Skip to content

Open letter to Joe Courtney

Dear Joe:

A few months ago you and most of the other freshmen Democrats took a courageous stand. You were among the most courageous, because it was not so clear then that the Democrat with the narrowest 2006 margin of victory would have such an easy time winning re-election. You voted to preserve the Constitution by opposing telecom immunity. You also, as a by-product of that opposition, voted not to give Bush yet another blank check to violate the constitutional rights of Americans.

You and the other freshmen paid a price for that. The Republicans ran ads against you, trotting out the same old tired scare tactics that worked before. Only this time, it didn’t work. But whether it worked or not, the fact is that you, along with your fellow freshmen, took a risk for the Constitution.

Now, Steny Hoyer, your majority “leader”, who says he opposes telecom immunity, is set to cut a deal with the White House to give Bush everything he wants. As the folks at firedoglake, the experts on this issue, say:

Steny Hoyer has brokered a deal and entered into an agreement with the White House and the GOP that effectively gives the telecoms everything they want, with a nice bit of kabuki for a screen.

The sacrifice you made, and the risk you took, will be for naught if this is the end result. This is reminiscent of McCain’s anti-torture legislation, which ended up authorizing torture. In November, the voters will have suffered through six months of sky high gas prices. Many of them will be facing foreclosure. Many will be facing eviction, stuck with the choice that is no choice between paying for the gas to go to their low paying jobs, or paying the rent. Many more will have lost their jobs, and many times that number will be feeling financially insecure. They will not be worrying about the telecoms. They no longer believe the Bush who cried wolf about national security. There is no political need to capitualate on this issue.

The people who will remember this sell out, if it happens, will be the people who oppose this legislation-your supporters. You and the other freshmen should make it clear to Steny that you don’t want the risk you ran to be rendered meaningless. Stand up for the constitution yet again.

If FISA really needs to be amended, and of course it really doesn’t, then amend it without immunity. If Bush vetoes it, then shame on the Democrats if they can’t turn that against both McCain and Bush. Why, after all, should Bush endanger the nation in order to save the telecoms?

The Democrats have, so far, accomplished only one thing of value with their new majority. They have refused, so far, to sanction the telecom’s criminal behavior. Let’s preserve that accomplishment. The constitution, battered and bruised as it is, will thank you.

Norwich Bulletin takes on the Courant

It’s hard work, but someone has to do it. The Hartford Courant has made great strides in trivializing the news. It has its sight set on even greater depths, aiming toward a fifty-fifty mix of ads and news-lite. Today, the Norwich Bulletin proved it was up to the challenge. It’s had lots of practice, of course, being as it’s a Gannet paper, and all. Still, today’s achievement in front page triviality was stunning in its sheer bravado.

There, right on the front page of today’s “paper”, (on today’s website too), in big, bold letters, was this headline: Griswold man may have world’s largest spittoon collection.

I’ve got to hand it to the Bulletin. The reporter did her homework, having contacted a tobacco museum down South to ascertain that the Griswold man’s collection was larger than that of the museum.

Now we will find out: is the Courant up to the challenge. Can it find something even more trivial, perhaps even more ridiculous sounding, to grace its front page? Stay tuned.

Weekend garden blogging

A few pictures from the garden. This is June, so the roses are in bloom. As usual, clicking on a picture gives you a larger image.

My wife says that foxglove is a weed, but I say a weed is anything that grows where you don’t want it, and this stuff is fine right where it is.

McCain vs. McCain

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg[/youtube]

Polish Pride

Both of my sisters have sons who graduated, one from college, one from high school, this year. They decided to have a little joint celebration. Where better than a place where we could also celebrate half our heritage (one quarter and perhaps some minor fractions in the case of the kids): the Polish National Home. If you’ve never been there, you have a treat in store. We were given hand written menus, from which we could choose our favorite Polish foods. High on the menu: the kielbasa plate, the pierogi plate, the Golumpki plate, and the Polish platter. I hereby admit that my Polish bona fides were seriously undermined when I read the menu, as I couldn’t even recognize the Golumpki, despite the generous number of vowels, as the dish that I had always called Gwumpki.

You could get each of the first three dishes for $8.95, or you could get the Polish Platter for $10.95, which, so far as we could tell when it arrived, consisted of all three of the first dishes piled on a single plate. Only one of the brave souls who unwittingly chose to eat this massive amount of food was able to make an appreciable dent in it.

But I have not come to praise Polish cuisine, as distinguished as it is. I have come to help spread the word about the early Polish pioneers who may, nay must, have saved America at its very birth. For on the way out of the hallowed hall, my son noticed this plaque affixed to a rock near the entrance (click to enlarge):

So, on October 1st of this year, as the Google confirms, we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the settling of North America by the People of Poland, who apparently were accompanied by some people from England. According to some, it was the Poles alone who saved the hapless English at Jamestown, thereby saving the colony, and by extension, all of America. From a Book review of the seminal work, Jamestown True Heroes, by Arthur L. Waldo:

In “Jamestown True Heroes,” Waldo expands on the information he first presented in “First Poles…” The book is over 250 pages and contains a wealth of photos and illustrations. Much of the information that’s presented is based upon the lost Memorialum Commercatoris manuscript, supposedly written by Zbigniew Stefanski, alleged to be one of the Jamestown Poles. According to Waldo, an individual offered to sell the privately published manuscript to the Polish Museum of Chicago, where he was able to view it. We’re told the deal ultimately fell through and the mysterious manuscript was withdrawn, never to be seen again.

