There were a couple of items on the “Democracy Now!” telecast today that really piqued my interest. I’ll write about one today and the other tomorrow.
During Amy Goodman’s headline news at the top of the show she talked about Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) becoming the head Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What really got me was her reporting that Senator Sessions once “described the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union as Un-American and Communist-inspired because…” (now here’s the amazing part) “…they forced civil rights down the throats of people.” WTF???? I hadn’t heard that one before. Whoa!
I looked this up on Wikipedia (I know this can be an iffy endeavor re finding the truth), and not only were those two organizations besmirched but he included the NAACP as “Un-American” and “Communist-inspired” as well. According to the “Wik” (footnoted) he claims that it was in jest, but as far as I’m concerned that was his way of maintaining damage control.
I am astounded that Alabamans keep somebody like this in office. How on earth can someone with that take on our country possibly be elected? Are there really enough citizens of the United States out there that would allow a person with such a horrible outlook on those fine organizations, let alone his despicably callous attitude to our basic rights, be their representative?
Yet this guy has won three elections! I just don’t get it. Here is a man who believes “forcing civil rights down the throats of people” (I just HAD to rewrite that - it’s so off the chart) helping make decisions that will affect all of our rights in the future. And now he’s the top GOP in the Judiciary Committee. That is very scary indeed!
My question is, does a Senator rise in power just because of longevity and damned be his/her views or can his/her views pre-empt them from such a rise to power? If the former, change the promotion criteria immediately. If the latter, then the Senate is showing just how out of touch they are with the population by allowing this egregious individual any scintilla of power.
Do you really think the majority of Americans believe our civil rights shouldn’t be constantly monitored to prevent their being slyly abridged or even abrogated by those in power? These and other organizations are watchdogs on the rights of every American.
Of course, what the majority of the people in this country want is totally ignored by the Senate, which I’ll get into tomorrow.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
While the Broken Minds and Bodies Recover...
Does anybody else have a problem with this? From CNN (May 4, 2009):
I mean, really! Number one, it has been established in many, many articles, blogs, etc., that what the Bush Administration did violated international torture laws. That assertion is so ubiquitous throughout the Internet that I’m not even going to provide a reference. Either you know by now or not. As far as I’m concerned, Rice is flat out lying when she says that Bush did “nothing …against our obligations internationally.” Excuse me, but we signed an agreement with other countries saying we would not torture AND that we would prosecute anyone who engaged in such egregious behavior. And Ronald Reagan signed it!
How straightforward is that??
Number two, of course he “would not have authorized anything illegal.” He just politicized the justice department and had them make whatever he and his minions decided upon doing “legal.” Though there are now tales floating around that the tortures were being implemented before the Justice Department’s final determination that they were “legal.”
As far as I’m concerned, to go to the extreme, what the Bush did by “legalizing” torture is the same thing as if he decided to kill someone, push the Justice Department into legalizing murder, having one of his cronies kill someone, then having people like Condoleeza Rice now saying, “Well, he didn’t authorize anything illegal!” Of course it could be Ms. Rice’s intent to fall back on Richard Nixon’s famous line, “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Sure. To avoid the illegality, just make it legal. Easy-Peasy!
It continually amazes me that there are those that want to obfuscate the blatant, horrific torture of human beings into some kind of “debate” on “policy issues.” Or the other “brilliant” excuse of “we must look forward” and just “reflect” on the past. Reflect? Puhleeze. Give me a frakkin’ break! At least Judge Baltasar Garzon in Spain is still pursuing the illegal acts of torture by the Bush Administration. As one of my earlier post headlines read, “Good for Spain and bad for the U.S.”
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended the Bush administration's policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects Sunday, saying former President George W. Bush would not have authorized anything illegal.
Condoleeza Rice says George W. Bush was clear that interrogations during his presidency should break no law.
"He was also very clear that we would do nothing -- nothing -- that was against the law or against our obligations internationally," Rice said during an appearance at a Washington school.
I mean, really! Number one, it has been established in many, many articles, blogs, etc., that what the Bush Administration did violated international torture laws. That assertion is so ubiquitous throughout the Internet that I’m not even going to provide a reference. Either you know by now or not. As far as I’m concerned, Rice is flat out lying when she says that Bush did “nothing …against our obligations internationally.” Excuse me, but we signed an agreement with other countries saying we would not torture AND that we would prosecute anyone who engaged in such egregious behavior. And Ronald Reagan signed it!
