Afraid?

The recent OP-Ed concerning the al-Marri decision is just another chance for the Editor to sound off once again about all the scary bad-guys out there trying to get us.  Glenn Greenwald lays out the sad state of this debate in his blog today. 

“But the overarching point is how extraordinary it is -- specifically, how extraordinarily disturbing it is -- that we are even debating these issues at all.

Although its ultimate resolution is complicated, the question raised by Al-Marri is a clear and simple one: Does the President have the power -- and/or should he have it -- to arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime, allowing them access to lawyers or the outside world, and/or providing a meaningful opportunity to contest the validity of the charges?

How can that question not answer itself? Who would possibly believe that an American President has such powers, and more to the point, what kind of a person would want a President to have such powers? That is one of a handful of powers which this country was founded to prevent.”

This irrational fear of almost everything is getting “Monk”–like in it’s silliness.  The whole “be afraid, be very afraid” is a tactic that is hard to fight off as evidenced by the continuing belief by Republicans that it will work! 

The DNR editor and his supporters are running scared. I'm not so sure that the conservative wisdom of fearmongering is an act. I think some of these guys are REALLY afraid of all the bad guys, pestilence and horrible stuff that's out there. I think they are honest when they say that security is more important than the rule of law, the constitution, habeas corpus, human rights, or the environment. Their FEAR rules their words and actions. They are simply AFRAID, and want us to be AFRAID too. I just don't share that level of fear and refuse to give in to any fearmongering from anyone. 

Nastiness and Pestilence

What a lovely and positive set of editorials and letters greeted us in this morning's paper!  We hear from Ms. Coulter that the evil genius Ted Kennedy is the cause of all the immigration problems and we coulda, woulda, shoulda, solved them years ago if we had made a few "Irish need not apply" signs.  Our very own "Mr. Sunshine" laments that if the Albanians love and adore Mr. Bush so why can't everyone, and besides that really, truly, convincingly proves that all those sufferers of the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" are wrong about him.  

The most positive news of all however came in the big headlines at the top of the page, where we find that the legacy of environmentalism begun by Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring, was based on BAD Science!  DDT doesn't kill humans!  It only kills nature! DDT actually saved the human race!  DDT can free us all from all of those

"nasty little insects that spread disease."

  The editor goes on to say that

"Nature is savage and cruel,"

with pestilence and disease all around.  If DDT could save us from all of that why not use it? Perhaps this “Bad” Science from a beginning Chemistry class at Duke University would clarify.

“When DDT gets into our bodies, it is stored primarily in such fatty organs as the adrenals, testes, and thyroid. DDT is also stored in smaller concentrations in the liver and kidneys. 

So exactly how much DDT can my body tolerate before I should really start worrying? That depends on how much you weigh. At concentration above 236 mg DDT per kg of body weight, you'll die. Concentration of 6-10 mg/kg leads to such symptons as headache, nausea, vomiting, confusion, and tremors.”

The ravings of a Mad Man? Today it stuck me  that our Editorial Pages are filled each day with such negative, fearful, and hateful rhetoric because of a world view stating stating that Man IS supposed to control and exert Dominion over the world, that the world's resources are ours to use as we see fit, and that the strongest, meanest, most aggressive humans get the most.  It's survival of the fittest, the modern jungle, and the medieval mentality, all rolled into one. 

"Perhaps central to Ms. Carson’s view is that it was arrogant of man to try to control nature – that nature is beautiful and benevolent. Yet this is utter nonsense. Nature is savage, cruel and full of nasty little insects that spread disease."

In this blockbuster quote, the Editor sums up his world view.  We live in a nasty, dirty place filled with criminals, terrorists, disease, pestilence, and evil.  His railing against "lily-livered Liberals" and "Irrational Environmentalists"are simply cries for help against this tidal wave of destruction.  He can't understand why everyone else is blind to the nastiness. I mean, why do they call it "Wild" life anyway? If only everyone could see the danger he sees we would all agree and would also be terrified.

Mr. Editor, I feel your pain and your fear.  Those nasty bugs, those creepy immigrants, even "LIBERALS" for heaven's sake! Pestilence is everywhere! While you cower in the corner and rail against evil, squawk about bad science, and cry helplessly in the dark, it would be better if you actually could come out of your bunker and maybe try to actually solve some of the issues that scare you so much. Hiding behind the symbol of American Freedom and Liberty, the Bald Eagle, won't help you much, either.  It is still recovering from near extinction caused by the spraying of DDT.

Courage and Leadership

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived, and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic ... Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. (Let us) move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality."

  JFK  commencement, Yale University June 11, 1962.

These words about the nature of our political debate and the society that has produced it were noted yesterday in a blazing critique.   Peter Birkenhead in Salon praises John F. Kennedy as a leader, full of real courage and above all, self-doubt and humility that identified him for history as a great leader.  The contrasting example is portrayed as he eloquently describes the quality of today’s leadership as confronting 

“…reality with a vengeance, or, more accurately, ignore it all together, as Ron Suskind noted in "The One Percent Solution," when he famously quoted a White House aide dismissing journalists and historians as "the reality-based community."

