No really.  What is it?  This turned out to be much more difficult to answer then you would think.   Of course, I’m not talking about boiling someone’s feet, or taking a blowtorch to the eyeballs.  Those acts seem to be rather uncontroversially designated as torture.  No, I’m talking about that crown prince of enhanced interrogation; waterboarding.   

 On a philosophical and personal level, I feel waterboarding is torture.  Its purpose is to cause mental anguish enough to cause the subject to spill their guts on plans and operations.  Still, unlike a blow torch to the eyeball or boiling feet, people are lining up to have themselves waterboarded, either for a bet, charity, or publicity.   One wonders why Jackass star Steve-O didn’t think of it.  Vanity Fair journalist Christopher Hitchens did think of it.  As well as Chicago radio personality Mancow (allegedly) and Central Florida radio listener Evil Eye.  Sean Hannity made the offer to do it, but as yet hasn’t made good on his offer.  In a battle of the ratings can Chris Matthews and Glenn Beck be far behind?

On a legal level however, I have grave doubts on if waterboarding meets the standard.   Torture is against Federal law, specifically, Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113C of the US Code.  However what does it actually say?  The law defines torture this way:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

 It would be difficult to argue in court that waterboarding results in severe mental or physical pain.  No marks or physical damage after all, and no reported mental issues from waterboarding.  Or at least I have not heard of anyone suffering from Post traumatic Stress Syndrome or other long term issue from the interrogation method.

This was the gist of the “Torture Memos” which I had discussed a few weeks ago.  The former Justice Department attorney’s, whom President Obama has decided to give the Kangaroo Court go ahead to the Attorney General, made a fairly good case that waterboarding doesn’t violate US law as torture.  That’s not an argument that waterboarding is a harmless prank, or around the level of good cop/ bad cop when it comes to interrogations, but it does give good evidence that the high bar to define it legally as torture was not met.

And who should confirm that conclusion? None other than Attorney General Eric Holder.  Holder gave away the store a few weeks ago during a Congressional hearing on closing the detainee facility at Gitmo. Holder was being questioned specifically about torture and confirmed again (as he did during his confirmation hearing) that he regarded waterboarding as torture.  Then he was asked if he regarded the waterboarding that Navy Seals received during their training as torture.

Holder:  No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

 Rep. Dan Lungren:  So it’s the question of intent?

Holder:  Intent is a huge part.

Lungren:  So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

 Holder:  Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at… ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding.  When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.

 Rep. Louie Gohmert:  Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent.  If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct? 

Holder:  No, not at all.  Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

 Gohmert:  So what kind of intent were you talking about?

 Holder:  Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act?  Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

 Gohmert:  I said that in my question.  The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure.  So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured.  Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

 Holder:  The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances.  That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.  

   So Holder, seems to be saying, without outright admitting it, that in a legal sense, under Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113C, the waterboarding that was done by the CIA was not torture.  It’s all about the intent.  And Holder practices what he preaches.  That is the exact position the Justice Department is taking in another case, Demjanjuk v. Holder.  In that case, John Demjanuk, a former Nazi camp guard was fighting deportation to Germany to stand trial on the grounds that considering his age, poor health, and expected bad treatment at the hands of German jailors (ohh irony!),  would be the equivalent of torture due to the “severe Pain and suffering” that he would be expected to endure.  Demjanjuk lost, since the court found there was no established intent (there is that word again!) by German authorities to torture him.

And yet, law is apparently not going to stand in the way of political opportunism both for the Obama administration and the Holder Justice Department.  A leaked DOJ ethics report on John Yoo and Jay Bybee, two of the authors of the infamous torture memos, will recommend disciplinary action.  All because they devised the legal strategy that Holder is using in another case, and has basically admitted in hearings is correct.

Frankly, this is bullshit.  I know it and Attorney General Holder knows it, but with such a friendly press, there is never going to be a gotcha moment in a press conference; at least not one that will receive wide coverage.  Did you catch Holder’s admission on intent in those hearings leading the nightly news?  Neither did I, even though it exposes the hypocrisy of deriding a legal theory in public that the Obama administration is accepting as it’s own on the down low.

Was it worth it?  The waterboarding I mean.  The former Bush administration took a political risk in adopting that technique, and competing camps have battled on cable shows on whether waterboarding was effective or saved American lives.  However the opinion of the intelligence community seems to be yes, it did.  A Washington Post piece describes the “second wave” attack that had been planned for Los Angeles.  A hijacked airliner would have been used to crash into the Library tower in LA.  Thanks to information collected through waterboarding, we were able to stop the plot before it ever got off the ground (pun is mine).

You can have a philosophical argument on if any sort of enhanced interrogation is ever justified, regardless of the lives saved.  Some people, incredibly, would rather see such plots go forward rather than sully their hands at the dirty work of intelligence collection.  But that’s different from the legal argument on whether the three Al Qaeda terrorists that were waterboarded were legally tortured.  I would have to say, based on the preponderance of evidence that they were not.  As I said at the beginning of this piece, I do personally regard waterboarding as torture, however there are several other techniques I may feel personally are torture that just don’t meet the legal standard.  Letting me drink a couple of beers and then not letting me pee for instance.  President Obama has already banned the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique by executive order, but don’t look for the Congress to try bring up another bill to outlaw the technique, like they did during the Bush administration.  I imagine if there is another 9/11 style attack, that executive order will quietly be rescinded, in a closing the barn door after the horses are out kind of way.

So we now live in a world in which we can waterboard Mancow, or any other publicity whore, but not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or if we ever catch him Osama Bin Ladin.  I’m not sure we could even force KSM to listen to Mancow. Maybe if KSM would agree to be waterboarded  for charity…

Some wag once said that Obama keeps all of his promises; they just have an expiration date.  I guess that’s how we got from “President Barack Obama will not pursue the prosecution of Bush-era officials who devised torture policy against detainees” to it “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general” within a few days.  That was a quick turnaround, even by Obama standards.  However events and leftie blogs pushed Obama rather quickly after the release of the “torture memos,” which reveal the legal underpinning for what is euphemistically referred to as “enhanced interrogation.”

The timing strikes me as odd considering just a week ago a Spanish court decided to investigate whether to pursue charges against Bush administration officials who provided the legal underpinning for those interrogations.  Then low and behold, the Obama administration declassifies those very documents written by those Justice Department lawyers.  That could hardly be a coincidence.  The message seems to be that the Obama administration will not attempt to protect and may even assist, in international prosecutions of Bush administration officials, and who knows, maybe even prosecute a few themselves.

I took a look at the torture memos out of curiosity and to confirm that things people were saying were in there actually was.  I’ve learned you can’t trust someone else’s interpretation.  Full disclosure:  I didn’t read the whole thing.  I just don’t have the legal background to make a determination if the case the Justice Department attorneys tried to make made sense or not, but I was curious about a few things.

First of all, what was the classification of these damn things?  Looking at the pdf of the memo, I could see that the pages were all classified Top Secret (scribble scribble) NOFORN, but what was the caveat or code word that was scribbled out?  I magnified and tried to see through the blackened areas, but no such luck.  Just curious I guess.  I was just wondering if it was a cool sounding codeword, Top Secret Maximum Hammer, or just something dorky, Top Secret Loosie Goosie?

