Hell hath no fury

Presented not for myself, but on behalf of people I care about.

Hell Hath No Fury, graphic by sarahlee310

November 6, 2012: Get your ass out there and vote.

Photo credit: Hell Hath No Fury by sarahlee310

Share

Fox News does not need anyone’s help to look and sound stupid, so please stop this

Fox News "Toolooz" Report

Click to embiggen

Please stop making up dumb things to attribute to Fox News. They do not need anyone’s help to sound dumb, and crap like this only makes their devotees even more devoted.

STOP. DOING. THIS. SHIT.

This is not a real screen capture from Fox News. It is a Photoshop job.

The Snopes community has already covered this. Another site has what appears to be the original screen capture–I don’t know French, so I’m kind of assuming.

All this accomplishes is giving Fox News fans an out when someone on Fox really does say some bullshit. “Well, you liberals made up that other crap, so how do we know you didn’t make this up too?”

(Cross-posted from I Can’t Believe It’s A Law Blog!)

Share

Something is turning me all progressive and stuff

About five years ago I took the World’s Smallest Political Quiz and the results indicated that I was a left-leaning libertarian:

I took the test again, to see what five years have done, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, I’m all liberal and crap:

Here’s how it describes me:

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded “safety net” to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

How did a kid from Alamo Heights grow up to be such a stinking hippie? I’m sure there are lots of reasons, but for now I just thought the shift in test results was interesting.

Of course, the test presumes to categorize you based on ten questions (five political and five economic), so its reliability is dubious. Meh.

Share

The Republican primaries go all Hunger Games on us

I’m exaggerating, sort of. It seems the police had to intervene on Saturday in an altercation between some Ron Paul supporters (or Ronulans, as they are sometimes known) and local Republican leaders outside St. Louis:

Police and organizers shut down proceedings at one of Missouri’s largest caucuses today, as Ron Paul supporters feuded with local GOP leaders.

“It’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys around here,” St. Charles County’s former GOP chairman told ABC News, after police arrived on-scene with a helicopter and removed Paul backers.

In St. Charles, an exurb of St. Louis and one of the state’s largest GOP counties, Paul supporters sought to elect their own chairman and adopt their own rules when proceedings opened — both of which are part of standard caucus rules and procedure. But as they argued with the caucus chair, Paul supporters held video cameras — against caucus rules, according to a GOP official who was there — and things became contentious.

“It turned into a little food fight within the caucus, between the caucus chairman trying to control the caucus and certain elements, I guess with Ron Paul, trying to be heard,” said Tom Kipers, a former chairman of the St. Charles GOP, who attended the caucus at Francis Howell North High School.

An off-duty police officer, hired as security, eventually filed a trespassing complaint against the Paul supporters and notified on-duty police in the area municipality of St. Peters, who, along with police from other jurisdictions, arrested two Paul supporters and ended the caucuses early. A joint-jurisdictional police helicopter arrived on the scene. Kipers said about 10 officers arrived in total.

“Two people were arrested for trespassing after receiving numerous warnings to leave the school property,” the St. Peters police said in a press release. “Both subjects were transported to St. Peters Justice Center where they were booked for Trespassing and released on a summons.”

Seriously, how far are we from sticking the remaining candidates into Thunderdome and waiting until one man leaves?

Photo credit: Southern Chivalry – Argument versus Club [PD-US] at Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Because it is time for a chuckle, dangit

Pete Reynolds at McSweeney’s Internet Tendency takes a look at Republican exit polls, and the results are quite revealing. Excerpts follow. Prepare to be shocked, appalled, dazzled, and pwned:

Nearly 60% of those who have nicknamed a body part voted for Newt Gingrich.

Ron Paul was the choice of 72% of voters who have fired a crossbow at a ferret.

People who hired Peter Cetera to sing at their wedding overwhelmingly supported Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul was backed by three-quarters of the voters who purchase their meat from the trunk of a car.

Romney won among people who blog about board games.

Gingrich won a majority of voters who regularly send back hash browns.

Ron Paul won 63% of voters who have accidentally baked their car keys into a pie.

Romney took 88% of the votes among people whose primary issue was yacht parking.

Of those who thought President Obama was not humanity’s largest threat, 96% were just passing by the polling place on their way to Whole Foods.

It is worth reading the whole piece. Unless you are someone who actually takes this field of Republican presidential contenders seriously as anything besides a threat to our nation’s reputation as a nation not full of idiots. If this is the case, please move along quietly, and try not to touch anything.

