Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent from Thursday's ruling and took the unusual step of reading part of it from the bench — something he had never done before in his 15 years. He said the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."
The court's willingness, Thomas wrote in the dissent, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."
Thomas is saying that the court should step aside and let a political body determine how somebody is "brought to justice".
Set aside the notion of a fair trial, which is something Thomas doesn't seem to care much about. (How does adhering to the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ diminish the ability to defeat the enemy?) He is doing what many Republicans in Congress are doing. Working to undermine the authority of the branch he is a part of - and furthering the expansion of power by the executive.
The American public has turned against the Federal Reserve's two-year campaign of interest-rate increases, concerned it may hurt the economy by slowing growth, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows.
By a 65 percent to 22 percent margin, Americans oppose another rate increase by the central bank, which says such moves are necessary to counter inflation.
[...]
The Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll found that those who earn more money were more likely to support raising interest rates. Among respondents whose household incomes exceed $100,000, 39 percent favored higher rates, while 52 percent were opposed; for those making $40,000 to $60,000, it was 13 percent in favor of higher rates and 76 percent opposed.
Other groupings based on age or political orientation show opposition to additional rate hikes. But it does look like those in the middle-class are feeling the pinch more (certainly more than those with greater household incomes).
Are higher interest rates making a difference to the middle-class, both in terms of credit card rates and adjustable mortgages? Something seems to be going on here, and it might lead to a pull-back by the American consumer, who never seems to quit spending.
If you follow the news about the CPI and think talk of "core inflation" (i.e. ex food and energy) is missing the point, then you'll love the Economist story that The Big Picture takes apart with vigor.
Won't spoil the fun, but there's something even worse than the "core inflation" statistic you're familiar with.
Mitch McConnell, Republican senator, advocates a lot of policies that this blog disagrees with. And he's hard to like as a person. But give the guy credit, he voted against the flag desecration amendment today. That's something Democrat Diane Feinstein from comfortably blue California coudn't bring herself to do.
These are the opening words in today's LATimes editorial, The Dems' Iraq gap (they didn't capitalize the "g" in gap): (emp add)
T'S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT DEMOCRATS in the U.S. Senate would use the war in Iraq to send a political message to the party faithful, as some did last week in voting for doomed resolutions to fast-track the withdrawal (or "redeployment") of U.S. forces from that country. Trouble is, the message sent to the rest of the country may be that Democrats who are more liberal can't be trusted when it comes to national security.
But they don't say why that is so. The closest reason, is perhaps this:
Playing politics is, unfortunately, an apt description of last week's Senate debate. It was mostly election-year posturing — on both sides.
Maybe the Times is saying that "Democrats who are more liberal" are "playing politics" which means they "can't be trusted", but then, so are the Republicans.
Another possibility is that by "calling for troop withdrawals" means they can't be trusted. But that argument is not made explicit. All we have is that declarative statement, "Democrats who are more liberal can't be trusted" - hanging there, without a solid argument to support it.
MR. RUSSERT: The Iraqi prime minister today, Senator, unveiled a national reconciliation plan. He calls on the Iraqi legislature to set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but also urges the granting of amnesty for some insurgents. What’s your reaction?
SEN. FEINGOLD: Well, first, on the timeline, it appears to me that the American people understand it’s time for a timeline to withdraw the troops from Iraq. The Iraqi people and the Iraqi government understand it. It seems like it’s only here in Washington that people don’t understand it’s time to end this mistake, to end our military involvement there. And the votes in Washington don’t show it, but the people in this country and the people of Iraq want us to stop it.
As to the amnesty, I’m very troubled by it. The idea of amnesty for people that have either attacked or even killed American troops, I think that’s unacceptable and something that we have to make very clear to the Iraqis that we can’t accept.
Democrats would be far more effective if they didn't express themselves in terms of their own thinking. It's better to say, "The idea of amnesty for people that have killed American troops is unacceptable."
... in the land of the Lilliputians, the Keyboard Kingpin must be accorded full respect.
[That's you, dear reader. Inhabiting the land of Lilliputians.]
The Keyboard Kingpin, aka Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, sits at his computer, fires up his Web site, Daily Kos, and commands his followers, who come across like squadrons of rabid lambs, to unleash their venom on those who stand in the way.
But the Sachem of the Blogosphere restrained his mighty wrath and responded with the cleverness for which he is so justly self-adored.
[That's Kos, in case you were wondering who the Sachem is.]
... a code of omerta was in order ...
[More of Brooks' dark metaphor.]
There was a Judas on the listserve ... [Pure evil!]
Sounding like Tom DeLay who is his moral doppelgaenger ...
[Wow! Equal to DeLay in some way. Parents, hide your children! Kos is in town!]