Another thing; what was the deal with all the waterboarding?  The original leaks described it as the most successful interrogation technique since “good cop, bad cop.”  Abu Zubaida supposedly broke after 35 seconds.  However page 37 of the memo details something more complicated:

…where authorized, it may be used for two “sessions” per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42.  Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.

…The CIA used the waterboard “at least 83 times during August 2002” in the interrogation of Zubaida…and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM”

So somebody check my math, but that that means either the guidelines for waterboarding are wrong, they ignored their own guidelines, or the number of waterboarding sessions is wrong, since the could not have waterboarded that many times in a month if they followed the guidelines.  Or they are counting applications, instead of sessions.  It’s too vague to tell.

As far as I know, I’m the first person to discover this, so somebody give a prize or something.

However I’m not the first person to notice the incongruity of it being reported that Zubaida broke after 35 seconds and being waterboarded 83 times in one month.  I don’t see how both of those can be true.

But like a 23 minute Arlo Guthrie song, that’s not what I’m here to talk about.  OK well maybe a little, but what I am really worried about is the Obama administration deciding to settle scores.  Since President Obama is the Attorney General’s boss, going from being not interested in pursuing prosecution of Bush era officials to saying it’s up to the Attorney General is tantamount to giving the green light to prosecute.

Now I am of two minds on this.  There is one part of me, the mean, hateful part, that would love to see lawyers have to take responsibility for writing legal opinions, and by taking responsibility I mean forced to pull their orange jumpsuits down in a dark corner of a federal prison and get doo doo raped.  I’m not a fan of lawyers as you might notice.  Generally, lawyers don’t have to take any responsibility for their poor performance. Their clients do. These lawyers, if prosecuted, certainly would.

Also there is the precedent.  Once one administration opens the door to prosecuting the previous administration for policies it disagreed with, every time there is a change in power, the new administration will do the same.  In 4 years I could sit back and watch members of the Obama administration be indicted for all manner of crimes.  What comes around goes around eh?

But that is only one side.  I have a more dominate opinion on this, not one based on score settling, hatred of the bar, or getting revenge on wrongs, real or otherwise, on the current administration at some point in the future, but based on reason, rule of law, and the dangers setting bad precedents.

 First of all, I’m not sure there is even a crime here.  There may be a crime somehow under Spanish law, but I’m fairly certain there is no Federal Statute against giving a legal opinion that the current administration disagrees with.  One can imagine the kangaroo courts if we decide it’s OK to prosecute judges for ruling on a decision that’s been overturned, or a legislator who votes for a law that is later found to be unconstitutional.  That would be as criminal as anything those Bush Justice Department attorneys did.

The precedent of one administration getting revenge on the previous one would be a bad one.  Senator Leahy’s idea of a truth and reconciliation commission; as if going from the Bush administration to the Obama one is equivalent to eliminating apartheid, or the Nuremberg Trials, is ridiculous.  During every election, we always like to repeat the old canard about “the peaceful exchange of power” but how long would that be true if we up the stakes every time  political parties switch positions of power?  If hundreds of administration officials could expect nothing but indictment if a rival party takes power, are we really not that far from Peron’s Argentina?

It’s one thing to indict and prosecute officials who have actually done criminal wrongdoing, but I’ve noticed from my friends on the left is their tendency to want to criminalize policy differences.   They would love to have Bush and Cheney doing the perp walk, weighed down with chains, but ask them what sort of charges its usually something vague, like “war crimes” or just that they were criminals.  Their real crimes?  Holding different policy positions.  Not violating federal statutes.  If we try to prosecute attorneys for writing legal opinions, that won’t be justice, it will be punishment.  Punishment for losing the election.

Once we cross that particular Rubicon, it’s damage that cannot be undone. Rome could never go back to it’s Republic, and if we allow score settling after every change of power, we won’t be able to go back either. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Released Memos Could Lead to More Disclosures (nytimes.com)

I’ve spent my morning the same way I spend every morning, reading various news websites while drinking my coffee and trying to wake up. This is the time when I read most of the off the wall or mundane stuff out there because my brain isn’t completely awake . It’s also the time when for whatever reason I have the patience and appetite for the minutia of the story. But best of all, it’s the time when I read comments on the news articles I’ve read.

Over the last couple of days I have noticed a trend in this country and in others and it’s becoming the Number 23 for me and while that could drive other crazy it’s gives me an unlimited amount of amusement.

Take for instance the comments from this article

Obama Says He Has ‘No Intention’ of Running General Motors

on Fox.com

The gist of the story is that when we gave the automakers $21 Billion in bailouts, we told them they would have to show us a working plan to keep them viable and solvent in the the next 3 months and they agreed to do this.  Well, times up and their plan isn’t good enough for the Obama administration  and now the conservatives are in a tizzy over GM, Government Motors maybe having to follow the capitalistic idea of “let the market decide”. Take this comment from dkirby

Now we have irrefutable proof that Obama is not only unqualified for the job, but he is a liar as well. He DOES intend to run the auto industry. It’s either battery power or nothing with him. He has no regard for the millions of cars out there that still need gasoline. He has no regard for widows of GM employees who are depending on GM stock to live. He has no regard for the Constitution of the United States of America, and he is bent on turning this country into a Socialist Dictatorship. He is dangerous and in 2010 we must vote people into Congress who will veto everything he does or we will all be slaves of the government. I hope all you star-struck college girls and boys who turned out in droves to vote him in are satisfied with yourselves. REMEMBER THIS. YOU ALL ARE GONNA BE FORCED TO LIVE THIS NIGHTMARE WITH THE REST OF US INTELLEGENT PEOLE!

Yes, INTELLEGENT PEOLE out there Listen  to dkirby, President Obama plans to run the auto market and he has no regard for the people depending on GM stock because he might be leaning towards a bankruptcy plan. Ya know, a ‘live or die by the market’ idea. Whats comical here is this comment from coloradobob on another Foxnews.com story about how 3 out of 4 Americans want AIG to give their bonus’ back

Congress and Presidents make the mistake of bailing out companies that should have failed and gone into bankruptcy! Employees at bailed out companies are paid what their contracts say they should be paid (legally). Now, the supposed leaders see that the payouts could affect on their reelections, so they gather together to retroactively tax the legal earnings of American citizens. Sounds like something that would happen in Venezuela or Cuba or Russia or China! If I were a saleman or manager for GM or Chrysler, I would be careful not to get in the news. Your earnings could be next. No longer is a America the land of free enterprise and individualism, but now it is the home of collective stateism and socialism.