How straightforward is that??
Number two, of course he “would not have authorized anything illegal.” He just politicized the justice department and had them make whatever he and his minions decided upon doing “legal.” Though there are now tales floating around that the tortures were being implemented before the Justice Department’s final determination that they were “legal.”
As far as I’m concerned, to go to the extreme, what the Bush did by “legalizing” torture is the same thing as if he decided to kill someone, push the Justice Department into legalizing murder, having one of his cronies kill someone, then having people like Condoleeza Rice now saying, “Well, he didn’t authorize anything illegal!” Of course it could be Ms. Rice’s intent to fall back on Richard Nixon’s famous line, “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Sure. To avoid the illegality, just make it legal. Easy-Peasy!
It continually amazes me that there are those that want to obfuscate the blatant, horrific torture of human beings into some kind of “debate” on “policy issues.” Or the other “brilliant” excuse of “we must look forward” and just “reflect” on the past. Reflect? Puhleeze. Give me a frakkin’ break! At least Judge Baltasar Garzon in Spain is still pursuing the illegal acts of torture by the Bush Administration. As one of my earlier post headlines read, “Good for Spain and bad for the U.S.”
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Great George Carlin
Last night (Sat.), PBS aired the Mark Twain Award tribute to George Carlin. Right off the top I have to say that George Carlin is one of my all-time favorite comedians. I’ve always been fascinated with words, as did the late Mr. Carlin.
How ironic, though, that here is a great man who made fun of our society’s laughable fear of the “wrong” words being spoken on television having his “honored” bits bleeped by PBS during the tribute! Even funnier was that the telecast aired his “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” routine and every one of the seven was bleeped. I really hoped there are those out there who saw this tribute got as much of a laugh over that as I did. Those words are still being bleeped to this day, some forty years later. Maybe “never” means “never.” Who knows?
Even more hysterical was his talking about “half-way” words. Those that can have more than one meaning. One meaning the TV networks will allow you to hear the word. The other meaning is a big no-no. I particularly noted his use of the word “ass.” You will be able to say on television that you would like to “kick someone’s ass," and PBS dutifully allowed the word to be said on the air. When Mr. Carlin then proceeded to say that if one were to remark something like “Boy, I’d like a piece of that ass,” PBS bleeped the word! Funny stuff. Same exact word, just a different context. To bleep or not to bleep, that is the question.
I remember seeing George Carlin when he was an “establishment” comedian back in the 60s. He wore the typical suit and tie, and he had some great bits, such as the Hippy Dippy Weatherman (“tonight’s forecast…Dark!”) and the Congolia Breckinridge “Let’s Make a Deal” routine (“Oh, Monty, Monty, Monty!”). I loved what he was doing then. Little did I know what was to come.
I distinctly remember not seeing him for a while, then all of a sudden his appearing on a show I happened to be watching, and he suddenly had a ponytail and beard. A 180 degree turnaround from his former self, and yet he was even funnier. Check out his before (establishment) and after (anti-establishment) “AM/FM” album (I know – it’s on a CD now, but back then it was an album…with real vinyl!). I was impressed at the time how a person can do such a major makeover and still be so great. What a giant among us.
I realize this post is a bit off what I usually write about, but, to me, George Carlin is one of the true greats. I consider myself lucky that he lived in my lifetime and that I was able to enjoy his thoughts/routines as they were first performed. His perspective of how we as a people approach words and the meanings behind them truly helped shape my view of the absurdity of our handling of words.
Finally, it is truly amazing the relevance Mr. Carlin’s routines are to this day. Will we ever get over our puritanical mindset? After all, they're just words! They won't "curve your spine" or "keep the country from winning the war."
And in my tribute to Mr. Carlin, I just have three little words: “R**t in P***e.”
How ironic, though, that here is a great man who made fun of our society’s laughable fear of the “wrong” words being spoken on television having his “honored” bits bleeped by PBS during the tribute! Even funnier was that the telecast aired his “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” routine and every one of the seven was bleeped. I really hoped there are those out there who saw this tribute got as much of a laugh over that as I did. Those words are still being bleeped to this day, some forty years later. Maybe “never” means “never.” Who knows?
