crisis at a theatre in Moscow in 2002 and the bloody end of a school siege in Beslan in 2004.

The mother of two drew a large crowd at the Sydney Writers' Festival in May, where she spoke about her book A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya.

She was a harsh critic of President Vladimir Putin's rule and was working on a story about torture in Chechnya, where a Kremlin-backed strongman has all but routed a separatist movement that sparked two bloody wars, but at a cost to Russia that has yet to be measured. The article was to be published Monday, according to her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, one of the few independent media outlets in Russia.

The former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who is said to be concerned about the increasing lack of pluralism in the country, recently became a minority shareholder in the newspaper.

"It is a savage crime against a professional and serious journalist and a courageous woman," Mr Gorbachev told the Russian news agency Interfax. "It is a blow to the entire democratic, independent press. It is a grave crime against the country, against all of us."

The attack was the highest-profile killing of a journalist in Russia since July 2004, when Paul Klebnikov, an American editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, was gunned down outside his office. Twelve journalists have been killed since Mr Putin came to power in 2000, and most of the cases remain unsolved.

In a world filled with the distractions of AQ, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il, it's easy to forget some of the truly powerful and nasty bastards. It's too easy to forget that while $80 a barrel oil helped Chavez and Ahmadinejad, it REALLY helped ol' Pootie-Poot.

"Say, what if I faxed you a headshot of Helen Thomas...?"

Update: Been waiting for the nuclear test verdict all day and it still seems inconclusive. But if it's a success or close to it, I reckon I have to move Kim Jong Il from the category of "distraction" to "truly nasty and powerful bastard" -- the club he's wanted to be a part of all his life.

What Would Denny Do?


From SurveyUSA.com

Joining Technorati

Technorati Profile

Housekeeping. Nothing to see here move along.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift: Defender of the US Constitution

"Historically, it always depends on whether we make decisions out of fear or out of convictions. When we make them out of fear, we're rarely proud of them a hundred years later."
---Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, US Navy

Sometime in the spring of 1976, in the 8th grade here in Franklin, I was talking to schoolmate Charles Swift on the back steps of the old Middle School where the high school cafeteria and Media Center now stand. Charles told me he had been studying wrestling. My facial expression must have indicated my lack of awe: "Go ahead, try to take me down", he said.

I gave it a shot and in about two seconds Charles had me pinned.

"Let me try again", I asked.

"Sure!"

This time I went low, grabbing Charles around both knees. Charles maneuvered quickly, I stood to reposition and in a flick, I was on my butt, looking up at his grin and his trademark winsome countenance.

As is the case of most of my former schoolmates, I never saw or spoke to Charles after graduation -- we had attended different high schools. All I remember was reading he had been accepted to the Naval Academy after graduating from Franklin High School in 1980.

He graduated from the Naval Academy in 1984 and from Seattle Law School in 1994. All told, Charles has 18 years in service to the Navy, 11 of them on the Judge Advocate General's Corps.

In March of 2006, Charles got to wrestle a most formidable opponent in the most august legal arena. The opponent, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; the arena, the US Supreme Court; the case: Guantanamo Bay detainee Salim Hamdan vs Donald Rumsfeld.

Charles had been tapped for the tough duty of defending Hamdan in the spring of 2003. As he told Esquire Magazine: "The guy who gave me the job said he wanted fighters."

They got the right guy.

Civilian attorney Neal Kaytal actually argued the case in front of the Court but it was Charles who had gotten it that far. Hamdan, a Yemeni national (with a fourth-grade education who claims he never joined Al Qaeda and never fought anyone), was Osama bin Laden's former driver and was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism. The case was about the nature of the military commissions set up by the Bush Administration to try the Guantanamo detainees. Specifically, Swift and his co-counsels argued that the commissions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions.

The Supreme Court agreed with Charles Swift.

The Court found that evidence gained through torture and unsworn testimony (including hearsay) was a violation of the UCMJ. The Court found that the commission mechanism which allowed for "secret evidence" -- evidence which could never be examined by a defendant and his attorney was a violation. The Court found that the prohibition on a defense attorney from even discussing certain evidence was a violation. The Court found that the lack of a true appellate process (all appeals would be heard within the Executive Branch only) was a violation.

The Court concluded that since the military commissions do not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, the commissions are in violation of the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan or his fellow detainees.

What does Swift have to say about all this?

Before the case reached the Supreme Court, Swift told Esquire magazine, "What became clear is that the president had determined to deviate from past practices. They were determined to make up their own rules."

The day the decision was handed down, Swift was interviewed by Hardball's Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: What about the charge made recently, just a couple minutes ago by Kate O‘Beirne of the “National Review,” that people who fight us who are not in uniform, who do not represent countries who are party to the Geneva Convention shouldn‘t be free riders? They shouldn‘t get Geneva Convention treatment. They should be treated like thugs.

SWIFT: Well, you know, if you‘re looking at it from that way, we have a lot of criminals here in this country. And to prejudge anyone that we capture outside the country as a thug, why are we having a trial in the first place? We‘ve already decided they were guilty.