So bailing out the banks and helping the bank widows who depend on AIG or any other Wall Street stock to live is Socialism and instead of that plan, Obama should let the market decide and let free enterprise and individualism rule the day… well unless we’re talking about the auto industry, because then if you let free enterprise and individualism come into play and allow a restructuring of the company through a bankruptcy and see which pieces live on in that market afterward, well  then you’re turning the country into a ‘Socialist Dictatorship’

I must say, Sarah Palin did her job didn’t she. Her and Joe the plumber sure did their hatchet job well with their oh-so- innocent inferences that Obama is a Socialist hell bent on taking over the country. Now, everything President Obama does is his way of turning us ‘European’ and ‘Socialist’, even when he does things that are the polar opposite of each other. Well, that’s ok as long as the rest of world isn’t stuck in the same gene pool as ‘Joe who isn’t a plumber and isn’t even named Joe’, and ‘Mrs. No more pork unless it’s a road to nowhere in my state that I said I didn’t want but didn’t return when I got it’.

Now onto international news.

Mr Sarkozy, who blames the “Anglo-Saxons” for causing the economic crisis, told his ministers last week that he would leave Mr Brown’s summit “if it does not work out”.

It seems the French are about to surrender again, but not before Sven, form Stuttgart, Germany has his say

Good for you Sarkozy. The world no longer looks to the US for leadership particularly when it is kept afloat only by China. And British days of significance are long since past.

Well, Ok maybe we should butt out and let everyone fend for themselves, maybe it is time for countries like France to stand up on their own. Maybe Friedrich, from Berlin, Germany is on to something when he laminates

The key will be US dollar status and an end to dollar hegemony. Kudos to Russia and China on pushing for a new global currency with portion backed by gold

Yes, Yes Kudos to Russia and China.

North Korea Threatens War Against Japan Over Missile

North Korea’s government vowed to wage war against Japan if Japanese defense forces try to shoot down a missile that the communist nation says will carry a communications satellite. “Should Japan dare recklessly to intercept the DPRK’s satellite, its army will consider this as the start of Japan’s war of reinvasion more than six decades after the Second World War,” the official Korean Central News Agency said today in an e-mailed statement. North Korea is also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Kudos to Russia and China, now go to them to fix your other ‘global’ fucking problems! Maybe in this new global crisis, where some countries want to institute another type of money as the world’s currency because the American dollar is just so out of vogue, the people backing this idea will start to look to the country proposing this change for their other global crisis and leave us the fuck alone for once. Either we are your world’s police to interfere where you can’t or won’t because you are lack the nerve or the compassion or we’re not. But as long as it is the United States that you look to for these problems, then it is the currency of the United States that will reign supreme. If you do not like that option you can always look to Russia and China for your humanitarian and or security needs, because they are known world-wide for their compassion and their ability to stop the spread of hostilities around their own borders in such a way that the world would benefit from their input, right?

We’re not socialists in this country, we’re schizophrentic.. But that’s ok because the rest of the world is more fucked up than we are. Luckily, we have better drugs to offset our mania, now we just need to legalize them.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Clinton warns North Korea over potential rocket launch (cbc.ca)

China Calls for a New Global Currency (neatorama.com)

Geithner: ‘Quite Open’ to Idea of Global Currency (usnews.com)

• N. Korea threatens ‘war’ if satellite launch is blocked (ctv.ca)
• World Briefing | Europe: Georgia: Envoy Says He Left His Post (nytimes.com)
• Russia May Purchase Israeli-Made Spy Drones (nytimes.com)
• Bush Screwed Up Not Just The US, But The Entire World (alan.com)
• Is China 2009 = U.S. 1929? (paul.kedrosky.com)

Do you feel it?

Is it just me, or can everyone feel it. It’s like everyone is holding their breath and waiting.  I don’t just mean on the economy, but that is pushing this ‘tenseness’. That is allowing  this fuel to be dripped all over the spectrum I see and feel everywhere around me. There is a panic out there and because of that panic the political lines are getting forged even deeper into the earth.

I see it everyday, people are hoping that President Obama succeeds but more vocally, hoping that he will fail.  For the most part people on both sides of that argument want only whats good for the United States, but there are some who only want what is good for them and their party. For those people, if President Obama succeeds, one side will be proven right! Right in their choice to go a different direction, right in the choice of an man without much experience and right in their choice of picking a minority, but they want him to fail so that they can be right. Right that the masses should have listened and stayed with the same policies we’ve had, right that those policies were correct, right that today’s mess isn’t their fault.

There is nothing wrong with that. The ones who would rather the United States fail than to succeed under a Democrat are a little warped, but it’s America  and that’s their right. What isn’t right, what isn’t fair, what isn’t OK is the need to push out and out lies or passive/aggressively incite hate,fear,treason,murder and revolution.

It’s been said that “You guys bashed Bush for 8 years, so get used to us bashing Obama”. Ok, I can live with that. But there is a difference in criticizing or bashing someone on a truth and just out and out lying about them.

Richard Shelby, Alabama Senator, Questions Obama’s Citizenship“Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

It’s lies like that one, that force people to do things like Lt. Scott Easterling did last week when he filed  a lawsuit saying that he would not, would not comply with the president’s military command. He wrote that

“I will consider him neither my Commander-in-Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an imposter,”

he will not follow the Presidents orders until, as he says “he saw irrefutable evidence Obama was born on American soil”

There is a panic going on across this country, it’s not just the economic world but that is spurring the other ‘hidden’ panic.

SPLC’s Intelligence Report: Hate Group Numbers Rise AgainThe key finding was that the number of hate groups operating in the United States…an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama.

The Southern Poverty Law Center identified 926 hate groups active in 2008, up more than 4% from the 888 groups in 2007. There is a hidden tension growing and I don’t like what the conservative voices in media are doing to inflame it.

Yes, there are conservative voices in the media. Voices that are with people in their drive to work, to school, on their home from picking up the kids from basketball practice, on their radios for 9 hours while they work. Yes there is a conservative media that spends more time talking to people than the 30mins to an hour a day they get from the TV media, that is if they don’t go home and flip their channels to Fox News. There is a conservative media and the agenda they are pushing in normal times is a dangerous one, but  in the extremely tentative times that we are in now, is so egregious that I am stunned more people aren’t coming out against it.

There was a comic last week that had people picking sides.

What do you think the hate groups thought when they saw this, what about this comic that Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose emailed as a joke

and then claimed that he was unaware of the racial stereotype that black people like watermelons.

I’ve been told that I am the racist for seeing ‘race’ in either of those two comics, I disagree of course. I believe these people are lying to themselves because they don’t want to admit there is a racial problem out there because if they admit that, then they fear they would have to admit other ‘liberal’ idea’s.

Were there things said about George Bush? Yes, and I said a lot of them. Was he attacked and criticized for everything he did? Yes, I was the one standing in the front of the line. But there is a difference, I was one of the 1st and one of the most vocal to vent my extreme displeasure at the man who threw a shoe at President Bush.  I took a personal offense at the disrespect that was being shown to MY President by a civilian of another country. When the time came to speak up and show where my loyalties really lie, I was one of  only a few who identified the line.  Will Mayor Grose? Will any of the SLPC’s hate groups?  Sadly we know Lt. Scott Easterling will not.

When I criticized and bashed President Bush, I did it on a truth. There was a leak from the inner rooms of the White house, there was a jumping of the gun on the Mission Accomplished banner, there was a failure in intelligence that lead up to the Iraqi war, there was $12 billion in cash lost in Iraq that no one has since cared about or looked for. What we are seeing now are not criticisms of truthful actions or words, but out and out lies and an inciting of the mob to overturn the establishment in a time where people are more scared than they have been in generations.