This essay is a great example of a confused response to a new phenomenon: blogs, that Brooks has little understanding of. He should be sentenced to reading Kos for a month. Perhaps then he will understand that Kos supports a variety of perspectives (both on policy and political action) and is not a tyrant dictating to a servile audience.
In fact, Brooks' essay is so over the top, that it's pretty much a grade-A example of how frightened pundits react to a threat to their careers.
Or so Scott Cleland, chairman of netcompetition.org would have you believe. How do we know? Today on NPR he was given the opportunity to speak out against Net Neutrality legislation. Instead of having experts comment on the issue, NPR has decided to do what so many in the press do with issues like global warming. Give both sides equal standing. Today the microphone was handed to the anti-neutrality spokesman. Tomorrow, Craig Newmark will make the case for net neutrality.
The reason for this post is to highlight the devious arguments used by net neutrality opponents. Here is a transcript of what Scott Cleveland said this morning: (emp add)
So what is Net Neutrality?
It's really a debate over dueling visions of the future of the Internet.
Net Neutrality proponents worry that telecom, wireless, and cable companies might one day favor their own content and applications over others. They want Congress to pass a new law to ban that practice by regulating the price of broadband service and the way it's sold. Net competition proponents like me believe that the best way to guard a free and open Internet is to maintain the free and open competition that exists today. Not create a new government-monitored socialized Internet.
First, Net Neutrality is really a misnomer. It's really just special interest legislation dressed up to sound less self-serving. Did you know Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are lobbying for Net Neutrality? If they're successful, they'll get a special, low, government-set price for the bandwidth they use, while everyone else, consumers, businesses, and government will have to pay a competitive price for bandwidth. Doesn't sound very "neutral" to me.
Second, Net Neutrality would be a 180 degree reversal of the government's highly successful policy to promote competition and not regulate the Internet. Amazingly, proponents of this radical change of policy don't even have any real evidence of a problem. Only unsubstantiated assertions about hypothetical problems.
Finally, Net Neutrality legislation would be a lousy tradeoff for consumers. The consumer benefits would be small, but the cost to consumers would be huge. Price regulation would destroy any economic incentive to innovate and invest in the private networks that make up the Internet. Over time, we would end up with a slower Internet and higher broadband prices and taxes for consumers, less broadband choice and slower broadband deployment to all Americas. And it would also mean less privacy for all Americans. Net Neutrality would require more government monitoring and surveillance of Internet traffic.
In short, don't be fooled by the superficial appeal of the Net Neutrality legislation. The idea is rotten to the core because it's a heavy-handed fix to a nonexistent problem and it's a lousy cost-benefit tradeoff for consumers.
Dig that privacy argument! With unmonitored snooping by the NSA going on, we're supposed to be upset if the government checks that contracts between telcos and websites are non discriminatory?
Oh, and don't forget that Net Neutrality is the first step in a Stazi-style communications system.
What a joke. And what a joke that NPR sees fit to allow this unrebutted* commentary to be aired.
* - saying there will be a counter-argument the next day is no way to hold a debate.
White House press secretary Tony Snow, defending the administration from low approval numbers on the Iraq War, recently said:
"If somebody had taken a poll in the Battle of the Bulge, I dare say people would have said, 'Wow, my goodness, what are we doing here?' But you cannot conduct a war based on polls."
Unfortunately for Snow, Josh Marshall at TPM has found a poll that covers that time period and pace Tony, there was continued support of the mission during the Battle of the Bulge.
In an apparent move to get out of that dilemma, Snow has revised his remarks. He now says:
"If somebody had taken a poll during the Battle of Chateauguay, I dare say people would have said, 'Wow, my goodness, what are we doing here?' But you cannot conduct a war based on polls. And you can't prove me wrong since that took place in 1813 and nobody, not even Josh Marshall, can cite a poll from that period."
The Republicans are going to campaign on the theme of Perpetual War (against "Terror").
Bush facilitates this by planning of having troops in Iraq for as long as he's president. As bad as things get in Iraq, the U.S. is still very strong in conventional military terms and won't suffer a Battle of Dien Bien Phu. They won't be forced out.
Arguing about exit plans is a loser for Democrats. Trying to win elections on national defense and foreign policy issues while there is a war on is extremely difficult. The party in power usually has an advantage, and this is even more the case since Republicans have cornered the market on emotional symbols, patriotism, and other base emotions (which war taps into quite effectively).
No serious discussion in any policy area will succeed in persuading voters - it'll be ignored or drowned out with tabloid trivia.
Ann Coulter and her ilk will be given plenty of noncritical exposure. It's not that Coulter changes people's minds. It's more that she crowds out other more sensible voices and moves the boundaries of discourse further to the right.