What the Supreme Court said is you have the trial first, you use the procedures that are set up under international law, and then you decide whether they‘re a thug. You don‘t make the thug determination going in.

{snip}

MATTHEWS: I only have a minute here, sir, and I appreciate your position, and I‘m being tough with you because there is another side to this argument. Let me ask you, do you believe that people who fight us as terrorists deserve Geneva Convention treatment?

SWIFT: It‘s not whether they deserve it or not. It‘s how we conduct ourselves. It has to do where if we say that our opponent can cause us not to follow the rules anymore, then we‘ve lost who we are. We‘re the good guys. We‘re the guys who follow the rule and the people we fight are the bad guys and we show that every day when we follow the rules, regardless of what they do. It‘s what sets us apart. It‘s what makes us great and in my mind, it‘s what makes us undefeatable, ultimately."
Such eloquence and such passion for the rule of law are lacking in our present situation. And now it seems that the Department of Defense is trying to inculcate more fear in the hearts and minds of those who have such a passion and clear vision for right and wrong for today I read this sad footnote:

"Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift has been passed over for promotion and must soon leave the military according to the military's "up-or-out" promotion system."

Not one to be pinned, Charles effortlessly broke the hold that a morally derelict Secretary of Defense attempted by proxy as the Seattle Times informs us:
"It was a pleasure to serve," said Swift, who added that he would defend Salim Hamdan again, even if he knew he would have to leave the Navy earlier than he wanted.

"All I ever wanted was to make a difference — and in that sense, I think my career and personal satisfaction has been beyond my dreams," he said.

Swift, a Seattle University Law School graduate, also said he will continue to defend Hamdan as a civilian. The Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, which provided pro-bono legal work in Hamdan's habeas corpus petition, has agreed to support Swift's defense of Hamdan in civilian life, he said.

In the opinion of Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, Swift was "a no-brainer for promotion," given his devotion to the Navy, the law and his client.

But, he said, Swift is part of a long line of Navy defense lawyers "of tremendous distinction" who were not made full commander and "had their careers terminated prematurely."

"He brought real credit to the Navy," said Fidell. "It's too bad that it's unrequited love."
Well, maybe some in the Navy, or, more likely, some in the Administration don't love him but I have the deepest respect and admiration for Charles Swift, for his passion, for his service, for his sense of history, and for his abiding faith that the moral high ground is the only place to win this current war.

And I couldn't be more proud than to have been tossed on my can by this man.

Staff Sergeant Carlos Dominguez, Age 57, Husband, Father of Three, KIA Bagdad

Last week, when I was watching This Week with George S., I did what I normally do when the names of the fallen soldiers scroll by - I kept two questions in mind -- what are the ages and where are they from?

Nineteen hits harder than 35 because as a high-school teacher, I identify with the teens and I have former students who are in the theater of battle. Is a soldier less important if he or she is from California? Absolutely not, But, again, it hits harder when I see Anderson, SC and Seneca, SC -- two little towns who used to have a thriving textile economy and are right down the road from where I grew up but have fallen on tough times.

This weekly ritual did not prepare me for what I saw last week: a fallen soldier who was 57. I was stunned. Yes, I had seen the news accounts of older soldiers on reserve being called up. But this was different. A fifty-seven year old man was in one of the most dangerous of combat situations and was killed.

Looking over his official military bio, one sees that he was drafted in 1969 and served for 15 years in the U.S. Army Pacific, Republic of Korea, the U.S. Army South, Panama, the 2nd Infantry Division, Republic of Korea and the 3rd Armored Division, Germany all with no apparent combat. He then retired to civilian life with his wife in Savannah in 1984.

It would appear that September 11 did indeed change Staff Sergeant Carlos Dominguez as he, at age 52, in September 2001, "voluntarily enlisted into the U.S. Army Reserve as a chemical operations specialist assigned to the 366th Chemical Company, Fort Stewart, Ga., a subordinate unit of the 81st Regional Readiness Command. During his time with the 81st RRC, Dominguez mobilized with the 414th Chemical Company from Orangeburg, S.C., in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."

How does he end up in Bagdad? "In December 2005, Dominguez was transferred from the 81st RRC into the U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne) where he was trained as a civil affairs specialist. He deployed shortly thereafter to Iraq in support of the Global War on Terrorism."

And on September 23rd, his Humvee struck an IED and he was killed.

His daughter, Lisa, recounted that her father would sing her Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, changing "Lucy" to "Lisa", and said that her father ""gave with his whole heart."

"His wife said that as a civil affairs specialist, Dominguez was helping Iraqis rebuild and was proud of his work.

She says he knew his work was dangerous, but that he believed strongly in it."

There is a guestbook at legacy.com where one can leave condolences. All the ones left for Staff Sergeant Carlos Dominguez were from the families of other fallen soliders. This one was typical:

October 1, 2006

To the Family of Staff Sgt. Carlos Dominguez:

My heart breaks again as I sign yet another guest book of another courgeous young soldier who gave their life so selflessly. I wish I never found myself in a position to have to sign another guestbook for the rest of my life. We lost a son 12/1/05 and it seems like yesterday.