There is a fear in this country and speakers that are respected and adored by their party member are advocating treasonous acts against our Government..

Some are advocating shooting members of Congress.  There are others, with loud voices dreaming and encouraging with a wink and a nod

Related articles by Zemanta

• “Hundreds” of reports of racial incidents since the election (americablog.com)
• ‘Nirth Certifikit’ Kooks Get a Write-Up at Politico (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• The Words Of Alan Keyes (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

2.6 million Jobs lost, almost a million homes foreclosed on, 2 financial icons disappear, the government buying up 9 of the nations top banks, $7 trillion lost by shareholders, one state preparing IOU’s for it’s inhabitants, and a $200 billion surplus to almost a trillion dollar deficit- but hey, we haven’t been attacked

on our soil since 9/11.

1434 lives lost in Katrina and 300,000 homes lost, largest Government expansion in 50 years and the largest civil rights shredding law ever seen in this country- but you know what? We’ve been safe since 9/11.

Confirmed torture by the US government, 30,000 held in secret by US Government, 2 wars, one member of the inner circle of the Oval Office convicted of lying about his involvement in outing an undercover CIA agent working on WMD’s and the systematic attempt at public humiliation for anyone who tried to tell the truth -but that 9/11 thing didn’t happen again on his watch.

Disappearing glaciers, dying species and dwindling funds for public schools -but we’ve thwarted the

terrorists.

One admitted mistake with a banner, one  WMD regret, one forged report, one ignored PDB and a lie in the State of the Union address-but the terrorists haven’t struck us at home since 9/11.

I’m not indifferent to what George Bush is trying to do here. I understand that all Presidents want a grand legacy and all of them will slant their time in office so as to make them seem better than they were. I get that and I’m even OK with it. What pisses me off, what just sticks in my craw is watching the conservative MSM coo and gush over  that spin like a 12 year old girl watching a Jonas Brothers video. This is the same media who 8 years ago defined the last President as the liar who lacked morals because he got a blow job and lied about it. Not a one of them stepped up to say anything about his accomplishment in welfare reform, how he’d kept American soil safe after the first WTC bombing or that from 1991 to 2000, the United States experienced 37 quarters of economic expansion, the longest period of expansion on record.. Oh, but they will sure swoon over George Bush like he was the 1st President to have ever kept this country from being attacked after he ignored the intelligence that allowed for us to be attacked in the first place.

President Bush said the other day that he had inherited a recession and he leaves under a recession. No, he’s leaving an economy that hasn’t been this bad since the Depression. An economy that  is getting worse and has everyone in the world putting all of their hopes in the newly elected hands of a man who has all of 2 years of political office under his belt. I’m not saying Barrack can’t do it, I’m saying that Barrack shouldn’t have to be the president that is leading the United States of America in it’s most pivotal moment ever, the moment when it will either climb above the failures and destruction caused by it’s previous administration or the moment where it will crumble and burn out of existence. He shouldn’t have to be the leader during this time because we should have never come to this fork in the road.

Although, there is something to be said for the symbolism of the United States rising out of the blood of her original inhabitants, being built off the backs of it’s imported minorities and the threat of it’s final shudder and swan song under her first minority leader.

If President Bush can step away from another one of his disastrous leadership roles and all that conservative MSM cares to drill into our heads is once again the fear mongering of 9/11,9/11,9/11 and the horrible state of affairs that he inherited from the last guy that he couldn’t do anything but worsen over the last 8 years, then I hope these same conservative media heads will give President Obama the same pass no matter the outcome of his tenure.

It amazes me that Bill Clinton gets the blame for 9/11 because it was his inaction that lead to President Bush having to deal with a massive crisis 9 months into his tenure. It does make me wonder if there is another attack, can we finally blame something on George Bush? But I’m sure the conservative MSM will rant and rave that it’s not his fault, it’s the Democrats fault.

My colleague at the muchedumbre news desk tells me I don’t understand the war on terror the way he does, I don’t understand why there is such an extreme need for the massive size and secrecy of our Government  and that I’m naive because I fear giving any government that much power over it’s citizens. I don’t understand that terrorists will do whatever it takes to kill us so we must

Image via Wikipedia

meet them on an even playing field. What he has never understood is that there are worse things out there then another 9/11. There are other forces out there that can crumble a nation and while he and his conservative media friends were busy discrediting me and others like me, those other forces were allowed in. He never understood that another 9/11 wouldn’t destroy this country, it would hurt and it would piss us off, but we’d survive it like we did the after the other attacks on our soil. But another era like the 1930’s? Another Dust Bowl? Well I guess we’ll get to see if this country can survive another era of greed.

But hey, we’ve been safe since 9/11 so what am I worried about.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Remembering What’s Important
• What Went Wrong
• Heckuva job, Bushie
• George W. Bush: Quotes from the US president

Ben Stein told Larry King the other night his version of a republican and that pretty much sums of my idea of them also…

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

STEIN: I want to see a return to the republicans like Dwight Eisenhower, balance the budget,small government, civil rights, no foreign adventures, keep the corporate people under control, watch them like hawks and that’s the Dwight Eisenhower Republicans and we’ve drifted far away. If we lose this election, it’s a chance for the party to return to its basics.

If they would just add in some social programs, I think I could be this kind of republican. But it’s the yearning for social programs that kicks me out of that party and into the literal/Democratic party.

Stein’s idea of a republican is also not what the GOP is practicing these days. Today they are all about super-sized spending and super-sized intrusive government. But that is for another blog…I want to talk about a couple of comments I’ve received.

Obama’s plans don’t actually help you. They provide a short-term benefit, but in the long term, even from a welfare point of view, are detrimental, as those who create jobs and wealth will slowly withdraw from the system.

Reading your message, it seems that you are saying that you feel entitled to take the fruit of my labor and utilize it for your own needs. I had always thought that you were a liberal, not a communist. Punishing those of us who work hard, and pair that hard work with a great deal of risk, will destroy our desire to achieve. When that happens, there will be no one left to steal from, I mean over-tax.

Another thing that Obama will ruin is charity. I have given around $15k to the food pantry at my church this year. When I close the doors at my business, or even if I stay open, who is going to fullfill the void I leave? Are you going to give a portion of the money, stolen from me by Obama’s big government, to this food pantry? Doubtful. And because these folks won’t be serviced by the pantry, Obama gets his wish – greater dependance on government help. This will snowball out of control…

There is so much wrong with this and other comments I’ve seen, such as

There is nothing in the constitution that provides for social programs from the federal government. If you want food stamps or free health care, get if from your State. but I am clearly for a far less big and intrusive Federal government that you are. I’m not sure if you recognize limits on Federal power. Is there anything that you think the federal government should not provide? Food (stamps), Housing, job training, daycare, health care, dental care? subsidized mortgages, subsidized anything?

