January 16, 2008 archive

10 more years in Iraq? Ho, hum




(Iraq Moratorium)

This morning’s NY Times brought this news:

The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.

If you were a Democrat running for president to end the war in Iraq, you’d be reacting quickly to that sort of news.

But if there is any sort of blowback — or even concern expressed — by the Democratic candidates, I’ve missed it.  

Let the New Hampshire recount begin! Nevada SC rules against Dennis: The corps win again! w/poll

As we know, election integrity has been a talking point for the Democrats since the debacle in Florida in 2000.  And it reared it’s head in 2004 with the debacle in Ohio.  Now, in 2008, it’s popped up in New Hampshire.

A wingnut childhood

Imagine you’re 7 years old and from the time of your earliest memories you’ve heard that you were born sinful. And that unless you accept Jesus as your personal savior (whatever that means to a 7 year old??) you will go to hell for eternity.

Now, imagine that 7 year old being told what is sinful and seeing it in your own life (you’ve been known to lie and have violent thoughts about that asshole at school that keeps putting you down) – and hearing that those sins make God angry. You go to bed at night hoping that you don’t die before you’ve had time to confess your sins because you’re scared to death of what God will do to you.

And imagine that you’ve been told from your earliest memories that one day there will be a rapture when all the good Christians will all of the sudden disappear up to heaven. You’re supposed to look forward to this, but it scares the bejeezus out of you. So you think there’s something wrong with you. And when you come home from school and no ones there – your first thought is to wonder if the rapture happened and you got left.  

Law and Ethics for Non-Persons in U.S. Gulag

Last week the D.C. Court of Appeals threw out a suit by three British former prisoners at Gitmo, and in their ruling legitimated the use of torture at Guantanamo’s Camp Delta, saying that such “seriously criminal” actions by the government was “foreseen”, and that no one could be held responsible for following orders. It also stated that Guantanamo prisoners were not legally “persons.” Could I be making this up?

No chance. Here’s Scott Horton’s take at Harper’s:

Three British detainees held at Gitmo, who were seized for bounty payments for no good reason and who were pried free by the British Government, filed suit alleging that they had been tortured and denied their religious freedom. They sought redress from the authors of the Gitmo system, including former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who crafted a series of once-secret orders directing the Guantánamo torture system. Among the practices introduced and used were waterboarding, hypothermia, long-time standing, sleep deprivation in excess of two days and the use of psychotropic drugs-each of which constitutes torture under American law and under international standards. These orders and their implementation were criminal acts under United States law….

The judges hearing the case, all movement conservative Republicans appointed by a President named Bush- Karen LeCraft Henderson, Janice Rogers Brown and A. Raymond Randolph-concluded that the plaintiffs were not “persons” for purpose of the relevant statute protecting religious freedom. They further concluded that acts of torture and contempt and abuse targeting religious belief were within the legitimate scope of conduct of an American cabinet officer, so that official immunity blocked the suit.

Afghanistan defines the Bush Administration

It’s tempting to say that Afghanistan represents the Bush Administration’s supreme failure. I’ve made that claim, in the past. But that presumes that the Bush Administration was, in the the smallest degree, interested in catching the people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and in keeping this nation safe. Of course, some have done very well, from Bush’s wars. Meanwhile, the collective wisdom of the more than 100 bipartisan foreign-policy experts consulted by Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress to form The Terrorism Index led to this summary:

The world these experts see today is one that continues to grow more threatening. Fully 91 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percentage points since February. Eighty-four percent do not believe the United States is winning the war on terror, an increase of 9 percentage points from six months ago. More than 80 percent expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade, a result that is more or less unchanged from one year ago.

But, of course, if the Bush Administration actually gave a damn about national security, and catching the terrorists who attacked us, they’d have done something about it. Instead, their incompetence allowed Osama bin Laden to get away, when he could have been caught or killed, at the battle of Tora Bora. They disastrously shifted their focus from those who had attacked us to those who never had, and because of that, the Taliban are growing stronger both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while Al Qaeda has also regrouped and grown stronger in both countries. In fact, both countries are having to negotiate with the Taliban, and bin Laden, himself, is even now well-positioned to launch another attack.