Today’s leadership and indeed today’s society has embraced luxury, comfort, and are 

“Pumped up by steroidic pseudo-confidence and anesthetized by doubt-free sentimentality,”

so much that 

“they are incapable of feeling anything authentic and experiencing the world.”

Birkenhead, speaking of the current Republican candidates for President with the exception of John McCain:

"They puff up their chests and bray in the absolutist style of the guy who got us into the biggest mess of our lifetime. They clumsily and desperately make up facts, conflate enemies, and endorse the worst kinds of behavior, all to seem more certain than the next guy that evil is all around us. They present themselves as even less troubled by reality than our freedom-frying, deaf, dumb and blind dauphin. And at the same time they seem excruciatingly un-free, as if they're straining against the straitjackets of political convention.

Our current presidential candidates could do us all a favor and read the words of a president who had to wear a confining back brace every day and who would often wince in pain, slump with doubt, and exhibit all sorts of human flaws -- but also gave the impression that he could swim three miles in the South Pacific if he had to, even in his suit and tie. Someone who stood up to the fear-mongers of his day with courageous doubt, who knew firsthand that the closest thing there is to absolute evil is absolutism itself."

Again today, we find that Senate Republicans bray “Politics!” when ever the Democratic majority tries to hold them accountable.  A simple vote of no-confidence in Attorney “Private” Gonzales was stonewalled by partisan chest beating, braying senators crying about “political theater.” Can we really believe in a Congress whose profile of courage is to place party loyalty and politics above service to the nation?  How can anyone be proud of a nation and a government that is so tawdry and panders to the basest of political spectrum.  I’d like the Congress to show some courage, some honesty, and some leadership.  I’d like to be proud of our leaders, not ashamed of their actions, words and deeds. 

Twisted Moral Compass

June 9, 2007, "Roadblock" DNR Editorial:  The final argument: 

"A majority of the American people said there is something morally and politically wrong with such an attitude. That majority view may be incomprehensible to Mr. Balz and the rest of the supporters of the immigration bill but, to most people with a moral compass, its crystal clear."

Lets parse this extremist indictment of the American majority and their collective moral compass.  Its again incredible to me to hear this kind of statement from someone who is in a right wing foxhole, barricaded so deeply that all he sees is his fellow foxhole dwellers.  I'm absolutely sure that the DNR Editor truly feels that his view is the view of the majority. Behind his barricade (if he was president, it would be a bubble) his view is the ONLY view. Polling MUST be disregarded in his world, for polls only show that pretty strong majorities of those polled (are these folks Americans too?) disagree with him. The strategy of proclaiming an idealistic, radical, opinion as the view of most Americans is getting tired and shopworn.  How many times will the DNR insist on lying to its readers like this?

Mr. Balz and supporters of the immigration bill are morally wrong?  What moral code is at stake here?  That immigrants are here illegally?  They are breaking the law? Want to get off your high horse now?  Check last weeks editorials concerning your buddy Scooter?  Now tell me that you are really worried about breaking the law.  Ok, I give up.  It IS morally wrong to break the law and enter the United States illegally.  Twelve million or so have already done it because of weaknesses in our immigration system.  These folks are here to make money!  They are here to work in the jobs that were CREATED AND ARE SUSTAINED by them and for them.  Ask the Growers how important the contribution of these immigrants is to our nations economy!  The immigrants, like it or not, are an important part of the nations economic landscape. Even so, OUR IMMIGRATION POLICY DOES NEED TO BE FIXED! (Check the polls .) The opponents of the immigration bill simply cry AMNESTY and do everything they can to defeat the bill.  They seem to accept nothing less than sending all 12 million home to get in line.  Think about that a bit.  Think about the word POGROM.  Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post says,

that any serious attempt to drive them out of the country -- even "temporarily," so they could apply to be let back in -- would be indistinguishable from a pogrom.

Would SWAT teams of immigration officers descend on neighborhoods and go door to door? Would they snatch children out of schools? Where would they take these people? To special camps? To the nearest border?"

Obviously to solve the moral problem of immigrants breaking the law, a moral form of justice must also be found.  To simply cry AMNESTY and ILLEGAL is foolish obfuscation. It is morally reprehensible to advocate the mass expulsion of TWELVE MILLION PEOPLE.  We need to SOLVE this problem, not shout hysterically from behind a bunker wall.

The immigration bill as offered by the elites is a cobbled together compromise package that pretty accurately reflected the huge gulf between the two sides of the debate.  How can any Centrist coalition hold when the two extreme positions are so stubbornly idealistic that they can't work together?  My challenge to all the ideologues out there who cry and whine about the immigration problem is simply this:  SOLVE IT!

Pardon or No Pardon?

Here are some notable words from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:

 ""Mr. Libby lied about nearly everything that mattered," 

"disclosures of information regarding Ms. Wilson's employment may have been sanctioned by the Vice President" 

"The sentence has to make clear and loud that truth matters and one's station in life does not." 