There seems to be this misconception that the only who people would benefit from Obama’s tax breaks are the poorest of poor, or when Obama comes into office it will be food stamps and free healthcare for everyone. There is also this misconception that Obama is talking about implementing this new idea of a progressive tax system and a rebate via a new concept called the earned income child tax credit. Since both of the these programs were not only invented by High-adored Conservative Republicans, but were also strengthen by what I have been told is the “Obama version of the Republican party”, Ronald Regan, I am completely baffled by the outrage.

What both persons commenting don’t understand is that there will always be the poorest of the poor who get food stamps and free-healthcare. It doesn’t matter what president in office so that argument should be out to rest.

Image via Wikipedia

Just because a Democrat is in the oval doesn’t mean the poor will get more free-stuff, just look at the biggest welfare reformer of all times, Bill Clinton, if you doubt that. Even that is not the issue though, the issue is … so what? So what if more people get more in food stamps and some kind of healthcare? Is it a drain on our economy? Yes, but so was that bridge to nowhere that Palin said no thanks to, when she really didn’t and even after she said she did, she kept the damn money. So is the billions that have been mismanaged in the Iraq war. But those are Republican-made spending so they are not evil and despotic, it’s only evil and despotic when the money will go to help a newborn get their polio vaccination or an 4.0 A student pay for their college.

Do I want my friends money taken from him and given to me so I can go out and party like it’s 1999? No. Do I want the same kind of tax-break that Donald Trump has been given over the last 8 years? Yes! Why does he deserve it more than me? Because he is wealthy and he employs thousands of people? Because if he doesn’t get it, then he will pack up and leave the country?

Bullshit on both accounts. First and foremost, under Obama he’ll have to fire his employees,close his doors and move to Ireland. Ya know what? Good, get the fuck out, we don’t want your unpatriotic, extorting ass here anyway and I don’t care how many people you employ! Because guess what? This is America and we still have the best of the best of anything, health professionals,retail stores,entertainment and while you may

Image via Wikipedia

decide to move out, you’ll damn sure be back every chance you get to patronize us in some way.

I want to see all walks of life in this country get some kind of fair taxation, I want to see everyone in this country come together and help one another and I am the unpatriotic one? But when a business owner threatens to send his employees into the financial ruin, leave the country and give another country his buisness and employ their citizens, he’s the patriot? Bullshit!

“I’ll give less to charity” is another reason why we shouldn’t vote for Obama. Again, Bullshit! You cannot hold a gun to a poor person head and threaten them with death if a certain president is elected and call that patriotism. I know Tony Soprano would, but come on! You are extorting churches and charities now to prove your point?

NO, what you are doing is taking your ball and going home because you are pissed that you didn’t win the game. It’s a temper tantrum plain and simple.

This is a great analogy for those against the current progressive tax system

If you went to dinner with 10 people from your company, and you made more than everyone else, and everyone ordered the same exact meal, how do you divide the check?

The bill comes to 100 dollars. (I like round numbers.)

Because you make more than everyone else… you are now required to pay $50 for the meal.

Three of the people make middle income, so they have to pay $15 each.

Three more people make a modicum of income. They pay $5 dollars a piece.

The other three get their meal and the receive $3.33 to go home with.

Is that fair?

To some, it is. To others, it is not.

Is that fair? Of course in a perfect world it is not. Just because some people are more wealthy than others they shouldn’t be forced to pay more. But this is not a perfect or even fair world. For the last 8 years, using the ‘dinner tab’ analogy, the middle income guy has shouldered not only his share, but the share of the bottom guy and the top guy because the poor guy will never have the money no matter who is president and under the current administration and the McCain administration, the top guy isn’t paying his share either. Obama wants to change this, he wants to make the top guy pays his full share so it gives the middle guy a little bit of a break.

This is not socialism. This is not me taking money from my rich friends. This is me telling my rich friends that I can no longer pay my share and their share of the costs to live in the country.

Even Warren Buffet’s blasted the current tax system

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

No, the richest 1% shouldn’t have to have their money taken from them to pay for the people who will always look for the handout, but neither should I.

No, the richest 1% shouldn’t be the only ones to pay for our schools,roads, military and law enforcement, but I shouldn’t be the one to shoulder my burden of the cost and their burden of the cost.

Will Warren Buffet benefit less than his secretary will benefit more is the question. As long as he is paying his share and not making her pay hers and his portion, both will benefit. More money in her pocket gives her more money to spend on his products.

I understand why someone would take their business and their money to another country if their taxes were outrageously high. Rolling back George Bush’s tax credit does not constitute ‘outrageously high’ though.

I understand that noone wants to pay more taxes but don’t ever tell me that you should not have carry your burden of the cost to live in this country because you make more money than me. We all pay to live in this society and if we want to be safe and have a strong military we will have to pay for them, so stop demanding that you should get to pay less because you make so much more.

I love my wealthy friend to death and will miss him when he moves. And while he won’t be able to count on the same things in his new country that I can count on here, what he can count on is that under John McCain, I will still here paying my share and his share ensuring that this country will be here for him when decides to come home and shop. I only hope I will be able to bear this burden and not give up on my country and become one of the poor who is forced to live off the system or else he won’t have a motherland to come back to.

The wealthy can give up and move to another country if they are taxed, but the middle class, when they finally give up or just break will have nowhere to go except to the food stamp office.

• Thomas J. Cady: Republican Presidents Always Ones Responsible For National Debt
• Realists Vs Neocons
• Poll: Public has growing doubts about Palin
• Everybody’s Business: A Familiar Tax Tune, but It’s Not Mine
• What Capitalism needs

Like many people, many of my bad habits were introduced to me by older cousins. It was older cousins who introduced my teenaged self to the illicit joy of a warm beer. What could be cooler than that? I learned a lot from older cousins; many of those things I’ve spent years trying to unlearn. But not everything learned from older cousins was an illicit evil though. One of the more benign habits I was introduced to by an older cousin was Saturday Night Live.

Live from New York…

When SNL premiered in 1975, there was nothing like it on television. It looked like a bunch of drugged out hippies had taken over the studios after the adults went home for the night. I don’t know if that was the purposeful intent or carefully crafted image, but it gave the impression that if you were watching the show, you were in on an illicit inside joke.

That was the SNL of the 1970’s. Saturday Night Live now, and for many years, has been part of the mainstream. Of course to me, mainstream means the same drugged out hippies took a bath, switched to wine and cocaine, and started collecting six figure salaries. In media terms, mainstream means liberal, as three decades of Weekend Updates will attest. But this year, things started to look different.

Last spring, during the death spiral of Hillary Clinton’s primary battle, SNL aired their

Image by chrisfreeland2002 via Flickr

Democratic Primary Debate skit. It was a hilarious sketch, but it was groundbreaking in the sense that the basis of the skit was the news media’s obsession and support of Obama. No surprise for conservatives. They are used to the media taking sides, sometimes subtly and sometimes overtly. But it’s not an issue that Democrats tend to think of much, regarding it as a right wing wack-job complaint. But Pro-Hillary Democrats, seeing the clip played endlessly on the Sunday morning talk shows, suddenly woke up to realize that was exactly what was happening to their candidate.