I know first hand there are no words right now that will bring you the comfort and peace you need. Just know that you are not alone. My heart, thoughts, and prayers are with you all as you mourn this loss. We don't know each other, will probably never meet, but will forever be united in the loss of our Heroes.

We have, unfortunately joined a group none of us wanted to join, an ever-growing group of families in this situation. May God grant you peace and strength to get through this and be able once again to smile at a memory rather than have only the tears that flow so easily now. To be so proud of your loved one and so saddened at the same time is a mix of emotions very difficult to deal with.

I am sorry that I never knew your soldier personally, but none of these courageous men and women will be forgotten. They will never be able to be replaced, but sometime, someday your loving memories will help to sustain you. This courageous soldier will forever now be your Angel watching over you all for the rest of your lives. It's what brings me some measure of peace and comfort and I hope it will you as well. To his family and friends in pain, I offer this comfort: When you find yourself in that dark sorrowful place, think not only of how you will miss him, but instead recall the years, days, hours and minutes gifted to you by his presence. The one thing that cannot be taken from you is those wonderful memories that now will mean more than ever.

If you ever want to talk, I'm only an e:mail away and would love for you to tell me more about your Hero. God Bless this courageous soldier and family.
Pam Adams (SFC Brent Adams, KIA 12/1/05 Ramadi, Iraq)
redsandstuff2006@yahoo.com
(Millersville, PA )
So much anguish....

Enter the Grownups, Stage Right....

In my dreams, I am President. And I frequently assemble whom my actual cabinet and kitchen cabinet would be. I'd have to have Newt in a closet to come out and spar and provide some creativity -- as long as I could put him back in a closet. I'd keep a toe on the conventional and have David Gergen somewhere (four presidents can't be wrong). And I'd have to have this guy, James Baker, somewhere in the picture.

In Baker we have probably the best Secretary of State of the past 45 years. His assemblage of the coalition for Desert Storm was a masterpiece in diplomacy and persuasion, in stark, glaring contrast to the pretend coalition put together for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Is Baker slimy? Yep, he's slick, way slicker than Bill Clinton. He engineered a Presidency out of the Florida mess of hanging chads, butterfly ballots, and the busted voting machines as a gift to his long-time partner, George H. W. Bush. And a like a Corvette given to a 16 year-old boy, the father and the salesman have had second thoughts about the amount of power and muscle they jointly conveyed to a reckless pig-head.

And so now, the consummate fixer, like Henry Clay in the twilight of his career and life making his third successful attempt to keep the country from going to war in 1850, Baker is back for one, probably last, fix of a nation in crisis.

Yesterday, he spoke to George Stephanopolous as covered here by the NYTimes:
James A. Baker III , the Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan commission assessing Iraq strategy for President Bush, said today that he expected the group to depart from Mr. Bush’s call to “stay the course.”

In an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” Mr. Baker said, “I think it’s fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of ‘stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’ ”

Mr. Baker, who served Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state and White House chief of staff, did explicitly reject a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, which he said would only invite Iran, Syria and “even our friends in the gulf” to fill the power vacuum.

While heading the commission, Mr. Baker has been talking to President Bush regularly and is unlikely to issue suggestions that the president has not tacitly approved. The independent panel was requested by Congress. Today, he was asked about statements last week by the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, who said Iraq was “drifting sideways” and urged consideration of a “change of course” if the Iraqi government cannot restore order in two or three months.

Asked if he agreed with that timetable, Mr. Baker said: “Yes, absolutely. And we’re taking a look at other alternatives.”

What really got my attention in the interview was Baker's rather plain account of telling the world that Junior has it quite wrong when it comes to diplomatic chess:

“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.

“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

Watch for the Baker Commission to make its move right after the election. And watch for most of the presidential candidates of both parties to try to grab the Baker-Hamilton-(Warner) baton first.

Friday, October 06, 2006

"Shoot Me First"

Chap and I rarely agree.

But the courage demonstrated by the Amish children this past week brings us together. Courage in its rawest, purest form.

The oldest of the five Amish girls shot dead in a Pennsylvania schoolhouse is said to have stepped forward and asked her killer to "Shoot me first," in an apparent effort to buy time for her schoolmates.

Rita Rhoads, a midwife who delivered two of the victims, told ABC News' Law and Justice Unit that she learned of 13-year-old Marian Fisher's plea from Fisher's family.

What's more, Fisher's 11-year-old sister, Barbie, who survived the shooting, allegedly asked the gunman, Charles Carl Roberts IV, to "Shoot me second," Rhoads said.

"They were amazing," Rhoads said, "absolutely amazing. There was a tremendous amount of calm and courage in that schoolroom."

"Marian, the oldest one, did ask to be shot first," Rhoads said. "The faith of their fathers really was embedded in them. … How many adults are willing to do that? Not many."

