Tuesday, November 08, 2005



I heard on the news this morning that the latest polls show only 19% of Americans trust Dick Cheney. By my reckoning, that's about the same number of Americans who trust Satan. Of course, Isabella will probably tell you that the two are interchangeable anyhow.....

If you have followed my blog for anytime at all, you know that I am a HUGE fan of Daniel Schorr. I think he is a living national treasure, and the epitome of what a journalist should be. So imagine my surprise when his commentary Wednesday covered most of the same subjects as my Tuesday blog post. Only, of course, he was much more eloquent. Listen to Schorr's commentary HERE, and tell me you aren't angry when he is done!

has been among my favorite bands for a while now! Yesterday they performed an acoustic set on NPR's WORLD CAFE that was just terrific! World Cafe has become one of my must listen shows. If I were a radio program, this would be it.

DCFC also recently did a live concert for NPR's concert series. These shows are heard live via the NPR webpage, and are also archived so you can download and listen anytime you want. They've had some really great concerts recently, including a terrific Lucinda Williams concert, and a fabulous White Stripes show.

JIMMY CARTER has a new book out. After hearing Terry Gross' interview with him on FRESH AIR, and reading the first chapter of OUR ENDANGERED VALUES on the NPR website, I immediately went on Amazon.com and ordered it!

The IDIOT IN CHIEF spent much of the day trying to convince the world we don't torture detainees. At the same time, Satan, er, VP Cheney, was attempting to strong arm the Senate into exempting the CIA from a blanket ban on torturing anyone in US custody. Shouldn't somebody (like Laura) point out to the Prez that his second in command is making him look like a lying fool in the eyes of the world, not to mention his own countrymen? Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are trying to find out who leaked the info about the secret CIA prisons to the NY Times. Wouldn't it be a better idea to find out why the CIA is running secret prisons and what they are doing there?

Speaking of torture, former Brigadier Gen. JANIS KARPINSKI was interviewed on the Diane Rehm Show this morning. She painted a very stark picture of the goings on at Abu Gharib prison, and painted a very unflattering picture of General Sanchez and Gen. Myers. She is demanding, and asking all Americans, to demand an independent commission be appointed to investigate the goings on at the prison and elsewhere. After hearing this interview, I am also ordering her new book ONE WOMAN'S ARMY

So, it turns out JUDGE ALITO has some ethics problems, eh? Failed to recuse himself in TWO cases in which he had a direct financial stake. Are we SURPRISED? Conservatives in this country long ago divorced themselves from business ethics. I am sure he probably sees nothing improper in his actions. Which should scare the hell outta ya.

With Alito and Cheney (and anyone else you want to mention), they truly don't see anything improper in their actions because of the mantra of the right:

- the free market is always right (business ethics? -- we don't need no stinkin' ethics)
- politics shouldn't be criminalized (anything goes -- lying, smearing, outing)
We don't torture detainees... remember that document from Gonzo about how the international definition of torture is "quaint" and too general? So how does Bush define torture? We certainly don't use the fluffy pillows!
"VEEP Satan in dead heat" - thanks for my second great laught of the a.m. The first for you others was GWB's comparison of Republican sex/porn to their policy, stiff, unimaginative, boring. LMAO I was ranting yesterday about the budget cuts that will impact the poor, those least able to survive them. And as for torture, did you find it disturbing that there were 9 senators who didn't vote for the "no torture" language? Methinks we need more senators in the military so they understand the ramifications better. It would also probably be a good idea if more than 4 of them had children in the military, they'd be less likely to get us into stupid wars.
Everytime I read one of your political posts it just reaffirms how happy I am to be living in a country where two of our biggest political concerns are who stole some money, and will there be an election.

Adoption papers have been submitted and awaiting authorization for GWB.
LOL! We've never met in person, GWB, but you sure know me better than some of my closest friends.

And a great big wet kiss to you and all the lefties who are doing happy feet dancing today!

I loved the LA Times' headline today:

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.


And do you suppose any other Repubs who'll be running for any office will ask Bush to come and campaign with them?

Laura said...So how does Bush define torture?

The same way Clinton defines sex, I suppose. So politicians lie to make everything blow over...what else is new?

Isabella said--
"I loved the LA Times' headline today:

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No."

You loved it? The LA TIMES didn't love it. They were in full support of prop 77. So was the Chronicle. Did you honestly think that voting NO on everything was best for Calif. or did you just vote no because you don't like Arnold?
Do you think a liberal press like the SF Chronicle would support anything by Arnold if it wasn't good for Calif? You people....
"...Isabella will probably tell you that the two[Cheney/Satan] are interchangeable..."

Isabella wouldn't be the only one!

"Shouldn't somebody (like Laura) point out to the Prez that his second in command is making him look like a lying fool..."

Not that it takes much to make him look like the lying fool he is.
Cheney may not have a heart, but he sure has BALLS if he thinks we're buying this torture BS!!

