Skip to content

Questions we’d like to hear asked

Thursday, January 17, 2008

A friend from college, presently living in Canada, wrote me about the presidential elections, and included a list of questions that he would like to see posed to the presidential candidates. I assume he won’t mind if I borrow from that email and pass them on. There’s nothing particularly special about these specific questions. His point, and it’s a great one, is that none of the candidates are being asked any of the questions that really matter. Some of the candidates might even like being asked these type of questions, rather than enduring the sort of idiotic gotcha questioning that Tim Russert considers journalism. Here’s the questions:

What sort of person will you select as your running mate? What sort of power will you invest in that person? What accountability will you insist that person have?

Will you reverse the trend towards excessive secrecy that the Bush administration has become known for, and release things such as Presidential daily schedules?

Do you support the Bush-Cheney concept of a unitary executive? If so, why? If not, how will you interact with Congress? Will you issue signing statements?

Will you eliminate “free speech zones” and allow protestors near your activities?

The candidates are falling all over themselves to verify they have faith of one sort or another, but they get very vague on what that means day to day. Fred Thompson is a member of the Church of Christ, which is one of the most extreme in its doctrines that women have no place in church and, by extension, dominion over men. Mike Huckabee’s religion says pretty much the same thing, as noted by his support of a “loving submission” manifesto years ago.

To Mike and Fred: Do you believe Anne Frank is in Hell? If so, what sort of treatment would a Jewish lesbian expect to receive under your administration?

Do you support contraception for married women?

Will you promote condoms as viable means of protection against STD’s and unwanted pregnancies?

There was a legal case in 1981 of an 11-year-old girl impregnated by her mother’s boyfriend. After a court battle, the judge delayed his ruling that she could have an abortion until it was too late for her to do so legally, so she gave birth at age 12. A year later, she was arrested as an unfit mother, victimizing her for a second time (source: Ellen Goodman column in the Boston Globe at the time). If you had been in charge of this case would you force a preteen to bear her attacker’s child? If so, what would you do to ensure she had a chance at a decent life? Be specific.

Will you instruct your staff to not censor scientific reports even if you don’t like what they say?

Wouldn’t it be nice if questions like these were routinely asked? Thinking people know that global warming is the single most important issue of our day. Yet the question is never raised. Of 2,275 questions asked the candidates on the Sunday morning talk fests, exactly 3 mentioned global warming . We can see what’s happened to Edwards, who has actually tried to talk about issues outside the bounds imposed by the media. We here on the internets are fighting back, but we may be too little too late.

By the way, I do think it’s fair to put the blame primarily on the media on this score. Many of the questions above force candidates to talk about the consequences of their policies, which the right will never voluntarily do. It’s easy to talk about the consequence of providing health care, not so easy to talk about the consequences of legislating hate. It’s up to the media to force candidates to talk about their positions and it’s up to the media to concentrate on the issues that matter.

Filed in Media, Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

Barack buys into Reagan worship (No he didn’t)

Thursday, January 17, 2008

THE FOLLOWING POST WAS WRITTEN BASED ON A REPORT WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN SHOWN TO BE UNTRUE. I’m leaving it up as proof of my fallibility. Obama apparently did not make the statement that was attributed to him. The title to the post has been changed to reflect reality.

Every time I find myself feeling somewhat better about Obama, he says or does something that make me draw back. Here’s the latest: his take on the conservative saint, Ronald Reagan:

[H]e just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Once again, Barack parrots right wing talking points. Barack was 19 years old when Reagan was elected. Old enough to know better, certainly old enough to have learned the truth by now. I was approaching 30, and I don’t recall that clarity, optimism, dynamism or entrepreneurship was what I was missing, or what Reagan promised. What he promised, or at least what I was hearing, was a reactionary, racist government, dominated by troglodytes, dedicated to the enrichment of the rich, the rape of the environment, the destruction of our sense of community, the abandonment of any shred of a sound energy policy, and appointment of religious whacko judges, all of which we got. And the list goes on. I don’t know where Obama was living when he was 19, but did the folks in his neighborhood really get a warm and fuzzy feeling from Ronald Reagan?

If by clarity you mean simplistic thinking, then yes, we got clarity. If by optimism you mean dead certainty that the government can do no good, then we got optimism. If by dynamism you mean energetic crushing of the poor, the unions, and the middle class, then we got dynamism. And if by entrepreneurship you mean shifting income from the lower and middle classes to the richest 1% while beginning the process of insulating CEOs from either governmental or shareholder oversight, then we get entrepreneurship. In an nutshell, we got a guy who smiled while he slid in the knife. It suits the Republicans to keep telling us that Reagan was a warm and sunny guy that we all loved, but that’s a deliberate lie, and as Rich Perlstein notes here, it’s a method they use to distract us from the real world results of their own policies and helps set us up for their return to power.