One of Chap's commenters made the compelling point that the affected Amish community has set up a fund for the family of killer.

I can't remember nor fathom more powerful examples of love.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Mr Pink: Breaking the Bondage of Either/Or

Victoria: Well, you're right. I'm terrible. I know I'm terrible. I look at the mirror and I'm ashamed. Maybe I should quit. I just can't seem to do anything right.

Joe Gideon: Listen. I can't make you a great dancer. I don't even know if I can make you a good dancer. But, if you keep trying and don'tquit, I know I can make you a better dancer. I'd like very much to do that. Stay?

Victoria: Are you going to keep yelling at me?

Joe Gideon: Probably

-- Bob Fosse/Joe Gideon(played by Roy Schieder) in
ALL THAT JAZZ.


So often I have used a variation of that line with my children.

And, it has worked!!

I recently saw an interview with the guy who wrote, "Blind Faith." It was about a black boy going no where fast with very few options who was later adopted by a wealthy, white family. And, while it breaks my heart that it had to be a WHITE family who really helped this boy,
that's the fact.

But, this story is really about the power of nurture over nature. And I yammer on about that all the time. It's no secret that Bob and I took children who had experienced severe nutritional, intellectual stimulation, and emotional support deficits and helped them become two incredible, healthy, smart, and centered people, just by providing some basic stability, some good nutrition, some boundaries and some love. And, when I work with my children, I often say, "I don't know if I can make you great, but I do know I can make you better!"

And, now I wonder how often kids hear that. It seems like the options are either success or failure - no middle ground -- no chance to be rewarded for improvement. Kids are either 'great' or a 'disappointment.' That's what the kids see anyway -- that's how kids perceive their worth.

The Mountain Philosopher chimes in:

I totally agree with the sentiments of Mr. Pink here. As a teacher, I see that for so many students, they either see themselves as complete successes or complete failures -- they either see no need for growth or no possibility for the same. So many of my high achievers are intensely risk-averse -- they can't bear the thought that they might be less than stellar at something. And many low-achieving students, having accepted this devastating either/or paradigm, won't try, as a they want to relegate themselves to the "failure" bin.

Nothing is more rewarding to this teacher as getting the straight-A kid to see possibilities for growth and to throw caution to the wind in order to try new things. And nothing is more rewarding than to get the kid with low self-esteem to start to acquire new found analytical skills and knowledge and beam with pride when she's able to go toe-to-toe with the class star in an argument.

Life, Liberty, and the Right to Cut & Paste

Future Members of the Ruling Class
Photo Credit:
By Katherine Frey -- The Washington Post


"So, like, I think, you know, Sparknotes and Pink Monkey are sooo kewl, like they can save you so much time doing those stupid papers and stuff. And, like, my English teacher wanted to see if I, like, plagiarized it using that Turnitin sevice, and I was, like, "DUDE!, you can't do that -- it's like in the Constitution that you can't -- I know 'cuz I did this paper on the Constitution last year. And, like, it's in the First Amendment, the right to cut and paste. You know, even the Constitution itself is like totally plagiarized and nobody cared about that. This school is sooooo fascist, man. The teachers act like we're all gonna steal -- it's not like we're black or Mexican dude."

From The Washington Post:

When students and administrators face off over academic policy, it's a safe bet which side will usually win. But a student uprising at McLean High School this fall over an anti-cheating initiative had an unusual outcome.

The students won. Sort of.

School officials had planned to require students in all grades to submit essays and other assignments to the for-profit service known as Turnitin, which polices papers for plagiarism. But after a group of seniors circulated a petition against the initiative, generating headlines, the administration eased the mandate a bit. It now will require only ninth- and 10th-grade English and social studies classes to use Turnitin. The requirement will be phased in for juniors and seniors in coming years.

Turnitin, based in Oakland, Calif., checks each student's work against a database of more than 22 million papers written by students around the world, as well as online sources and electronic archives of journals. Some McLean High students objected to having their essays added automatically to the massive database, calling it an infringement of intellectual property rights.

The service is used by more than 6,000 academic institutions in 90 countries, including more than three-fourths of Fairfax high schools, as well as others in Loudoun, Arlington, Montgomery and Prince George's counties. Fairfax school officials said they are confident Turnitin does not violate student rights. But they acknowledged that student complaints prompted them to go more slowly.

"This is not backing off," said Fairfax County schools spokesman Paul Regnier. "We're not saying we're not going to do this at McLean. We believe our legal status is adequate, and we expect that it's going to be used. It's being used all over the world."

Some students who spearheaded the protest said yesterday they aren't satisfied. Their group, known as the Committee for Students' Rights, plans to hand out fliers outlining their position at an upcoming Parent Teacher Student Association meeting. They have collected about 1,200 signatures on a petition against mandatory use of the service.

"It seems they pretty much changed the policy so they don't have to deal with the people who are protesting it," said Nicholas Kaylor, 17, a senior. "Until there is a clear opt-out option for everyone, we're not going to back down."

Chelsea Shalhoup, 15, a sophomore, said she is not happy Turnitin will be used when the second quarter starts next month.