Why is it that regardless of the scandal, Bush supporters will always come back, "But Clinton had sex and lied about it"

- Bush approves of torture -- yeah, but Clinton got a blowjob
- Bush lied us into a preemptive war -- yeah, but Clinton had sex in the oval office
- Bush/Cheney aides committed a treasonous act and outed a covert CIA agent -- so, what, Clinton got a little nookie on the side

Classic. Blame Clinton. That will always work.
From LA Times 11/9/05:

Schwarzenegger cast the debate in stark terms. He was a bold force for progress; the teachers, firefighters and nurses arrayed against him were selfish "special interests" defending a sclerotic political culture.

He employed a vocabulary straight from Hollywood. He referred to the election as "Judgment Day" — the name of one of his "Terminator" movies. He cast Tuesday's vote as the "sequel" to the 2003 recall. He constantly reminded voters they had once paid money to see him in the theaters — even when that allusion was a reach. He ended his rallies with his cinematic signature: "I'll be back."

Inside Schwarzenegger's circle and out, Republicans said he should have found a more serious way to speak to voters.

The problem, however, was that Schwarzenegger never seemed to make the transition from celebrity to chief executive. The obvious comparison is to another actor-turned-California governor, Ronald Reagan.

Ken Khachigian, a longtime Republican strategist who was a speechwriter in the Reagan White House, said of Schwarzenegger's rhetorical habits: "It was like, 'OK, we've heard that stuff.' This is different now. This is policy and substance, and the speeches should have used a little different rhetoric."

While Schwarzenegger's approach "worked well in the recall," Khachigian said, "The problem is that it didn't wear very well over a period of time. After a while he was a governor, not an actor, and it's quite a different role."

A Republican strategist and occasional Schwarzenegger advisor put it more bluntly Tuesday, saying privately: "The act is getting stale."

Arnold was never anything more than a celeb in over his head. Thank goodness the good people of California came to their senses.

Of course, if it had been a liberal like, say, Barbra Streisand or Warren Beatty who had been elected Governor of California, the conservatives would have ridiculed them back to the stone age.

But because Ahhhnold was one of them, hey, anything he did was fine.
Sadie, It is NOT the same thing. You're not actually equating a sexual act between two consenting adults with torturing detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions? I hope you're kidding, becauseI really thought you were smarter than that.

The Geneva Conventions state:

Article 17: No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Article 87: Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.

Article 89: In no case shall disciplinary punishments be inhuman, brutal or dangerous to the health of prisoners of war.

Article 126: Representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall have permission to go to all places where prisoners of war may be, particularly to places of internment, imprisonment and labour, and shall have access to all premises occupied by prisoners of war; they shall also be allowed to go to the places of departure, passage and arrival of prisoners who are being transferred. They shall be able to interview the prisoners, and in particular the prisoners' representatives, without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter.

The US is also a signatory of the Convention against Torture which states that "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

"No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

Alberto Gonzales called these conventions "quaint" and advised the president that the US is exempt from these laws. Our government not only participates in the torture of detainess, but also violates UN conventions by rendering prisoners to non-signatory states like Syria where they will be subjected to torture.

As a Christian who professes to be moral, I'd think you would have a problem with our government saying it's ok to defy these conventions.
Oh yes, and how could I forget this gem:

The former assistant AG tried to define torture:

But this slide into medical usage allows Bybee to come up with his interpretation of choice: that the "severe pain" that defines torture must involve damage that rises "to the level of death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant body function."

So it's not torture until we kill, or almost kill them... Just in case you were wondering how, in fact, our precious, moral government defines torture.
Dick Cheney is a terrorist...let's get him! Get that blade sharp GWB!
I never said it was the same thing. If you read what I said, you would see that my point was about politicians lying.
Find me a politician that hasn't been accused at one time or another of lying.
The severity of the lie was not my point.
But the severity of the lie IS the point Sadie. Because of the Right Wing pundits who pull out a Clinton analogy every time Bush lies about something that really CAN hurt this country, it lessens the perceived impact of Bush's lies. It makes people care less about them.

Bush lied about Niger, so what, Clinton lied too.

Bush lied about WMDs, so what, Clinton lied too.

The Pentagon lied about it's torture policies, so what, Clinton lied too.

It makes people forget that the severity of the lie IS what is important. My point is that these lies should NOT be getting a "so what" reaction.
Wow... miss a half day because a storm takes out your dsl, and look at what you miss!

I am replying to you randomly, except that I am saving Sadie for last:

Dalmatica - I am SO ready..even bought a book entitled SO YOU WANT TO BE CANADIAN. Among the chapters:
Talk Like a Canadian
Dress Like a Canadian
Celebrate Like a Canadian
Drink Like a Canadian
Apologize Like a Canadian
The Misunderstood Mullet
Marvel at the Mysteries of "Eh"
Canadian Words and their US Equivalent
a Blue = a Bud
toque = hat
Tim Horton's = Dunkin Donuts
poutine = cheesy fries
(Note to Canadians who may someday have to visit the States: down here, poutine has nothing to do with gooey deep fried spuds. Here, getting some poutine is something that might happen if you take a peeler for a limo ride and buy her a two hundred loony bottle of champaign)

Laura - "that the "severe pain" that defines torture must involve damage that rises "to the level of death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant body function.""