If this war actually was about justice and security, rather than profits, it would be correctly seen as the signature failure of the singularly disastrous administration. Bush is destroying the Constitution and violating international law, not to mention the basic laws of humanity and morality, but he has not made America safer, and he has not caught the people who committed the worst ever act of terrorism on American soil. It would be surreal, were it not so damnable.  

Pony Party: You Want to What???

     Welcome to a very special edition of Pony Party, brought to you by the losers at the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), who currently have nothing better to do than hang around a horse barn. Normally, we would still be basking in the reflected glow of the overdressed ordeal celebrating professional incest known as the Golden Globe Awards. But nooooo – the HFPA had to cave in to a bunch of writers!  

    Seriously, HFPA members, have you ever met a writer — or even seen one in person?  They’re a bunch of weirdos who spend all their time thinking about serial commas, gerund phrases and reflexive pronouns. What are you afraid of – that they might give you a paper cut? Throw a pencil at you? Spell your name wrong? Here’s a clue: the word “writer” comes from the Old Norse “haukur dorgeirsson guðlaugsson” which translates loosely as “spends all day in pajamas pretending to work.”

     Anyways, we’re not intimidated by a bunch of good-for-nothing writers around here, so on with the show! This week’s topic: Necessity really is the mother of invention. Out of necessity, I have decided to invent something that makes it impossible for the human brain to recognize specific phrases. Example: Mine will be programmed not to hear “blind date” or its euphemisms — “There’s someone you should meet,” “I think you’ll really like him,” or the kiss of death — “You two are perfect for each other!” When these phrases are spoken, my brain will just go blank, not that that’s unusual, but lately hearing people speak these words has made my hair stand on end, and to be honest, it’s just not a good look for me.

    Back story: I’m at home, quietly minding my own business (probably staring at the wall or something equally exciting), when my friend Casey calls and says there’s someone she wants me to meet (down, hair, get down!). First of all, Casey is on husband number four, and these two could teach Whitney and Bobby a few things about domestic disputes, so clearly this part of her “Operation Misery Loves Company” effort. Plus, having been down Blind Date Street a few times before – and having gotten car-sick every single time — I go all girly on her and burst into tears.

    “Oh, come on!” she says. “He’s different!” (Note: “different” in this context should not be interpreted to mean anything. It’s just a distraction designed to keep the listener from crying even harder.)

    “He’s sophisticated, great sense of humor, and I’m pretty sure he’s not an axe murderer.” That Casey — what a wit! Well, okay, but could we talk on the phone first?

     

Hi Judy this is Bridget from Curves

rinnnggg….ringggg…[machine answers]…[beep]

“Hi Judy this is Bridget from Curves!  I just wanted to let you know that your membership expired and I know you were on a really excellent program and were doing very well so I….”

[answer in male voice]

“Hi Bridget this is Judy!  Sign me up for a lifetime membership cuz I’m so out of shape I think it would take a whole team of Bridgets to fix me up!  Ha ha ha ha ha.  You have my information already just go ahead and charge it.  Now is there anything you can do about this hair on my lip?  And Bridget, we’ve known each other a long time, why you even call me at home to discuss the gym now right?!  So let me ask you…do you think I’m attractive?”

[click]

Huckabee for Change

Meet Mike Huckabee. He’s a Republican Party front runner for president of the United States of America.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.

Hat tip MercuryX23.

So Huckabee wants to change the U.S. Constitution to add a “human life amendment” and an amendment to define marriage as between a human male and a human female. Why? Why should America’s secular law be based on Southern Baptists’ interpretation of their translation of the Bible? How is this any, any different than Islamists who wish to install sharia law?  

Load more