"I feel like I have to prove I'm not cheating," she said. "I can't just be trusted to say I didn't cheat in the first place."

I think I push the envelope on the side of maximum protection of civil liberties -- for everyone, not just adults. But I'm having a hard time understanding the kids' argument. Their privacy isn't being invaded -- the teacher is just checking to see if they have done their own work using a method from a host of options. If I were teaching in McLean, VA and the administration persisted in their lack of spine, I could easily require students to take a quiz on their own paper, or describe where they got their information (what was the color of the cover of the book and so on).

I'm flabbergasted by what the students see as a right and the total capitulation by the adults.

UPDATE: But I would be pretty naive to be flabbergasted by the whims of the McLean youth and the enabling adults around them. The New Republic lays it all out:

McLean covers just 18 square miles and has a population of 40,000. But it is packed with the people who impeached Bill Clinton, elected George W. Bush, launched the Iraq war, and have now learned to make millions from their association with government. Some are famous--people like Bill Kristol and Colin Powell, Scooter Libby and Newt Gingrich, several current and former Republican senators, and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Dick Cheney once owned a McLean townhouse--until he sold it to Bush's 2000 campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh. Less well-known are the countless lobbyists, lawyers, and businessmen whose names rarely turn up in The Washington Post and who like it that way--people like super-lobbyist Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's former chief of staff; Frank Carlucci, former chair of the Carlyle Group, the notorious global private equity firm with close ties to the Bush family; and Dwight Schar, a construction mogul who is currently finance chairman of the Republican National Committee.

These people live in a leafy suburb among landmarks that neatly represent the modern GOP era: McLean Bible Church, a holy destination for GOP senators and Bush aides; the storied Saudi Arabian ambassador's personal compound; and the forbidden palace of CIA headquarters. ("Never accidentally turn in," Edwina cautions. Legend has it that many an illegal-immigrant housekeeper who did has never been seen again.) When Bush rushed to open a presidential transition office during the 2000 Florida recount, Cheney had his daughter scout out locations in McLean, and it was from there that the Bush team would lay its symbolic claim to the White House.

Ahhh. To be part of the Entitled Class. Where I can stick out my petulant bottom lip when asked for a bare minimum of accountability. Where I can steal other's work and pass it off as my own in order to get into the Ivy League or my safety school of UVA where I belong, apart from the Great Unwashed who must be held to account.

Apples indeed, don't fall far from the tree.

Mr. Pink Explains Iraq to Her Daughter

I was talking to my husband Bob about the big increase in casualties in Iraq.

My 10-year-old daughter asked, "Tell me again why we are in a war."

I very objectively lay out Bush's case (well, one of them anyway).

"Iraq is a small country. It's located in the middle of the Middle East. It had a mean dictator, Saddam Hussein. Bush thought we could easily invade this country because we have a much more powerful military than Iraq. He thought the Iraq people would be happy because we got rid of the mean dictator. He thought he could set up permanent military bases in Iraq with support from the Iraq people. That way, the U.S. would be able fight other countries in the Middle East easily. It would also mean that we would have some say over the oil production in Iraq. He thought everyone in Iraq wanted our democracy and our presence. He saw the U.S. as being the good guys."

"I thought we were fighting for freedom. That's what my friends tell me."

"Well, Bush thought that spreading democracy would create freedom for the Iraq people."

"But, here's what's happening:

Let's say a bunch of strangers forced themselves into our home. Let's say they don't speak our language. But, let's say they are able to communicate to us that they will be pitching tents in the middle of our living room, and that they are never going to leave. Now, let's say they are telling us that having them live in our house in a tent in the middle of our living room is good for us.

What would we do? We'd all get together and try to figure out ways to booby-trap the house in order to get rid off them. We'd be very nice to them when we saw them because we wouldn't want to be shot or have our house blown up. But, we'd always be thinking of ways to get rid of them.

And, it wouldn't matter if they were nice to us. We'd still see their guns and be afraid because we couldn't really communicate with them. We'd never trust them. And, we'd also be upset because every day we'd see their tents in the middle of our living room. And, what's worse, they wouldn't just stay in the living room. Sometimes, they would go upstairs and into YOUR room and ask you questions about what you were doing, always carrying a gun.

"This is how the Iraq people feel. Does that sound like freedom to you? Wouldn't you feel like killing them even if you never thought about killing another person before? That's how the Iraq people feel. That's why they are all joining together to fight our soldiers. What's worse is that the soldiers are only following orders. They didn't want to pitch the tent in the middle of our living room, but they were told they had to. No one wins in this situation. But, this is the war we are fighting. It's war which creates enemies -- DAILY."

"And, that is why we keep losing soldiers."

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Didn't get the memo....

DId the GOP Take Foley Hush Money?

If true, then the biggest news so far.

From Crooks & Liars:

An MSNBC segment examines if Rep. Foley made a large contribution to the Republican Party in exchange for silence about sexual messages that Foley sent to House pages. Foley gave $100,000 to the GOP Campaign Committee in July. The large contribution came at same time when Republican House leadership ignored Foley's emails.

MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford is suspicious of Foley's donation. Crawford says, "It's part of a pattern on Capitol Hill where member raise money not just for their own campaigns, but to give money to others, to their colleagues. So that's kind of a common practice in both parties. What was unusual here was how large this contribution was and when it was made. Tom Foley gave $100,000 to the campaign arm of the House Republicans, the National Republican Congressional Committee, at about the time when they were deciding to ignore these emails, this first round of emails they say. A couple of months after they knew about this, suddenly he gives this big donation. It raises the question, 'Did he buy their silence?'"

Monday, October 02, 2006

Focus on the Ballot Box, Dobson-style




Reverend James Dobson, personal buddy of JC, who has been told by the same that Democrats are Satan's Legion while Republicans are saved Christians who are occasionally tempted by Satan's Legion. And the internets.


Foleygate is starting to look like a novelty shop gizmo -- it's a gift that keeps rewrapping itself to provide the recipient with a slightly new gift each time its unwrapped. This version involves Supreme Homophobe and Clinton-Hater James Dobson of the Most Exalted Focus on the Family empire.

Apparently after emerging from his prayer closet, Reverend Dobson directed his lieutenant (Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy Tom Minnery) to make the following statement on Congressman Foley's behavior towards his youthful temptations: (hat tip: TPMCafe)

"This is not a time to be talking about politics, but about the well-being of those boys who appear to have been victimized by Rep. Foley. If he is indeed guilty of what he is accused of, it is right that he resigned and that authorities are looking into whether criminal charges are warranted. This is yet another sad example of our society's oversexualization, especially as it affects the Internet, and the damage it does to all who get caught in its grasp."
Yepper. The internets made Foley queer AND a pedophile, which would stand to reason since Al Gore invented them. And politics, well, no, as we are near an election Jesus don't want the faithful (that would be the GOP base) to actually think and either stay at the house or, God forbid, vote DEMOCRAT!

Paul Krugman at the NYTimes uncovers when it is a good time to talk about sex and politics for Brother Dobson -- that would be when a Democratic penis is involved:
"When assessing the legacy of Bill Clinton, we can’t overlook his shameful sexual behavior in the Oval Office, and then, his lies under oath to the American people to cover it up. Indeed, it is my belief that no man has ever done more to debase the presidency or to undermine our Constitution -- and particularly the moral and biblical principles upon which it is based -- than has William Jefferson Clinton."
How on Earth (or Heaven) anyone can review the behavior of the Bushies and square their (mis)deeds with "biblical and moral principles" requires of necessity, spiritual pretzel-making in the most hellish of ovens. Such theological contortions would suggest the Dobsonites have clear title to one.

Drudge Shills For Sexual Predator Enablers Inc. (GOP House Leadership)


"My sickness and Tom Foley's
sickness are only this much apart"

Matt Drudge is taking the "blame the victim" game to new heights in the Foley scandal:

From Crooks & Liars:

Clip #1: And if anything, these kids are less innocent — these 16 and 17 year-old beasts…and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet — oh yeah — you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this.

Clip #2: You could say "well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet." Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't…they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend…all these things and these "innocent children." And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know?

I'd love to hear Hastert & Co.'s comments on Drudge's defense of their inaction. "16 & 17 year-old beasts" -- I'll have to remember that excuse. Poor Tom Foley and poor Denny Hastert, those evil children have ruined their careers.


Why Churchill Opposed Torture

Cigar aficionado and master statesman Winston Churchill

From LA Times (requires free subscription)

Niall Ferguson: Why Churchill Opposed Torture

The British leader understood what President Bush does not: When it comes to prisoners of war, what goes around comes around.
October 2, 2006

LAST WEEK, both houses of Congress approved a bill — the Military Commissions Act — that would permit the indefinite, extrajudicial incarceration of terrorist suspects and their interrogation using torture in all but name. Does that sound shocking? What's really shocking is that this was a compromise measure.

When President Bush signs this bill into law, a category of detainees will come into existence: "unlawful enemy combatants" who, regardless of their nationality, will be liable to summary arrest.

- - - -

Official Japanese policy encouraged brutality toward prisoners of war by applying the Geneva Convention only mutatis mutandis (literally, "with those things having been changed which need to be changed"), which the Japanese translated as "with any necessary amendments."

The amendments in question amounted to this: Enemy prisoners had so disgraced themselves by laying down their arms that their lives were forfeit. Indeed, some Allied prisoners were made to wear armbands bearing the inscription "One who has been captured in battle and is to be beheaded or castrated at the will of the emperor." Physical assaults were a daily occurrence in some Japanese POW camps. Executions without due process were frequent. Thousands of American prisoners died during the infamous Bataan Death March in 1942.

Elsewhere, British POWs were used as slave labor, most famously on the Burma-Thailand railway line. Attempting to escape was treated by the Japanese as a capital offense, though the majority of prisoners who died were in fact victims of malnutrition and disease exacerbated by physical overwork and abuse. In all, 42% of Americans taken prisoner by the Japanese did not survive. Such were the consequences of "amending" the Geneva Convention.