Share

Not surprisingly, The Onion covers an issue better than the actual media

From a recent Onion article, “U.S. Finally Gets Around To Prosecuting Mastermind Behind 9/11“:

The Justice Department announced Monday that it had finally found enough time in its busy schedule to squeeze in the prosecution of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, more than six years after the high-profile suspect was captured and eight years after the worst-ever terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

That’s really the issue here–why hasn’t this happened much, much sooner? All of the concerns voiced by those opposed to, uh, the rule of law (not sure how better to phrase that) trot out the same old canards that a trial will make us vulnerable to attack (c/o Mitch McConnell, who seems to have forgotten that we are always targets for attack) or the unbelievably tired “pre-9/11 mindset” arguments (this time c/o Michael Mukasey):

Michael Mukasey…said criminal courts were a bad choice for trying the alleged 9/11 plotters. He said the decision represented a turn from the Bush administration’s war footing to a “Sept. 10, 2001” mentality.

“The plan seems to abandon the view that we are involved in a war,” said Mr. Mukasey.

Of course, the Congressional Republicans themselves display a shocking lack of any noticeable sense of irony in addressing how trying Mohammed now would only delay justice:

Delayed Justice: In New York, KSM will enjoy the legal rights and benefits of U.S. citizens and resident aliens under the Constitution. A criminal trial will force the government to reveal all of its intelligence on KSM and how it obtained it. Additionally, treating the 9/11 attacks as a simple criminal matter rather than an act of war will hinder U.S. efforts to fight terrorism and sends the wrong signal to U.S. enemies abroad. A costly civilian court trial for KSM will also likely take years. The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, for example, was tied up in court for more than four years by his lawyers and ended only when Moussaoui pleaded guilty.

Anyway, I’ve noted before that it is conceivably possible to prosecute unspeakable and unconscionable war crimes in a civilized manner, that most Republicans turn into pants-wetting sissies at the very thought of civilian trials, and that The Onion has a disquietingly prescient sense of humor.

Share

Cooler heads might have prevailed

In 1945, President Truman appointed Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson as the chief prosecutor for the planned tribunals to try accused Nazi war criminals:

The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

 

This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories. This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times-aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which. leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of that magnitude that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.

 

In the prisoners’ dock sit twenty-odd broken men. Reproached by the humiliation of those they have led almost as bitterly as by the desolation of those they have attacked, their personal capacity for evil is forever past. It is hard now to perceive in these men as captives the power by which as Nazi leaders they once dominated much of the world and terrified most of it. Merely as individuals their fate is of little consequence to the world.

 

What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.

 

***

 

No charity can disguise the fact that the forces which these defendants represent, the forces that would advantage and delight in their acquittal, are the darkest and most sinister forces in society-dictatorship and oppression, malevolence and passion, militarism and lawlessness. By their fruits we best know them. Their acts have bathed the world in blood and set civilization back a century. They have subjected their European neighbors to every outrage and torture, every spoliation and deprivation that insolence, cruelty, and greed could inflict. They have brought the German people to the lowest pitch of wretchedness, from which they can entertain no hope of early deliverance. They have stirred hatreds and incited domestic violence on every continent. These are the things that stand in the dock shoulder to shoulder with these prisoners.

 

The real complaining party at your bar is Civilization. In all our countries it is still a struggling and imperfect thing. It does not plead that the United States, or any other country, has been blameless of the conditions which made the German people easy victims to the blandishments and intimidations of the Nazi conspirators.

 

But it points to the dreadful sequence of aggressions and crimes I have recited, it points to the weariness of flesh, the exhaustion of resources, and the destruction of all that was beautiful or useful in so much of the world, and to greater potentialities for destruction in the days to come. It is not necessary among the ruins of this ancient and beautiful city with untold members of its civilian inhabitants still buried in its rubble, to argue the proposition that to start or wage an aggressive war has the moral qualities of the worst of crimes. The refuge of the defendants can be only their hope that international law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law.

 

Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men and women of good will, in all countries, may have “leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the law.”

 

Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg, Germany, November 21, 1945

To compare al-Qaeda directly to the Nazis is of course to give al-Qaeda far too much credit, but there is an obvious analogy to be made. Of all the reasons that the torture and other depredations of the Bush years should be investigated and prosecuted, perhaps one of the greatest and least-mentioned is this: in addition to losing our moral standing in the world, consider what the world has lost in terms of opportunities to bring organizations like al-Qaeda to light, to expose them for the cowards and liars that they are, and to begin the process of redressing the conditions so as to make such acts as the 9/11 attacks inconceivable to all humanity. I am not naive enough to think that war and terror can be stamped out solely through honesty, but the fundamental laws of human dignity and decency did not cease to function in September 2001. It is precisely the calm and measured tone of Justice Jackson that has been sorely missing for the past 7+ years. What if the knowledge gleaned from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed‘s (pre-torture) interrogation had been made known to the world in 2003 or 2004? What more could have been accomplished in stemming the tide of hatred and violence fomented by the bin Ladens of the world if we had kept our sights on them the whole time? We will never know, and that is a loss that should not go unredressed.

