Oh Please

Who cares if the torture worked or not? It doesn't matter. The law, the Geneva Conventions and our own law, doesn't talk about practicality--does it work or doesn't it? Torture is forbidden period. If we're a nation of laws, we must obey them, even at the risk of annihilation. Because basically a civilization is destroyed as much by acts of torture as by acts of terror. And so, here's another question, where is the ABA in this? Why aren't they starting disbarment proceedings for their members, like Gonsalez and Bybee, who not only condoned but excused this behavior.

On teabag protests from Hullabaloo

Nevermind that the entire teabag protest was less than 10% of the number of Americans who protested the Bush/Iraq war in February of '03. Nevermind that Stephanopolous, if not others, covered the international protests in '03 but deliberately ignored the huge domestic rallies. Nevermind that there was no followup from the mainstream media of any kind on these protests except to systematically minimize the number of attendees until they shrank to what Bush described as a few guys from Berkeley. While the lunatic, hapless, teabaggers are significant, the far larger segment of the American people who opposed Bushism when it mattered (and whose opposition was intelligent and prescient) were invisible. And still are, for the most part, when it comes to the mainstream media.

Read It and Weep

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/world/americas/30mexico.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

The Times on Mexico's Drug War (today's piece). If stories like this don't make it clear that the current approach to stopping drug cartel crime cannot work, what will? How can Obama go on joking about the legalization of marijuana when, clearly, that's the only thing that has a prayer of stopping the violence. As long as there's money in it, a lot of money, the cartels will go right on fighting. The War isn't working. The only alternative is legalization. But I hope everyone who's smokes a joint from time to time gets it--you're fueling the violence. Even the Times doesn't quite come out and say that, but it's clearly true.

e.e. cummings I love you (an excerpt)

Humanity i love you
because you would rather black the boots of
success than enquire whose soul dangles from his
watch-chain which would be embarrassing for both
parties and because you
unflinchingly applaud all
songs containing the words country home and
mother when sung at the old howard

and the beat goes on...

Who would have thought there'd still be so much to be outraged about (even after Bush has finally left the White House)? Well, what about Obama's intelligence appointment being stopped because of his "anti-Israeli" position (that means the guy doesn't follow the AIPAC line)? What about the idea of sending troops to the border to control a drug war that is totally equipped by American gun dealers? (Not to mention fueled by huge American demand.) And when Obama has the temerity to say he'll think about it, commenters on the story online make fun of that idea. I guess the US is so used to having non-thinking leaders that they don't know what to make of such a comment. Will we ever recover from this idiot dialogue that's in place in the atmosphere? No sooner does someone in the administration admit to nuance and subtlety than he or she is attacked for... what? Wimpiness, socialist tendencies, preferring other countries' citizens to our own... whatever.

Say this for the Repugs

When they are elected, they try to carry out the wishes of those who elected them. Not so the Dems. Harry Reid is apparently just as spineless now as when Dems were in the minority; can't even seem to get the stimulus bill brought to a vote. And what about all the confirmations? Who cares what the Repugs say about them--a pro-choice stance should be a disqualifier indeed. How about just getting Obama the staff he's chosing without anymore posturing? This is getting to be a total scandal.

Isn't that what they all say?

Charles Fried in the New York Times today on why Bush et al should not be prosecuted, "...our leaders were defending their country and people — albeit with an insufficient sense of moral restraint — against a terrifying threat by ruthless attackers with no sense of moral restraint at all." That's why our leaders differ from Hitler and Stalin and Mao, he says. But hey, didn't they say the same thing, more or less? Weren't they also defending... etc.? That's why we have the rule of law because otherwise it just depends on where you're standing as to what is legal and what isn't. Charles Fried, you should know better.