This created quite a reaction in the main stream media, with some soul searching on “Hey, are we really being too easy on Obama?” Real world consequences arose when ABC news This Week host, George Stephanopoulos, debate moderator for one of the primary debates, asked Barack Obama about his relationship with William Ayers, former terrorist and current America hater. That debate question ended the media handwringing over going soft on Obama. Stephanopoulos took a lot of criticism from his fellow journalists and leftie blogs for asking too hard a question!

But the issue was out the barn door and Hillary supporters were suddenly on the alert for media bias against their candidate. SNL didn’t let up. The figured they had a winner and rolled with it, letting Tina Fey do a special Weekend update bit, “Bitches Get Things Done,” and a parody of the 3:00AM ad.

Obama went on to take the primary anyway, but SNL helped provide a few speed bumps along the way. The stunning thing though, was that SNL took sides in a Democratic primary, and did not take the hip young choice. They didn’t choose Coke Zero, they went with Tab. I wouldn’t have thought any more about it though, if that had been the end of the unconventional choices to be skewered. The new fall season would roll out, and Obama would be portrayed in all his godhood, and McCain would be portrayed as evil, senile, or both.

Only that didn’t exactly happen.

OK it sort of happened. McCain has been portrayed as senile, or “erratic” as the official Obama terminology goes, but that’s only a small part of the story.

The first McCain-Obama skit featured McCain pointing out that he tried to eliminate an earmark called “Tony Rezko hush money,” which Obama explains he withdrew after Rezko began cooperating with prosecutors. Unless you listen to conservative talk radio, read conservative blogs, or live in the Chicago area, you can be excused if you are only vaguely familiar with that name. He has gotten the bare minimum mention on MSM TV news, so it’s surprising that a SNL writer would even be familiar with that reference. Equally surprising is that an SNL writer would have Obama describe his tax plan as one that would give tax breaks for “bribes, shake-downs and kickbacks.”

The second debate skit featured Obama praising his “friend and mentor”, William Ayers.

One of the more interesting skits was never posted online, but stirred up a lot of protests. James Franco was the guest host the week that SNL did a bit on New York Times reporters preparing to go to Alaska to dig up dirt on Governor Sarah Palin. The story line was the “unproven yet un-disproven” story of incest in the Palin household. Clueless reporters were being briefed on Alaska, which could not have been more alien to these Manhattanites if the New York Times were planning to drop some reporters on to Tatooine, Conservatives took it as an attack on Palin, which normally would have been a pretty good guess considering the multitude of MSM hatchet jobs on Palin. The New York Times was one of the biggest offenders, throwing credibility and fact checking to the winds in order to get any sort of dirt to stick on the Palin nomination. I watched the show the night it was on, and it was not an attack on Palin or her family. It was an attack on big media in general and the Times in particular for it’s tossing out of the normal journalistic standards in order to go after a political enemy. “Unproven yet un-disproven” indeed.

Consider the mortgage bailout skit. In a faux CSPAN press conference, Congressional Democrats congratulate themselves on approving the bailout legislation, while a bumbling Bush is hanging around on the periphery. So far, a normal MSM take on the bailout. Until, after Pelosi points 100% of the blame at Bush in his administration, Bush replies,

Bush: But wait, wasn’t it my administration that had warned about the problem 6 years ago, and it was the Democrats who refused to listen?

Pelosi: What? Who told you that? That’s crazy. It’s completely the other way around.

Bush: OK

Frank: Actually. This time he’s sort of right.

Pelosi: Ssshh! Don’t say anything. He doesn’t know.

Huh? On an SNL skit? Pelosi then introduces some “victims” of the housing crisis, a couple of no job having slackers. Rather than put the blame on “Wall Street” or the Bush administration, this skit blames the people who actually got the subprime loans that they didn’t understand and had no attention of paying on. Some other “victims” include Yuppie investors who lied on their mortgage applications and Herb and Marion Sandler, the real life former owners of a Savings & Loan that was sold to the now collapsed Wachovia. The skit was actually pulled and re-edited to eliminate the line identifying them as “people who should be shot.”

But wait, there’s more. The skit goes on to have Barney Frank explain what happened to the 700 billion bailout, introducing George Soros, currency trader extraordinaire, and moveon.org founder. Soros says the money is his now. On the screen, CSPAN identifies Soros as “Billionaire Hedge fund manager. Owner, Democratic Party.”

Who wrote this skit? Rush Limbaugh?

No. In fact most of the political oriented bits were written by longtime SNL writer James Downey. Downey was the writer of the Hillary debate sketches and coined the word “strategery” in a Bush-Gore debate sketch; a word that has now entered the lexicon. It’s been embraced by the Bush administration and is even the name of a book on the Bush White House. So WTF? Is Downey a secret pro-McCain Republican? Or a typical liberal writer from New York City who has taken the time to educate himself on the latest Republican talking points? According to former SNL writer Adam McKay, Downey is an “Ann Coulter fan” and “right-wing.” If so, how could he have gotten through the interview process and write on SNL for 27 years? Downey himself claims to be a registered Democrat, although if you worked in show biz, wouldn’t you?

I don’t know if Downey is a closet McCain or Obama supporter, but he has certainly shaken the common media portrayal of both Republicans and Democrats this year, and if that means continuing to stay in the Republican closet, please Mr. Downey, stay in the closet.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tina Fey Praises Palin For Having ‘None of That Droopy Shit’ [Body Image]
• Sarah Palin on SNL: Millions of Viral Views
• McCain crowd boos mention of Tina Fey while Palin gets to do a comedy show on NBC when she won’t do a news show on NBC

Let’s get this out of the way, can we..

If we are going to talk about who someone supported in the past and say that it’s relevant today to show their judgment and leadership abilities, that it will give us an idea of who they will bring with them to the white house, lets get it all out there and move on to things that really matter.

Barack has been criticized for his ’ties’ with ACORN. Yes, he did defend them once and yes he did donate money to a subsidiary of theirs. Like Drudge uses pictures to prove that Barack is going to steal your white women, the McCain campaign uses his ties to ACORN as proof that Barack will steal your vote.

Here he is sitting next to Florida Rep. Kendrick at an ACORN-sponsored February 2006 rally, in Miami.

Wait, that’s not Barack Obama… That’s John McCain. I guess the “Maverick” is there to repudiate them like he assures us he can do. I know a picture in this campaign isn’t worth a 1000 words, hell even video isn’t worth anything, but maybe a video will show us all how McCain is going to whip their you know whats…

oh.

Here’s the thing. This rally wasn’t 5 or 10 years ago, it was 2 years ago this week and John McCain wasn’t just there to say “Hi”. He wasn’t there to tell them that they were “destroying the fabric of democracy” and “perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country” he was the key note speaker that day. In fact he has been a great supporter of ACORN over the years.

Either his judgment was wrong 2 years ago, or it is wrong today. Either way John McCain was so much of a supporter of ACORN’s that he traveled to Miami to speak for them, and if association with them is bad judgment then not only does McCain have the same bad judgment, he’s also suffering from forgetfulness since he doesn’t remember this support. The forgetfulness can be explained by age, the bad judgment? Well according to Fox news when Obama does it, can not.