So Barack, if you want to talk about optimism, if you want to talk about dynamism and clarity, talk about Democrats like FDR and JFK, who really delivered, or at least tried to deliver the goods. Don’t validate Republican fantasies.

Filed in Democrats, Presidential Politics | | Comments (2)

Another White House crime. Will the pundits yawn again?

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Remember Travelgate? It was a big scandal in the Clinton years. The Clinton’s were accused of having done something to members of the White House travel office. It was never quite clear what they had done, but it provided endless grist for the media mill and a thorough Congressional investigation.

What a difference a few years and a different party in power makes. Today we learn that the White House abandoned an email preservation system that complied with the Presidential records act in favor of one that systematically destroyed emails in violation of that very act. Coincidentally, I’m sure, the period covered by this criminal behavior is the period during which, inter alia, the war in Iraq was planned and Valerie Plame’s name was leaked. How many emails are we talking about? Millions.

Would anyone care to bet on the reaction in our liberal media to this truly criminal behavior? Will it earn even half, even a quarter of the coverage that the inconsequential, meaningless, trivial Travelgate got? Will the fact that it is now clear that the White House systematically and criminally destroyed evidence of its other criminal behavior cause more than a ripple in the mainstream? Need we ask?

Filed in Media, Republican Corruption | | Comments (0)

Bush’s resume

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

This is flying around the net, I’m sure. I got it in an email this morning, but as it does a fairly good job of reproducing the Bush presidency, I pass it on:

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been “lost” and is not available.

Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland Texas , in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in Ameri ca.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida , and my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President of the United States, after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 -month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues.

I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My “poorest millionaire,” Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record -holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or p rosecu tion. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convict ed criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to my administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government.

I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspe ctor’s access to U.S. “prisoners of war” detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).

I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first Presi dent in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear “Tactical Bunker Buster,” a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my fa ther’s library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. I specified that my sealed documents will not be available for 50 years.

Filed in Bush | | Comments (0)

Conservative jurisprudence

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

I came across a fascinating exchange today between Glenn Greenwald and a right winger named Ed Morrissey.

Glenn, a lawyer, commented on the Morrissey post to which I’ve linked. In that post, Morrissey, obviously not a lawyer, criticizes a lower court in Nevada for ordering NBC to allow Dennis Kucinich to participate in a recent debate. That decision was subsequently overruled, but not before Morrissey had written his post, claiming that the lower court’s decision was an exercise in judicial activism. In the course of that post he stated:

However, the judgement is absurd on its face. In the first place, the state courts wouldn’t have jurisdiction for a national broadcast. Constitutionally, this case belonged in federal court, which has jurisdiction on any interstate commerce complaints. Kucinich filed his tort in state court hoping to find a sympathetic, activist judge who didn’t know much about the law, and apparently succeeded.

The lawyers among my readers will note that every assertion in this paragraph is incorrect. State courts do have jurisdiction over state law questions, even if they affect national broadcasts. You can’t “file a tort”. Kucinich’s case was based on breach of contract, a traditional state law claim. I don’t know how much law that lower court judge knew, but Morrissey has certainly demonstrated that he knows far less.

Glenn used Morrissey’s post as an illustration of the right wing tendency to attack judicial decisions as examples of “judicial activism” without making any serious attempt to engage with the legal issues involved. These opponents of “judicial activism” instead have a totally results oriented view of the law: if I don’t like the decision is must be wrong, both legally and morally, besides being inconvenient from my own political perspective. Greenwald explicitly expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, since he didn’t have enough information about either the facts or the arguments being made, but he did observe, in so many words, that Kucinich’s contract argument was not facially absurd. I should add here that when I heard Kucinich had filed suit, I figured the suit would be based on a contract theory, because it makes sense. They offered Kucinich a spot and he accepted. Offer and acceptance are the two main ingredients of a contract. Other factors come into play, but those are the biggies.

Reading the exchange is informative because it reveals a bit of the chasm that separates the right wing from the reality based world. It seems clear that Morrissey truly can’t understand the simple argument that Greenwald is making: that you can’t criticize a judicial opinion as judicial activism if you don’t know anything about the law generally, or the relevant precedent specifically. What I found particularly illuminating was Morrissey’s crowing addendum after the original decision was reversed:

Looks like the Nevada Supreme Court agrees with me, and not Glenn Greenwald.