Even more hysterical was his talking about “half-way” words. Those that can have more than one meaning. One meaning the TV networks will allow you to hear the word. The other meaning is a big no-no. I particularly noted his use of the word “ass.” You will be able to say on television that you would like to “kick someone’s ass," and PBS dutifully allowed the word to be said on the air. When Mr. Carlin then proceeded to say that if one were to remark something like “Boy, I’d like a piece of that ass,” PBS bleeped the word! Funny stuff. Same exact word, just a different context. To bleep or not to bleep, that is the question.
I remember seeing George Carlin when he was an “establishment” comedian back in the 60s. He wore the typical suit and tie, and he had some great bits, such as the Hippy Dippy Weatherman (“tonight’s forecast…Dark!”) and the Congolia Breckinridge “Let’s Make a Deal” routine (“Oh, Monty, Monty, Monty!”). I loved what he was doing then. Little did I know what was to come.
I distinctly remember not seeing him for a while, then all of a sudden his appearing on a show I happened to be watching, and he suddenly had a ponytail and beard. A 180 degree turnaround from his former self, and yet he was even funnier. Check out his before (establishment) and after (anti-establishment) “AM/FM” album (I know – it’s on a CD now, but back then it was an album…with real vinyl!). I was impressed at the time how a person can do such a major makeover and still be so great. What a giant among us.
I realize this post is a bit off what I usually write about, but, to me, George Carlin is one of the true greats. I consider myself lucky that he lived in my lifetime and that I was able to enjoy his thoughts/routines as they were first performed. His perspective of how we as a people approach words and the meanings behind them truly helped shape my view of the absurdity of our handling of words.
Finally, it is truly amazing the relevance Mr. Carlin’s routines are to this day. Will we ever get over our puritanical mindset? After all, they're just words! They won't "curve your spine" or "keep the country from winning the war."
And in my tribute to Mr. Carlin, I just have three little words: “R**t in P***e.”
Thursday, April 16, 2009
"Only Following Orders" Now a Good Excuse
Well, gee…back in post World War II, the “We were only following orders” defense didn’t fly at the Nuremberg trials. Flash forward sixty years later into the twenty-first century and the Obama administration is letting the CIA torturers off the prosecutorial hook because they “were only following orders,” i.e., they were told that what they were doing is legal by the Bush Administration.
What’s wrong with this picture? At least, the Obama people said nothing about letting the Bush Administration off the hook. That’s a good sign.
But why did the lower ranks in the military get jobbed for indecent behavior at Abu Ghraib? The higher ranks up to and including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn’t even get a passing look at being culpable for what was going on in the prison. Shouldn’t the CIA torturers been equally held accountable in addition to the Bush Administration?
Can't anybody see this pattern? First, the Bush Administration tells the telecommunications giants that illegal wiretapping is legal. So the corporations blithely go forth illegally wiretapping their merry hearts out. Then when the sordid affair is exposed, our government pushes through a retroactive immunity law to get the corporations off the hook.
When the CIA is told that illegal torture (waterboarding internationally since post WWII, for one) is legal, they go forth merrily torturing “enemy combatants” until it is exposed with the release of testimony and documents detailing the tortures. Now, the Obama administration is letting the CIA torturers off the hook.
Amazing what sixty years can bring about. I believe that this is a very serious issue. It illustrates that even when common decency tells a person something is absolutely wrong (including the fact there are international laws against it), if the “Powers That Be” say go ahead with it, it shall be done – with no future recriminations. Is this the new precedent we have set forth? Is this the mind set we want in our country in this day and age? Basic rights egregiously violated because higher-ups say it’s “OK”? Then not to be held accountable when the abhorrent behavior is exposed?
My final question is: can Congress (weak and feckless as it is) override the administration and prosecute the individuals who caused such misery to our fellow human beings? We should also point the cross hairs at the entire Bush Administration and make sure that those responsible for saying it is “OK” are equally held accountable.
I await, albeit with a major lack of confidence, that the Bush leaders will be held accountable.
What’s wrong with this picture? At least, the Obama people said nothing about letting the Bush Administration off the hook. That’s a good sign.