Red-state Republicans may still shrug their shoulders. After all, George W. Bush is no Tojo. Well, maybe not. But even if you don't see any resemblance between Bush's "administrative regulations" and Imperial Japan's "necessary amendments" of the Geneva Convention, consider this purely practical argument: As Winston Churchill insisted throughout the war, treating POWs well is wise, if only to increase the chances that your own men will be well treated if they too are captured. Even in World War II, there was in fact a high degree of reciprocity. The British treated Germans POWs well and were well treated by the Germans in return; the Germans treated Russian POWs abysmally and got their bloody deserts when the tables were turned.

Few, if any, American soldiers currently find themselves in enemy hands. But in the long war on which Bush has embarked, that may not always be the case. The bottom line about mistreating captive foes is simple: It is that what goes around comes around. And you don't have to be a closet liberal to understand that.
The easy poke at Ferguson/Churchill is that Al Qaeda and their ilk, given their "barbaric" value system and lack of membership in the broader community that constitutes Western Civilization/Christendom are unlikely to treat American POWs with any decency regardless of how we treat their detainees/enemy combatants/POWs. That may well be the case.

But it might not. We will have certainly slammed the door to any reasonable expectation of decent treatment -- the international press corps and community will not be able to exert any leverage whatsoever on future captors of Americans in the light of our new pro-torture policy. And more importantly, we cede the moral high ground in what all parties concede will be a long struggle.

And without that moral high ground, how can we possibly see our path clear to victory?

Pink, Campbell, and Anonymous stirring things up!

Most excellent discussion of healthcare taking place regarding Mr. Pink's Healthcare Horror Story in the comments section. Many thanks to Barry from enrevanche from helping this stalled blog git out of the ditch. Step into the ring with yer facts and yer tough skin with Brother Campbell -- remember, them Scots-Irish wuz Born Fighting.

Cupcakes Protected by Texas Legislature

"The right to dispense sugar and processed foods being necessary to classroom control and thus a stable society, Congress shall pass no law abridging the rights of parents and teachers to use cupcakes as rewards."

--Amendment 2a (comes right after the thing on guns; Civics Fer Dummies)

From the LA Times (requires free registration)

Sorry, Cupcake, You're Not Welcome in Class

The Texas Legislature last year passed the so-called Safe Cupcake amendment, which guarantees parents' right to deliver unhealthful treats to the classroom — such as sweetheart candies on Valentine's Day and candy corn on Halloween. Rep. Jim Dunnam sponsored the legislation after a school in his district booted out a father bringing birthday pizzas to his child's class.

"There's a lot of reasons our kids are getting fat," said Dunnam, a Democrat from Waco. "Cupcakes aren't one of them."

Whether cookies, cakes and other birthday treats at school are the culprits or not, however, the nation's children are definitely packing on the pounds.

Nearly 19% of children ages 6 to 11 and more than 17% of adolescents ages 12 to 19 were overweight in 2003-04, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Extra weight carries added health risks, as seen in the increasing childhood diagnoses of Type 2 diabetes, once considered an adult disease.
- - - - -
Although nutritionists endorse promoting healthful eating in schools, some question the logic of making any popular food taboo.

"The more you restrict these special foods — cakes or sweets or whatever — they become even more valued by children. It can almost kind of backfire," said Dr. Nancy Krebs, co-chairwoman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Obesity. "You want to have a kind of pragmatic approach that sweets and desserts are OK in moderation and not put them up on a pedestal.
- - - - -
In August, the district board decided to ban selling unhealthful food from vending machines and prohibit teachers from dishing out candy as a reward. But it granted a reprieve to birthday cupcake parties and cheese-dripping nachos at football games.

"They're trying to appease everyone," complained Noelani Sallings, who has two daughters in the district and is running for the school board in November. "American waistlines are getting larger and larger."
OK. Cupcakes aren't evil. But using food as a reward is bad parenting and bad teaching. We're giving in to laziness and B.F. Skinner. Liberals ought to oppose the "cupcake as reward" on nutritional grounds; conservatives should rail against the brainwashing. If you saw the crap that kids eat at school, what we sell them out of the vending machines to fund club activities, what they choose to buy in the cafeteria, you would want to blow up the cupcakes too I believe.

Last Normal Child




From USA TODAY


Q: Why did you call your book
The Last Normal Child?

A: Because I had this fantasy, as more and more normal kids get psychiatric medication, that eventually the last normal child in the world finally would be brought to me for a prescription.

Q: What are some of the key reasons that more parents are bringing in normal kids to see if they have ADHD or another disorder and should be medicated?

A: For one thing, academic standards are getting increasingly rigorous and ridiculous — at ever-younger ages. Teachers start to complain about the children, especially boys, who can't get with the program.

I used to think parents worried only about kids being good students, getting good jobs and making money. But now there's also this tremendous worry about children's self-image, their self-esteem. And the kids do feel bad, because they know they're disappointing their parents and teacher.