William Ayers.

The idea behind this one is to show that you should be afraid of the Arab Barack Obama because he pals around with terrorists. It doesn’t matter that Obama has denied or reasonably explained it away.

It doesn’t matter that the same republican family that asked Barack to be on the panel with Ayers is also throwing their political support behind McCain, not too mention all the money they have given to Republican, which McCain or any Republican has to yet to address or ‘repudiate’. What matters is Barack associated with a terrorist and that makes him scary and risky and his judgment unfit to be President.

He’s Pallin’ around with terrorists…

John McCain as recently as the 2nd debate was boastful of this accomplishment in helping the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan repel the Russian, even using it as evidence that he is somehow, superior to Barack

MCCAIN: First of all, I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the region.

Maybe the other lesson McCain shouldn’t have ignored is the fact that Osama Bin Laden helped to fund those Freedom Fighters that McCain was so pleased to have also helped. John McCain aided,encouraged, and praises the mujahideen, the group funded and aided by Bin Laden, efforts in Afghanistan and is sorry that he didn’t do more to help them.

I guess I shouldn’t look that far back in history and judge McCain. It was a different time back then and Osama Bin Laden was good when we aided him, but then he changed into the despicable man that attacked us is such a horrific way on September 11,2001. But if I can’t judge McCain because a good man can turn bad, why can’t a bad man like Ayers turn into a good, citizen of the year?

Speaking of 9/11. The country we went after in retaliation of that attack was lead by another despicable man, Saddam Hussein. You recognize that name don’t you? You should, the speakers at John McCain’s rallies have said it enough. Only they aren’t saying it to remind you of Saddam. No, they are just saying it because it’s Barack Obama’s middle name that’s all…

If Saddam was such a bad person, and we know he was, then by default anyone with his name should also be a bad person, right? The truth is I can’t quite get my head far enough up my ass to see your point, but lets’ go with it anyway.

They have the same name so they must be the same people or have the same values.

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

Oops.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein’s government.

Umm, well.. You see my friends.. I know how to win this war.

Timmons’ activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.
John McCain strongly supported the 1991 military action against Iraq, and as recently as Sunday described Saddam Hussein as a one-time menace to the region who had “stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could.”

Ok, so what do we know. We know that having the same name as a terrorists makes you a terrorist. So what does mean when you hand pick the man who is going to lead your transition team, that by the way is the man who is going to help pick your personal if you are elected President of the United States. What does it mean when that man actually lobbied FOR the terrorist while he was considered a terrorist?

I guess McCain can deny it

But testimony and records made public during Park’s criminal trial, as well as other information uncovered during a United Nations investigation, suggest just the opposite. Virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign was within days conveyed by Vincent to either one or both of Saddam Hussein’s top aides, Tariq Aziz and Nizar Hamdoon. Vincent also testified that he almost always relayed input from the Iraqi aides back to Timmons.

But that just wouldn’t be truthful. Not that truth has mattered much to John McCain lately.

So now that we know that McCain is supported by the founder of the same terrorist panel that Obama served on with Ayers and that McCain is proud of his work with Osama Bin Laden and doesn’t much care that the man in charge of his transition team worked and lobbied for Saddam after the 1st gulf war when he was considered a rogue leader..can we either label McCain as a terrorist sympathizer or just move the fuck on to something that actually matters like I don’t know…. Whether Barack wears boxers or briefs? Because really, If he doesn’t take care of his boys then what kind of President will he be?

I got a call from a polling firm the other day.  I guess even polling is now outsourced to India based on the accent of the person interviewing me.  The loud bustling and noise in the background had me imagining a Hindi boiler room.  When the interviewer asked me if I was going to support the Florida Marriage Amendment, I confess I was caught by surprise.  “Is that up again this year?”  I thought to myself.  “I thought that got kicked out by the courts or something last time?”  Of course to the interviewer I acted like I knew it was on the docket all along, “I will not be supporting that.”  I replied.  I thought about putting on a redneck voice and saying, “Zat so I kin’ marry my sister?”  But I figured my poor interviewer was straining enough under his English language burden as it was.

Of course after I hustled the guy off the line, I had to go look it up. The Florida Marriage Amendment will be coming to a Florida ballot near you this fall.  Look for it.  This seemed like a sleeper amendment to me.  I’m not sure if it would have kicked up much of a ruckus if it hadn’t been for California’s Supreme Court’s decision in May to overturn California’s gay marriage ban.  However, as much as conservatives deride those liberal courts, they do have their uses. 

In 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered that their state constitution, ratified in 1780, actually authorized gay marriage.  Who knew those puritans meant that?  Those wacky Adams brothers… 

The results, besides the increased business for wedding planners and a state wide shortage of ice swans, was the mobilization of social conservatives  across the country who feared their State could be next on the gay marriage hit list.  This lead to a renewed surge in political activism among social conservatives nationwide, who suddenly viewed the make up of the US Supreme Court in jeopardy if Kerry won the election.  This even had an effect on the black vote in certain key states.  George Bush, whose popularity among African-Americans was only slightly higher than police water hoses and sweaty southern sheriffs, suddenly had black ministers stumping for him in the pulpit.  In Ohio, the key state in the 2004 election, this lead to a surge from a normal 9% of black Republican support to an astounding (for Republicans that is) 16%.   

And….four more years.

The funny thing is, Kerry’s and Bush’s position on gay marriage was identical.  They both supported civil unions, but didn’t support gay “marriage.”  In fact all of the major presidential candidate’s position on gay marriage in 2004 and 2008 has been virtually the same: Yes to civil unions, no to marriage. In an era known for its remarkable divisiveness on so many political and social issues, this is an issue for which there is remarkable consensus.  Polling has shown that nationwide, 55% of the U.S. population supported the idea of gay civil unions. The public’s comfort with the idea of civil unions has increased year after year and I expect the trajectory to continue.  The only thing that could put a stop stick in this increased acceptance is …

…liberal courts.

Given the success at letting the courts decide issues that should be decided through the electoral process (see abortion), one can hardly be surprised at the outcome.  Social conservatives mobilized, gay activists mobilized and a divisive issue becomes even more divisive. 

Currently, this is good news for Republicans.  While polling seems to support civil unions, if the word marriage is thrown in, the support drops off precipitously. If the issue was strictly within the normal electoral process, it really wouldn’t be much of an advantage to Republicans. But as an issue that is being decided in the courts in response to lawsuits, rather than the normal electoral process, who is on the court matters as much as who is in office.  The electoral process is following, rather than leading the issue.

And this is where the California’s court decision comes in.   Between the wedding cake and matching tuxedo rentals, on the November ballot will be another issue besides Obama vs. McCain; Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage.  Even in a pretty liberal state like California, gay marriage is not a sure bet.  In 2000, California votes approved by more than 61% Proposition 22, which amended California statutes to limit marriage between a man and a woman.  Prop 22 is actually what was challenged by the City of San Francisco and others.  The issue, In Re Marriage Cases, overturned the part of the State statute that was amended by Prop 22, freeing the way for gay marriage in California.