According to Morrissey, the Supreme Court’s decision proves him right. Why? The only real answer can be: because he agrees with it. Had it gone the other way it would simply have proven the Nevada Supreme Court to be an activist court. As with so many right wing arguments, whatever happens proves their case. Point two: The court did not disagree with Glenn Greenwald, because Greenwald never took a position on the merits of the case. He simply took a position in favor of intellectual rigor and honesty. Morrissey seems incapable of understanding Greenwald’s position. Rather than attempt to do so he simply alters reality to change the terms of the debate. Morrissey proves Greenwald’s argument by engaging in precisely the sort of intellectual dishonesty with which Greenwald originally took issue.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Willard winning in Michigan

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

As I write this, Willard Romney is ahead in the Michigan primary, a consummation devoutly to be wished. Romney is best described by a word that rhymes with “prick”. Nonetheless he has my endorsement for the Michigan primary. In South Carolina my man is the Huckster. Hell, I’m even hoping Giuliani will win a race or two. Keep the pot boiling. We need an openly bleeding candidate to come out of this process.

Here’s my fantasy. Huckabee gets to the convention with a plurality of delegates, say 40%. The corporate wing of the party puts its foot down and mandates that the party coalesce behind a corporatist. The party, of course, obeys, and the evangelicals stay home.

I hasten to add that this scenario is not probable, but it is possible. Wouldn’t it be loverly?

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Iran war threat not going away.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Lately some folks have wondered if Bush, egomaniac that he is, might not take kindly to being ignored and shunted to the side during a presidential campaign in which his own parties candidates will not breathe his name. Therefore, as contrary to good sense as it may be, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Bush will want to go out with a bang, in the form of a war against Iran. After all, when you talk to God, what do the facts matter.

If you thought that the National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear program, put the kibosh on such a war, think again. If Bush has proven anything in the last seven years, it is that he and the folks who pull his strings don’t let facts get in the way. Already, as Josh Marshall points out, Bush is subtly distancing himself from the NIE, and in a short while they may just start pretending it doesn’t exist. After all, this is the guy that to this day claims Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors into Iraq before the war there. And of course, we have the overly hyped and likely fabricated (also see here) incident in the Strait of Hormuz. (By the way, we probably don’t have a legal leg to stand on so far as that incident goes, not that it matters to Bush or any other politician for that matter.).

I stumbled across this video at Truthdig, which is well worth watching. Scott Ritter explains why Iran is not a threat. Of course, be warned, this is the guy whose sanity was questioned by our media when he told us in 2002 that Iraq didn’t have WMDs. Some people never learn. How does he expect to get a column in the New York Times if he’s constantly proven right?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XctgkYj5aVk[/youtube]

By the way, the article at the link above (the sanity link) makes for some ironic reading right now. There’s Paula Zahn telling Ritter that he has “drunk Saddam’s Kool-Aid” while she spouts Bush talking points. Meanwhile, everything he says we now know was 100% correct. You have to ask, who had been drinking Kool-Aid?

Filed in Empire | | Comments (0)

Brief report from the Charter Revision Commission

Monday, January 14, 2008

I spent the evening at a Charter Revision Commission meeting, tinkering with the fundamental law of Groton. The process starts to get interesting from here on in; the basic work is done, and now we turn to the issue of the referendum. Groton is well, if unimaginatively governed. We have relatively low taxes. We have a reasonably good, if not great, school system. The solution to this non-problem has been obvious to the tax nuts for years: budget referendum. The prime objective is to destroy the schools from which their kids have already graduated, and which they no longer need. Oops. I guess I’ve given my position away.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Silly me

Sunday, January 13, 2008

A few days ago I wrote a post implying that Bank of America was committing yet another subprime folly in buying Countrywide. Turns out nothing could be further from the truth. As John Aravosis points out at Americablog, it’s all just a clever way of getting the American taxpayer to subsidize the losses.

The trick is that the Bank of America will get to avoid taxes by writing down the losses it has inherited from Countrywide. One would think that in any rational system of taxation, it would assume that the losses would be reflected in the purchase price, and that allowing deductions on such losses in effect confers a double benefit on the purchaser. But who ever said we had a rational system of taxation. Don’t try this at home, by the way. Only large corporations need apply.

Filed in Economics | | Comments (1)

Petty vindication (of a sort)

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Recently I was properly taken to task for mangling the phrase “Hoist by his/her/their own petard”, since I used the word “hung” instead.

I replied rather lamely that I did in fact know that the term was “hoist”, and couldn’t explain my lapse. Did anyone believe me?

Well, while recently reviewing my old posts for a completely different reason, I came upon this one (Hoist by our own petard) from eons ago (back in August). It was with great relief that I saw that I used the phrase correctly. On the other hand, this illustrates both my declining mental powers and my inability to come up with original titles. The latter, by the way, is one of the most difficult parts of writing a blog.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)