Even this definition, which is narrower than Clinton's definition of sex, has been violated, since a number of detainees have died during interrogation. Apparently, King George's standard is "as long as we don't don't maim all of them"

TJ - trust me, it is honed and steeled

VV - glad I could make you chuckle, it makes my day when I hear that!

isabella dear: you know i love you!

Wanda - I think "the Dick's" satanhood has been well established

tshsmom - balls = hutzpah? I think I read that in Howard Mohr's book HOW TO SPEAK MINNESOTAN, doncha know. And to those of you who disagree with her.. TELLAWITCHA.

See I am multi lingual! I speak Canadian, Yooper, and Minnesotan (yes I realize Yooper is a dialect of Minnesotan!)

dbdad and laura - once again, you do my work for me, and in spectacular fashion!

Sadie - This is among the biggest reasons I left the church. For some reason, Christians seem only equate morality with sex. You can sit in church with people who support murder, cheat on their taxes, torture, become filthy rich while their employees have to live on food stamps. But don't you dare sit near that teenage girl who got knocked up! Steal your friends clients, just don't steal his wife. You can treat 3/4 of God's creatures as sub human, look down on them, spit on them, lynch them if they look at white woman. But don't you dare sleep with one of them, unless of course, you are a man.

Morality has so little to do with sex! In fact, I would hold that is was not Bill's getting a bj that was immoral, nor his fibbing about it. It was his betrayal of Hillary that was immoral. But then again, she has been Christian enough to forgive.

I am just flabbergasted that someone would equate a blow job to torture, treason, public graft, and the needless death of thousands. "You people...."
GWB: Apart from HMPH, all I wish to contribute to this debate is this: Dalmatica and I might need to scrap over who gets to adopt you!
Whoa! Wait a minute here. If anyone's getting adopted and becoming Canadian, please don't forget me! Sheesh! I've even named my blog in honor of one of your fair cities and I've been waiting a long, long time to become Canadian. :-(
don't even lump me in with your definition of what Christians equate morality or a lack thereof with. By your definition of your standard, American Christian--I'm not one of them.
All the Christians I know personally would have a bigger problem with lying, stealing, murder, torture, than some sexual sin-- and you're just gonna have to trust me on that one.
My point was with the lie and lying being a common trait among politicians--not what the lie is about. They lie--period. About everything they can get away with.
WC - Well, it is certainly nice to be fought over!

VV - but can you speak the language, cause I'm all aboot it, eh?
Sadie - First, Laura is right, you can't compare one to another. And second, I'll bet your dad taught you that "just because everyone else does it" is no excuse. I know my dad did. I'll bet your teaching that to your kids too. Just like there was no excuse for Nixon because he got caught doing things that his predecessor's might have done. It's no excuse for these guys either.
To become Canadian, I am willing to learn whatever language I have to. There's no telling how all this will translate but: Je parle francais, juste un peu. Est-il cet ok ? ¿Si hablo español, un poco, es bueno? Es ist Jahre gewesen, seit ich Deutsches sprach, aber ich bin bereit zu versuchen. :-)
I was actually trying to sound jaded in my original comment. I know it's wrong to lie and I know politicians lie every chance they get to save their own arse--I was making a statement, no an excuse.
No, GWB; BALLS as in, he'd better spit them out cuz they belong to somebody else! ;)
vv - Okay, you do speak a bit of Spanish good. As for the other stuff, it was a mouthful, eh?
tshsmom - you said a mouthful

Sadie - jaded can be good. Just remember, never trust anyone over thirty. Or under thirty for that matter!
Sadie: You may not be like that, however you can't argue that the bulk of America sees things in the way GWB described... otherwise there'd be as much public outrage about the CIA leak and Bush's other lies as there was about Janet Jacksons boob.
which was an awfully big fuss over something so small!
Janet's boob was so funny. We always have Super Bowl parties at my mom and dad's house and we were all eating finger food in the kitchen when we heard my dad say," BOOBIE"
Of course we all went rushing in the livingroom and my dad was all excited over the boob. Everyone but him missed it, thankfully--my kids were in another room playing Super Mario Kart (but who would get THAT upset over a boob?)
TV made up for it though with all the instant replays...
VV: Sorry to have left you out! We'll take ya! And your French is more that adequate.

GWB: Let's get one thing straight here: they only say aboot in Newfoundland - all right? Yeah, they're Canadian, but they speak VERY differently than the rest of us!
WC - then how come my friends from Red Lake ONT are all aboot it?
I don't know. Local dialect? Are they from the east coast originally?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?