Millionaire pundits will continue their softball coverage of Republicans.
The public are disenfranchised through the old-time Gerrymandered representation, along with mischief the new voting machines bring and voter list purges / registration-obstacle courses set up by Republicans. Having 51% of the voters on your side isn't enough to change control of Congress.
Reform will not be achieved by having the electorate agree with a progressive message and vote accordingly.
Reform will only come about when the Democrats attain power in Congress (and perhaps later, the White House).
The Democrats will return to power only if there is an economic downturn that forces out the Republicans.
An economic downturn sharp enough to make a difference may happen this year. But it may not come soon enough, and the situation could be not so bad in November that the Republicans retain their hold in Washington.
How else to explain the following vote in the House:
Yeas
Nays
Pres
NV
Republican
223
0
0
7
Democratic
183
0
8
10
Independent
1
0
0
0
TOTALS
407
0
8
17
What was the vote about?
H.Res. 318 resolves that the House of Representatives commends the millions of fathers who serve as wonderful, caring parents for their children and calls on fathers across the Nation to use Father's Day to reconnect and rededicate themselves to their children's lives, to spend Father's Day with their children, and to express their love and support for their children. The bill urges men to understand the level of responsibility fathering a child requires, especially in the encouragement of the moral, academic, and spiritual development of children and encourages active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children, including the devotion of time, energy, and resources.
About time Congress faced this critical issue.
OF SOME INTEREST: The resolution states, "The bill urges men to understand the level of responsibility fathering a child requires, especially in the encouragement of the ... spiritual development of children ..."
Six months ago (six months!), Republican Representative Jean Schmidt caused an uproar in Congress for what she implied about Democrat Jack Murtha: (emp add)
[I am sending] Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.
Minutes after that Schmidt withdrew her remarks and apologized to Murtha.
That was then. But now, saying that about Murtha (and Kerry) is perfectly acceptable, even when spoken by Bush's top political strategist: [NYT] (emp add)
On Monday night, the president's top political strategist, Karl Rove, told supporters in New Hampshire that if the Democrats had their way, Iraq would fall to terrorists and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have been killed.
"When it gets tough, and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running," Mr. Rove said at a state Republican Party gathering in Manchester.
Expect things to get even nastier in the coming months.
Jason Leopold stands by story, issues clarification:
In the wake of the news that Fitzgerald won't be charging Karl Rove, Jason Leopold, who wrote on May 13: (emp add)
During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
Leopold admits there was an error and now says that, instead of 24 business hours, what he meant to write was 24 Venusian hours, which is 243 earth days.
Taking that into account, it means that the truth will come out on January 11 ,2007.
On that day Jason Leopold will be finally vindicated and truthout.org will get the respect it deserves. (Unless Leopold means 24 Venusian business hours, which would put "truthout" day somewhere in the year 2009.)
16 June, 2001 - with Vladimir Putin "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul."
13 Jun 2006 - with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki I've come to not only look you in the eye, I've also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it will keep its word ...
(No word yet on the status of Maliki's soul.)
ACCOMPLISHING MISSIONS:
1 May 2003 - on the USS Abraham Lincoln ... our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
13 June 2006 - speaking to troops in Iraq The mission that you're accomplishing here in Iraq will go down in the history books as an incredibly important moment in the history of freedom and peace; an incredibly important moment of doing our duty to secure our homeland.
Just heard on local Los Angeles right-wing talk radio (KABC AM) that Ann Coulter will be in the city for a taping of the Tonight show on Wednesday. This does not appear to be confirmed (yet) by online listings, but sound solid.
If it happens, it will be a disgrace.
UPDATE: It's solid. It will happen. Featuring a debate between Coulter and 69-year old George Carlin. It's going to be a fiasco. We liked Carlin back in the 1970's, but he's way off his game now. They should have booked Arianna Huffington, Eric Alterman, or somebody like that. Somebody sharp.
EARLY FOLLOWUP: According to this liveblog of the Tonight show, Carlin was not a participant in any debate and Coulter was given a forum for her views. Thanks, NBC!
Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the "Darwiniacs" and their refusal to face the fact that evolution is a patent absurdity, according to Coulter, credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God.
I've not read the book and only just this afternoon watched The Today Show interview, but bottom line: Crass and inappropriate though some of her comments may be—and, yes, of course, the widows line—the "enjoying" one much-quoted from the book—is terrible—Ann Coulter is selling a book this week and now everyone is talking about it and her. Hillary Clinton is responding. And on all sides she’s being denounced—there’s Hillary, but there’s also Peter King. Ann’s on the cover of the Daily News today. Every news segment or story is more Coulter books sold. From her point of view, I’ll guess, and from the publisher’s, for sure: Mission accomplished for book-launch week. Posted at 5:34 PM
sociopath - defn: A person affected with an antisocial personality disorder.