Sometimes children have undiagnosed learning disabilities, not ADHD. Or, they might not be motivated to do academic work. Not every kid is academic, and that can be hard for high-achieving parents. There may be problems at home, or parents may not be disciplining properly, so kids are acting out.


Hat Tip: Marilyn

Rall Toon

Mr. Pink points us to a Ted Rall toon which underscores his healthcare story. Mr. Pink further informs that when he went to pay the $770.00 with a VISA, the pharmacy, unfamiliar with Mr. Pink's history, unsuccessfully tried to demand cash.

No Free Lunch at Wal-Mart

Slacker Sally Threatens Our Collective Standard of Living

Four dollar prescriptions at Wal-Mart seemed like a hell of a deal. And they probably are. But like the DVD players sells for 25 bucks, there's a moral catch. Where is Wal-Mart looking to increase its stagnant or declining profit margins? The NYTimes points the finger:

Wal-Mart to Add Wage Caps and Part-Timers

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, is pushing to create a cheaper, more flexible work force by capping wages, using more part-time workers and scheduling more workers on nights and weekends.

- - - -

Investment analysts and store managers say Wal-Mart executives have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40 percent part-time from 20 percent. Wal-Mart denies it has a goal of 40 percent part-time workers, although company officials say that part-timers now make up 25 percent to 30 percent of workers, up from 20 percent last October.

To some extent, Wal-Mart is simply doing what business strategists recommend: deploying workers more effectively to meet the peaks and valleys of business in their stores. Wall Street, which has put pressure on Wal-Mart to raise its stock price, has endorsed the strategy, with analysts praising the new approach to managing its workers. In the last three years, the stock price has fallen about 10 percent, closing at $49.32 a share on Friday.

- - - -

But Sally Wright, 67, an $11-an-hour greeter at the Wal-Mart in Ponca City, Okla., said she quit in August after 22 years with the company when managers pressed her to make herself available to work any time, day or night. She requested staying on the day shift, but her manager reduced her schedule from 32 hours a week to 8 and refused her pleas for more hours, she said.

“They were trying to get rid of me,” Ms. Wright said. “I think it was to save on health insurance and on the wages.”

Wal-Mart vigorously denies it is pushing out longtime or full-time employees and says its moves will ensure its competitiveness. The company says it gives employees three weeks’ notice of their schedules and takes their preferences into account, but that description differs from those of many workers interviewed. Workers said that their preferences were often ignored and that they were often given only a few days’ notice of scheduling changes.


Look, Sally and you other greeters, if you aren't on call almost 24 hours a day, I can't get the four buck generics and swing the 25 buck DVD player. And more importantly, my retirement portfolio won't earn enough to keep me from being......a Wal-Mart greeter on-call 24/7 when I'm 67.

Get it in gear Sally!

Newt Gay Bashes with GOP Damage Control on Foley

Demonstrating that he still keeps a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince on the nightstand, Newt attempted a bit of spin/damage control on the fact that the Republican most in charge of sexual predator laws at the national level was indeed a sexual predator.

Much more importantly, he was enabled by his House superiors including Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has already had to revise his first statement about Foley: "I was never told he was sending freaky emails to kids" to "I don't remember being told he was sending freaky emails to kids."

What's the Newtster's solution to this devastating blow to turning out the GOP "values" voters in a few weeks? Make it the gay-loving Democrats fault! Witness the modern-Machiavelli in action:

WALLACE: But, during all those months, they left Foley in the House Republican leadership. They left him as the head of the congressional caucus dealing with exploited children. No second thoughts about that?

GINGRICH: Well, you could have second thoughts about it, but I think had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have also been accused of gay bashing. I mean, the original notes had no sexual innuendo and the parents did not want any action taken.

WALLACE: Well, how would it have been gay bashing?

GINGRICH: Because it was a male-male relationship. And it had no — there was no proof, there was nothing that I know of in that initial round that would have led you to say in a normal circumstance that this is a predatory person.

Newt knows better but in case you haven't figured it out yet, here's the moral code over here in SaneWorld: consenting sexual relationships between adults, be they heterosexual or homosexual are OK with us. Predatory relationships, where one person is an adult and the other is a juvenile, is NOT OK with us. And, the mountain of evidence would indicate, most sexual predators, like most of the population at large, are indeed heterosexual. And there is nothing ipso facto about a homosexual man being a sexual predator any more than there is a necessary relationship between a heterosexual man and the same flaw.

What the Democrats should be hammering away at today, tomorrow, and every day until the election, is that the GOP leadership constitute a cadre of enablers. They enable the President to tell his lies about Iraq and that hurts people, that enabling allows for the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians as well as the needless deaths of American servicemen and women. And that same GOP leadership enabled a sexual predator to go about his business unhindered in the nation's Capitol, all so they could hold onto power.

And the best defender they can serve up is a guy who divorced his first wife while she was critically ill and was screwing his secretary while impeaching the President.

They have no shame.