Proposition 8 has text virtually identical to Proposition 22:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

The difference is that Prop 22 amended the State statutes.  Prop 8 amends the State Constitution. 

Cases like this increase the urgency of the issue to be handled by constitutional amendment, rather than just trusting state laws, which generally define who is and isn’t eligible for marriage.  If Massachusetts’s 18th Century constitution can be reinterpreted by sympathetic judges to decree that the puritan fathers always intended for dudes to marry each other, how long before activist judges on the nations Supreme Court decree the same thing?

“Yep, if you look right here in the preamble, it’s just barely visible, but it’s obvious what the founders meant,

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect GAY union…

It’s all right there, in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution.  Not in words so much….

Currently three States will have ballot initiatives this year to ban gay marriage.  Of the three, election turnout in Florida could make the difference on whether the State goes with Obama or McCain.  What, oh what, could bring social conservatives to the voting booth this year? 

Republicans almost don’t deserve the luck they’ve had.  In a year that should be an easy give me to the Democrats, Republicans nominated the one candidate who might possibly appeal to independents and renegade Democrats.  True, it seemed as if the cost would be social conservatives sitting home this November, but then a wonderful (to Republicans) thing happened:  The California Supreme Court reminded social conservatives that godless gay secularists were still out there, ready to overturn God’s law in favor of Satan’s.

It would be a strange irony if liberal court decisions helped defeat a liberal Presidential nominee this year.  But it’s happened before.  In fact, it happened last Presidential election.

And what about me?  Why would I oppose the Florida Marriage Amendment when it could help elect a candidate I prefer?

The way the amendment was written the intention is not just to ban gay marriage, but civil unions as well.  In that regard, I am with the majority of Americans and our major Presidential candidates in favoring civil unions.

But I tip my hat to the Florida Marriage Amendment, and the California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts.

Thanks guys!

Everyday I hear more and more people moan about the Democrat’s choice we are forced to swallow. When the primaries started I was amazed at how many people actually cared. There was an electricity in the air, like just before a thunderstorm. That metallic smell was all around, people were hungry for a change and they couldn’t wait to get the ball rolling.

I witnessed 2 camps. One camp was strong and confidante for the future. The dollar was going down, gas was going up. The war was costing billions and people were starved for change. They knew it was a full-blown fact that a democrat would be elected and while that person might not fix all the problems that he or she was left to fix, they would better than what we’ve had for the last 8 years. They were happy and content that the stronger, better candidate would win.

The other camp had the pep and zip of a 12 year old boy. They got out there and worked. They rallied around their man, they weren’t content to sit there and just let it all happen. No they wanted to make a grand statement, they wanted pop and flare.

It kinda reminded me of the Tortoise and the Hare fable. I think everyone expected the hare to peter out while the tortoise moseyed over the finish line. There was no way the hare would actually go the distance. It just couldn’t happen this time because there was too much at stake, too much to gain and even more to lose.

They were wrong. The hare didn’t peter out. In fact he brilliantly beat the tortoise at her own game and then stole her shell and shit in it.

Months later, with the convention and official ‘crowning’ coming up. I am seeing and hearing more and more people get more and more disgusted with the whole thing. The electricity is gone, the metallic thunderstorm smell has abated and people are looking around asking what the hell happened.

These people never expected Obama to really get this far. Sure, he’d make a big splash but eventually he’d be vetted out of the race. His past history, associates and lack of experience would overcome him and he could walk way silently.

Everyone expected ‘race’ to become involved in the ‘hunt for the white house’. It was to be expected just like sexism was to be expected against Hillary. What people didn’t expect was that race would be played against everyone by the black candidate and the sexism would overshadow any and everything else that was left.

I’ve talked to so many people, white and black from a pediatric anesthesiologist to a house cleaner, from ‘red neck to city-slicker’ and all of them say the same thing. “what can we do now?”

Again I am reminded of a tortoise, these people are like a tortoise without it’s shell. They don’t know what to do come November. They have never considered voting republican but are finding excuses to justify a vote for McCain. They look at how he was 8 years ago, when he was a more himself and less George Bush, when he stuck to what he believed and not the just party line. And they are saying “well, maybe he’ll be like that in the White House, right now he just has to pander to the Right in order to get elected” These people will not under any circumstance vote for Obama.

I have actually tried to play devil’s advocate and say “well, the next president will put 2 justices on the supreme court, If McCain gets the chance women’s rights will go back 50 years”

The reply “Roe v Wade will never be repealed. It’s been the law of the land for so long that it’s safe no matter who is on the court”

I say, “McCains party is all for limiting the pharmaceutical companies liability when they market a drug and it makes you grow a third nipple on your nose’”

The reply “I think the FDA is stronger than that”

I say “Bush changed the clean water act by ‘ Allowing masses of industrial wastes to be dumped in streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands’….do you think mini-me-McCain would go against this?

The reply again, “well, that’s alway been happening and will keep happening no matter who is in office”

Mind you, I detest Barrack. I do not trust him. I think there is so much hidden dirt on him that when it comes out we will all beg for 4 years of Dick Cheney, but I want to make sure these people know what they are saying when they try and justify McCain.

I cannot convince them to vote for Barrack. Nothing I say makes a dent. They are as adamant as I am about him.

How did this happen?

He is supposed to the one who brings us ‘unity’ and instead he is the one dividing the democratic party. Those who never thought he had a chance feel so shut out that they are willing to vote the other side. That’s not bringing us all together and singing kumbaya around the campfire… that’s Hatfield and McCoy shit right there.

We all watched as nightly Hillary was attacked for her cleavage, her tears and how her voice reminded men of their nagging wives. We all watched as anything negative or even questioning was said about Barrack was turned into “that’s racially offensive”. We all watched in amazement as his own supporters couldn’t give a single one of his accomplishments. No matter how you look at that, it’s a problem. When you ask someone ‘what qualifies you for the job of President of the United States” and the only answer that is given is “I am inspirational” it becomes a joke. When that person goes on to take the party nomination, it becomes divisive.

We are all used to having to vote for the lesser of the two evils. We’ve all said “well he’s not my 1st pick, but I’ll take him” So what is the difference now?

I think that while Obama’s people were trying to make sure “race” was never brought up they went too far and saw ‘race’ in everything and that pissed a lot of people off. These people have never been anything but neutral to positive when it comes to gender, sex or race. They are liberals for God’s sake. They embraced the gays, the blacks, the Hispanics, the poor and the sick. But all of a sudden they were made to feel like David Duke because Barrack wasn’t their 1st, 2nd, or even 11th choice. They were made to feel like they were holding the whips and beating the slaves when they questioned “He sat in the church for how many years?” “His “white” what?” ..”a fairy tale is racist now? Huh?”… “RFK means she’s sending code to Jason Bourne?”… And all of a sudden they got sick of it. So sick that they will sell their rights and their values because they will not vote for Barrack.

So much for unity.

This divide was once blamed on Hillary because she dared to stay in the race, but now that she’s out of it… it‘s still festering and even growing. So who really was to blame?

When asked “I don’t know what I’m going to do come Novemeber”…. how do you answer? Because I’m at a loss…

discussion