But why did the lower ranks in the military get jobbed for indecent behavior at Abu Ghraib? The higher ranks up to and including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn’t even get a passing look at being culpable for what was going on in the prison. Shouldn’t the CIA torturers been equally held accountable in addition to the Bush Administration?
Can't anybody see this pattern? First, the Bush Administration tells the telecommunications giants that illegal wiretapping is legal. So the corporations blithely go forth illegally wiretapping their merry hearts out. Then when the sordid affair is exposed, our government pushes through a retroactive immunity law to get the corporations off the hook.
When the CIA is told that illegal torture (waterboarding internationally since post WWII, for one) is legal, they go forth merrily torturing “enemy combatants” until it is exposed with the release of testimony and documents detailing the tortures. Now, the Obama administration is letting the CIA torturers off the hook.
Amazing what sixty years can bring about. I believe that this is a very serious issue. It illustrates that even when common decency tells a person something is absolutely wrong (including the fact there are international laws against it), if the “Powers That Be” say go ahead with it, it shall be done – with no future recriminations. Is this the new precedent we have set forth? Is this the mind set we want in our country in this day and age? Basic rights egregiously violated because higher-ups say it’s “OK”? Then not to be held accountable when the abhorrent behavior is exposed?
My final question is: can Congress (weak and feckless as it is) override the administration and prosecute the individuals who caused such misery to our fellow human beings? We should also point the cross hairs at the entire Bush Administration and make sure that those responsible for saying it is “OK” are equally held accountable.
I await, albeit with a major lack of confidence, that the Bush leaders will be held accountable.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
"Homeland" Uber Alles?
In a recent post by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com, he uses the line “…still creepy phrase ‘Homeland Security’…” Boy, howdy, amen! The first time I heard this phrase, I cringed big time. All I could think about at the time it was introduced was the similar use of the word “fatherland” to describe the German Nazi regime. It has a whiff of “Let me see your papers!” I keep waiting for black leather trench coats to become the uniform of the day for those in Homeland Security.
As for “fatherland” here is the Wikipedia description of the word:
I propose that this word be banned from ever being used to describe our country in any way, shape or form. As with Mr. Greenwald, it really does creep me out upon hearing it to this day.
As for “fatherland” here is the Wikipedia description of the word:
Assuming a specific Nazi usage of the term ‘Vaterland’ (which in fact never existed), the direct English translation "fatherland" featured in news reports associated with Nazi Germany and in domestic anti-Nazi propaganda during World War II. As a result, the English word is now associated with the Nazi government of Germany (unlike in Germany itself, where the word means simply "homeland"). The word is not used often in post-World War II English unless one wishes to invoke the Nazis (emphasis mine), or one is translating literally from a foreign language where that language's equivalent of ‘fatherland’ does not bear Nazi connotations.”For me, as “fatherland” is cited above, “homeland” also represents fascist thinking. Notice that in German the word literally means “homeland.” Hmmm…
I propose that this word be banned from ever being used to describe our country in any way, shape or form. As with Mr. Greenwald, it really does creep me out upon hearing it to this day.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Good for Spain! Bad for us...
I just wanted to do a quick post on Spain’s pursuance of a criminal investigation of six of the Bush Administration’s key personnel regarding their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens.
Good for them! Bad for us. We should be the ones aggressively investigating these men. From what I’ve gathered, if the country perpetrating these tortures does not investigate their own countrymen’s violation of international laws against torture, the other countries which signed the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture agreements are obligated to investigate.
My take? How sad that the once greatest country in the world refuses to even acknowledge that the torture of human beings is not a prosecutable offense. The Obama administration is even fighting to quash three documents regarding torture which are apparently so outrageous that the administration is afraid to release them. Perhaps they are so bad, it would force the Obama administration to open meaningful investigations into the violations. It makes one wonder exactly why the administration is resistant to the public exposure of these documents. Interestingly, according to the above accords, if we as a nation do pursue these alleged offenders within our country, Spain will drop their investigation.
I’ve been hearing a lot lately the phrases “Rule of Law” versus the “Rule of Men.” Tragically, our great country has slid down the slippery slope toward the “Rule of Men.” The American people need to be enlightened to what exactly is going on and they must realize that should we become a bona fide country embracing totally the “Rule of Men,” our nation is deep, deep trouble.