Share

America either tortures people or it doesn’t (updated)

Remember the debate over the torture issue? It was back before the fears of swine flu surfaced, so it’s pretty ancient now…I think it was last Friday. Near as I can tell, the position of the old Bush guard (pun intended) is that we do not torture, but it doesn’t matter anyway because it’s not illegal to torture, which is not something we do, anyway. I’m pretty much sick and tired of the debate, but it is a debate that apparently must be had, because there are seemingly honest, intelligent people in this country who will say with a straight face that simulating drowning by covering a person’s face and repeatedly dowsing them with water until they think they are on the verge of death is not torture, but “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and that we shouldn’t bother with any sort of investigations into the legality of such actions because…well, I guess it’s because we have better things to do. Of course, Republicans are always complaining that government is too big, so perhaps we can just use some of the extra weight to conduct investigations and prosecutions, while the important and necessary parts of the government carry on. If the alleged wrongdoers didn’t do anything wrong, then they’ve got nothing to hide, and what would be the harm in investigating, right? Right?

I can throw the quotes of Bushies back in their faces all day, and I’d love to do so, but here’s the thing: to say that investigations and prosecutions of torture would “tear this country apart” is bullshit, plain and simple. This is not an issue of right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, or whatever. It’s a question of basic human dignity. It doesn’t matter what our opponents do, or what they plan to do, or what they’d like to do to us. We (and by that I mean America) hold ourselves out as the “shining city on a hill” to inspire the peoples of the world. We have squandered every last bit of goodwill that we spent the first 200+ years of our history earning from the rest of the world in the supposed name of keeping ourselves safe from…something. The Bushies never would tell us exactly what…

Investigations and prosecutions are not just necessary, they are essential…not just to regain the world’s respect, but to regain respect for ourselves. If this truly is a partisan issue, if there really is an argument to be made for legally sanctioned and clandestine torture, then let that argument be made out in the open, within the hearing of all Americans and the world, open to discussion and debate. If having such a debate would be damaging to our republic, if it would somehow damage our ability to “move forward,” it does not matter. If we cannot address our own wrongdoing without ripping ourselves apart, then we are just prolonging the inevitable. America is more than a nation, and at the risk of sounding trite, it is an idea that has endured longer than most states ever have. America is a dream of freedom and liberty under law. Let those laws work, and if it tears us apart in the process, what was it that we were really holding together in the first place?

UPDATE: Gene Lyons at Salon has two excellent pieces on the genesis of this whole debacle here and here.

UPDATE II: Ditto for Gary Kamiya:

Those opposed to reopening the book on the Bush years argue that doing so would tear the country apart. They’re right — but they forget that the country is already torn apart. The gulf between Democrats and Republicans has never been wider. The Republican Party, the home of those who still defend the Bush years, has become a reactionary and increasingly marginal movement that is in fealty to crude demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and whose hysterical denunciations of Obama sound more and more unhinged.

What this means is that those Americans who would be truly outraged by an investigation are already outraged. It could not make them any angrier or more bitter than they already are. And even if it did, how much difference would that make? The GOP base already regards Democrats as terrorist-coddling communists. Are they going to all join militias?

I kind of suspect that Mr. Kamiya has not been to Texas recently, or he might not be so sanguine about the idea of Republicans joining militias. I still prefer that to everyone hiding their true colors.

I suppose it’s possible that for some the battle lines have not yet been drawn. I certainly hope not, though.

Share

Tattoos hit the political mainstream, finally, sort of

After years of hard-fought, oft-thankless struggle, a tattooed she-devil may finally have a shot at the United States Senate.

Okay, that’s a gross exaggeration, actually. It would appear that Caroline Kennedy has a tiny, partially-removed butterfly tat on her left arm that, now that she’s pondering a Senate run, is making a few waves here and there.

Could this be the defining moment for body art on the body politic? Perhaps. It’s much more likely that the Mainstream Media just didn’t have very much to do today. Still, I have been pondering for some time where all of this is leading–those of you who don’t live in Austin in the summer months may not be used to the sight of more tribal patterns than a New Guinea jungle (was that racist? Maybe a little–I was just going for a “tribal” analogy. Apologies to all Melanesians who might take offense.) Will the bulk of my generation of Austinites eventually come to regret their dragonscale sleeve tats? For my part, I think the HR directors of the future will have little to no cause to bemoan others’ ink, as they will no doubt be (at least partially) concealing old tramp stamps from their wild college days.

I leave it to history to decide.

And anyway, Ms. Kennedy has a tiny butterfly, big whoop.

Share