Mr. Libby deserves prison and yes, he's a good soldier and took a bullet for Cheney. The fact is Mr. Editor, that once again you've sanctioned our "above the law" administration. You've once again expressed your distain for laws that are not of your liking. The repulsion that you've expressed for the American Judicial system and and our nation of laws is shameful.

In today's news, no less than 10 major newspapers from all over the USA including the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and The New York Times all came out with editorial against a pardon.  In fact the only folks that demanded a pardon are the hard-line right wingers like William Kristol, the Wall Street Journal, Rush, Sean, Bill-O and the like.  This is the essence of the anti-pardon sentiment: 

The San Francisco Chronicle writes: "Clearing Libby [would suggest] a final payoff in a political bargain: He takes the fall without naming others and in the end receives a pardon that keeps him out of prison.

Generally the pro-pardoners say (The Albany Times-Union writes): 

"How could Mr. Libby really have obstructed justice, as Judge Walton said he almost certainly did, when no one was ever even indicted for the crime of outing Ms. Plame?

In response:

"The reality, though, is that the crimes for which Mr. Libby was convicted -- false statements, perjury and, yes, obstruction of justice -- impeded special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak that exposed Ms. Plame. . . .

Let's see... lying to investigators.. hmm... Clinton?  Impeached.  Libby? Jailed.  Seems fair.

Lowering the Bar...Continued

Today offered yet three more indications of the Bush Administration "lowering the bar."

First: In the Scooter Libby sentencing hearing, the defense attorney's argument that since there was no underlying crime ever found, the sentence should be lenient. Judge Walton disagreed expressing the opinion that a lenient sentence would rewarding a successful obstruction of justice. Libby's purpose in misleading the investigation was to stonewall and protect the truly guilty. In this he has succeeded.

To the Bush Administration this is simply the way things are supposed to work. They view governing as political war and are willing to accept some "casualties." They also expect their loyal soldiers to fall on their swords when it's necessary. Libby has proved himself a good and loyal soldier in the Bush/Cheney army.

Second: Alberto is still on the job.

Third: The President and Vice-President have now set the standard for the utterance of spontaneous obscenities on TV. Evidently since it's OK for them to do it, it's OK for everyone! That's what a federal appeals panel concluded on Monday. Hold your ears everyone....

Locally...

Representative Goodlatte has again shown that he can only offer kind words but no real support of those who would be concerned about the health of the Chesapeake Bay. After many times praising efforts to reduce the pollution going into the bay and supporting this effort with speeches and town meetings, he has now sadly concluded that such efforts are simply "too expensive."

Remember that Goodlatte is completely in the pocket of the very industries that responsible for the pollution and is beholden to the agricultural conglomerates that are fighting the CHESSEA proposals. The difference between what he does and what he says.... Pay attention people!

Is this Hypocrisy?

Today I'm reading a column by Glen Greenwald about Fred Thompson and the media pundits fascination with "tough guys." Here's Glen:

"...candidates who studiously avoided military service and have done nothing but dressed up in "tough-guy" costumes and smoked cigars in front of a camera can be -- and are -- hailed as "tough guys" by our media elite (while candidates with actual combat experience are derided as cowards and effeminate losers). Within that framework, it is easy to see how individuals like Fred Thompson (or Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh) are held up as the candidate of Christian piety, the defender of "traditional marriage," and the hero of the "values voters."'

Fred Thompson is another actor pretending to be a presidential candidate. He follows in the very formidable footsteps of another actor who was pretty good at playing the part of president. In his own words Mr. Thompson just

"acted like the person I wanted to be until that's what I am."

The question though is going to be "Is the act the same as the real man?" Thompson is being touted as a southern social conservative. The Bible belt is giving a long look at his candidacy as being something they could tolerate. His politics have been flawless and he is a powerful manipulator of the media. His presence and southern eloquence are overpowering, but is it real or is it an act?

His Actions: Marriage to a woman 25 years younger and 4 years younger than his daughter after divorcing his first wife of 25 years and reveling in an active courting cycle with "many women." Adultery, divorce, fornication? No Problem.

His Policy: He's for traditional marriage which he defines only as "marriage between a man and a woman." The Christian Right is happy for his policy and will happily shut their eyes to his personal life.

His Actions: Avoidance of military service in the 60's even though as a Young Republican he supported the military campaign in Vietnam. He didn't serve.

His Policy: He do "pretty much what the president has done" if he was in charge of the Iraq war.

His Actions: He sat behind his desk recreating his "Law and Order" tough guy character and told Michael Moore to go to a Mental Institution. Michael's crime? He wanted to debate Health Care in America. "Acting tough" is all that counts. His idea of debate? Blowing smoke!

His Policy: He voted against Smoking Bans, voted against health care deductions for self employed, voted against including prescription drugs under Medicare; voted against importing generic drugs from Canada.

Fred Thompson fills the need of the Republican obsession with "toughness." The trouble is he can act tough but does his life and politics really reflect that? What is he really? It's hard for an actor to "be real" but if we look at what he actually does and how he lives his life we'll see how "socially and culturally conservative" he really is. My prediction? He blow a lot of smoke and win lots of supporters, especially L&O fans. He'll be good at acting like a president.