We must return to the “Rule of Law,” and break up this two-tiered system within our society where the elite are bound by one set of rules heavily slanted in their favor, and the rest of the country by another set of rules heavily slanted against. All men and women, no matter how powerful, must be held accountable both domestically and internationally by the “Rule of Law” if they have committed crimes.
I sincerely hope that the Obama administration will do the right thing, but I’m not holding my breath. Hopefully, this international pressure will force the administration into acting. But how sad, that this country’s power brokers would have to be forced to do the right thing and not do it from the outset just because it would be the decent thing.
Good for them! Bad for us. We should be the ones aggressively investigating these men. From what I’ve gathered, if the country perpetrating these tortures does not investigate their own countrymen’s violation of international laws against torture, the other countries which signed the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture agreements are obligated to investigate.
My take? How sad that the once greatest country in the world refuses to even acknowledge that the torture of human beings is not a prosecutable offense. The Obama administration is even fighting to quash three documents regarding torture which are apparently so outrageous that the administration is afraid to release them. Perhaps they are so bad, it would force the Obama administration to open meaningful investigations into the violations. It makes one wonder exactly why the administration is resistant to the public exposure of these documents. Interestingly, according to the above accords, if we as a nation do pursue these alleged offenders within our country, Spain will drop their investigation.
I’ve been hearing a lot lately the phrases “Rule of Law” versus the “Rule of Men.” Tragically, our great country has slid down the slippery slope toward the “Rule of Men.” The American people need to be enlightened to what exactly is going on and they must realize that should we become a bona fide country embracing totally the “Rule of Men,” our nation is deep, deep trouble.
We must return to the “Rule of Law,” and break up this two-tiered system within our society where the elite are bound by one set of rules heavily slanted in their favor, and the rest of the country by another set of rules heavily slanted against. All men and women, no matter how powerful, must be held accountable both domestically and internationally by the “Rule of Law” if they have committed crimes.
I sincerely hope that the Obama administration will do the right thing, but I’m not holding my breath. Hopefully, this international pressure will force the administration into acting. But how sad, that this country’s power brokers would have to be forced to do the right thing and not do it from the outset just because it would be the decent thing.
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Little Slow on the Uptake
I am really happy that Captain Phillips was able to come away from his capture relatively unscathed, but there are a couple of points that I need to address.
First, how on earth can a little tiny lifeboat with four pirates and a captive hold the greatest naval fleet in world history at bay? I mean, come on, I don’t know the exact figure, but we must have spent literally billions of dollars playing war games of various scenarios over our history. We have some of the finest minds regarding war strategy in world. Yet no one ever thought of the scenario of a tiny life boat holding an American citizen hostage?
Another thing – Captain Phillips jumped off the lifeboat last Friday. Our keen-minded military lights bulbs didn’t think of maintaining a constant vigilance on the lifeboat just in case that opportunity for the snipers arose until after the fact?
I think we might want to rethink our concept of “invincibility.” Those guys running the war games don’t seem to be the best and the brightest.
And one last point that’s been nagging me for years. I’ve never liked the use of the word “surge.” It’s “reinforcements” for pity’s sake. Has been, always will be. Of course, that word couldn’t be used. Too militaristic. "Surge" sounds so clean and fresh. Almost like a laundry detergent…
First, how on earth can a little tiny lifeboat with four pirates and a captive hold the greatest naval fleet in world history at bay? I mean, come on, I don’t know the exact figure, but we must have spent literally billions of dollars playing war games of various scenarios over our history. We have some of the finest minds regarding war strategy in world. Yet no one ever thought of the scenario of a tiny life boat holding an American citizen hostage?
Another thing – Captain Phillips jumped off the lifeboat last Friday. Our keen-minded military lights bulbs didn’t think of maintaining a constant vigilance on the lifeboat just in case that opportunity for the snipers arose until after the fact?
I think we might want to rethink our concept of “invincibility.” Those guys running the war games don’t seem to be the best and the brightest.
And one last point that’s been nagging me for years. I’ve never liked the use of the word “surge.” It’s “reinforcements” for pity’s sake. Has been, always will be. Of course, that word couldn’t be used. Too militaristic. "Surge" sounds so clean and fresh. Almost like a laundry detergent…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)