That's what Ann Coulter is, demonstrated most recently on NBC's Today Show: (emp add)
Speaking of the 9/11 widows: These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands'? death so much.
Those words are intended to hurt. Not just the widows, but anybody who has sympathy for them. It's a whole level lower than the standard "You hate America", which, while obnoxious, doesn't tread onto emotional soil.
Another sociopath is the Rev. Fred Phelps, who goes to protest at funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq (which got the Congress to pass a law restricting such activities).
And judging from the acid tone of many post over at Powerline, we'd be inclined to say they have the same inclination to hurt, as opposed to insult.
And Limbaugh and Hannity and Savage do much of the same thing.
These are sick people, and any attempt to get them to change is futile. And those who admire the Coulters of this world are not much different, though the degree of unpleasantness varies and there is some hope of changing their attitudes.
So, who is to blame for this situation? As Eric Alterman has frequently said about Coulter, "Why do we even know who this person is?" We know about Coulter because she is useful to the right wing. She's an extension of Newt Gingrich's campaign to demonize the opposition. So she gets the book deals and radio and television exposure from right wing organizations. Not much you can do about that.
But where the real damage is done is when Coulter appears on the cover of Time magazine and gets to appear on the Today Show. There is no excuse for that. While it's true that most people viewing Coulter on NBC were turned off, her mere presence was a stimulus to those who share her hatred. That's the real damage inflicted on this country.
So, what is to be done? The sociopaths and those that love them will always be with us. They have to be marginalized, which is mostly a matter of getting them considered bad company, and that takes time and an attitudinal change by the media bosses. But with Murdoch funding Fox and other media that host these sociopaths, you've got a tough row to hoe.
Section 1. The thirteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.
Because slavery is the ultimate "ownership society" - where labor is the only form of income that's taxed, inherited wealth isn't touched, worker rights and benefits are eliminated, etc.
The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
[...]
The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva.
There have been similar rumblings from other federal departments (e.g. EPA, Justice, State). The attitude is: The Bush administration simply can't be persuaded to do the right thing, so stop wasting energy and instead, wait until the crew leaves town. Sort of like having an unpleasant visitor in your home. Suck it up and be comforted in the knowledge that eventually the nightmare will pass.
What a hell of a reputation for this administration to have.
Forget Haditha for the moment. Right now there are daily shootings of Shia or Sunnis throughout Iraq. People are being dragged out of cars and buses, separated on the basis of religion, and shot or let go. Day after day this goes on. It's stunning and sad.
It would seem that the response to this would be self-segration. A Shia in a Sunni-dominant region would leave for a Shia city. The reverse for a Sunni. Wouldn't you do that?
But perhaps the demographics are such that there is such a co-mingling at the present time that there is no place to go (or very few). What then? Perhaps you just stay at home being real quiet, doing the absolute minimum to get by until some sort of clarity emerges. Such a strategy is being followed by many in Iraq. But that's a temporary solution that awaits a permanent fix.
But back to the issue of consolidation for safety. It would seem to be inevitable since the government doesn't have much control over things. If tensions reach a level where a mass exodus starts to take place, you can expect lots of violence until everybody is where they want to be. It could be like what happened during the partition of India, when Muslims and Hindus went on rampages, often killing those simply trying to get to safety. (Numbers vary, but half a million killed is a common estimate.)
The comparison with India isn't quite right. India had many more people, but at least they had clearly defined places to go to (Kashmir excepted). If the Shia and Sunni "territories" are unspecified and fluid, that could make it a much bloodier affair. Or will someone step in (US? UN?) and guide the process to minimize conflict?
For years this blog was reluctant to think that a breakup of Iraq would take place - as some experts predicted. But maybe it will happen after all.
... Homeland Security officials today announced grants to New York City and Washington that would be slashed by 40 percent, while dollars headed to spots including Omaha and Louisville, Ky., would surge.
[...]
Overall, New York State will get $183.7 million, which is a 20 percent drop from last year. That means New York State's per capita share of grant funds, which totals $2.78 per person, will drop to an even lower level compared to some rural states, like Wyoming, which will get $14.83 per person this year.
A couple of Three interesting posts that try to figure out how Bush thinks. 1 and 2 and 3
This blog is waiting for the day when Bush finally wakes up and sees the full measure of his failure in Iraq (among other things). Some say that day will never come; that Bush is incapable of introspection. Maybe. But it seems more likely that reality will eventually smash through the shields that have cosseted him for most of his life.