It would seem from the previous comments of Karen Majewski to this forum that professional Polish American historians doubt the veracity of the missing manuscript.

The names and backgrounds of the Jamestown Poles, their experiences as glassmakers, homebuilders, and well-diggers are documented in the manuscript along with an account of the Poles saving Smith from an Indian attack! The reader is told that the Jamestown colony had
absolutely no chance of survival if not for these five(?) talented and virtuous Poles. Waldo makes the correlation that, since the Poles saved Jamestown, and without Jamestown, there would have been no Plymouth, the Poles are responsible for the existence of America!

I haven’t witnessed such a degree of unabashed ethnic pride since watching Michael Constantine play Papa Gus in “My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding.”

It seems to me that the snark is uncalled for as is the skepticism of the “professionals”. Why should we doubt the existence of the Memorialum Commercatoris manuscript, in this, the age of the da Vinci code? Hey, if the Mormons are allowed to believe in the entire Book of Mormon, disappearing tablets and all, we Poles have every right to believe in the Memorialum, and consequently our primary role in saving the fledgling Jamestown colony. Waldo’s entire story just reeks of truthiness.

And how were we repaid for our heroic behavior on behalf of our incompetent Anglo-Saxon cousins? It appears that we Poles were subjected to the first documented voter suppression tactics in America, perhaps in history. That’s right, some 17th century Karl Rove tried to deprive us of our vote, but then, as opposed to now, truth and justice prevailed, at least for the Poles:

In 1619 the colonists were preparing to elect members of the new Virginia assembly. The governor announced that only men of English origin would be allowed to vote. The Poles responded to this announcement by laying down their tools. “No vote, no work” they announced.

This caused consternation and the court record of the Virginia Company for July 12, 1619, states: “Upon some dispute of the Polonians in Virginia, it was now agreed…they shall be enfranchised and made as free as any inhabitant there whatsoever.”

So, not only were we the first victims of voter suppression in the New World, we also organized the first strike. Apparently, the Poles were brought along in the first place because they had skills the adventuring English did not, so their work boycott was no empty threat. The above, by the way, is culled from sources other than the unjustly maligned Memorialum Commercatoris, sources that persons other than Mr. Waldo may access.

The Poles were granted equal rights, and they were allowed to vote, in the same year in which the first imported laborers from Africa were setting foot in Virginia. They unfortunately, didn’t have the leverage the Poles had, and they could not lay down their tools.

But that is another, sadder story. I write today to celebrate our Polish forefathers, few in number but huge in influence. Preservers of our first colony. The first Americans to fight for equal rights. All that, and Golumpkis too.

Time of War

Recently the Supreme Court ruled, by the slimmest of margins, that prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to file habeas corpus actions challenging their incarcerations. In today’s Times, Jonathan Mahler, writes that in doing so the Supreme Court has bucked precedent:

“The most important thing we do is not doing,” Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said of the Supreme Court’s abiding humility, its overwhelming preference to allow the people, through their elected representatives, to govern themselves.

And never is the court more reluctant to act than when faced with a challenge to the president during wartime. Consider the historical record.

The court has ruled against a president in a time of armed conflict no more than a handful of times, most famously in Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, when it held that Harry S. Truman lacked the constitutional authority to seize the nation’s steel mills to avert a strike during the Korean War. The invocation of two words — military necessity — by a commander in chief was usually all it took to silence a majority of the justices.

So it is extraordinary that during the Bush administration’s seven years, nearly all of them a time of war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, the court has been prompted to push back four times. Last week’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, in which the court ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay have a right to challenge their detentions in the federal courts, marks only the most recent rebuke.

I would suggest that the five remaining more or less rational justices recognize something that Mahler does not: that we are not in a “time of war”, or that if we are, it has become a permanent state of war, therefore different in kind than previous wars in which there were, for instance, identifiable enemies and objective criteria by which to judge whether the war was over. Bush’s argument boiled down to this: The country is at war, therefore the president has untrammeled power. Whether the court would ever have accepted that is an open question, but there was another, usually unstated corollary. We will, henceforth always be at war, and therefore the president will always have untrammeled power. The question therefore is a stark one: does the Constitution limit the president, and secondarily the Congress, in a time of permanent war? If it doesn’t then the Constitution is a dead letter. Right now its survival depends on the vote of a single justice.

National Press Club to give forum to anti-Obama liar

I’ve been away most of the day. Just got back and saw this article in my newsreader:

A Minnesota man named Larry Sinclair has been going around the country spreading unfounded rumors about Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Among other claims, he alleges that he and Obama used cocaine together and participated in homosexual acts in 1999. Sinclair’s claims are completely without any merit. He even took — and failed — a polygraph test.

Nevertheless, Sinclair will be speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on June 18. Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake has pointed out that an event such as Sinclair’s is in keeping with neither the NPC’s purpose nor its ethics:

This is more evidence of the even handedness of our national media. They will give a forum to anyone who has anything scurrilous to say about any Democratic candidate for public office. Equal opportunity for all. What could be wrong with that?

Firedoglake has a petition up to pressure the Press Club into withdrawing its invitation. Giving someone the opportunity to speak at that forum implies that they are worthy of a respectful hearing. This guy is a demonstrable liar and should be treated as such.

Friday Night Music-The Doors

I don’t think I’ve done them yet, and they’re certainly in the pantheon. And there’s a Connecticut connection. Wasn’t there that little incident in Connecticut? Actual footage below the main attraction.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri-44UZw7EE&feature=related[/youtube]

Jim busted by New Haven’s finest:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htW4MCagbSg[/youtube]

So many reasons to vote Republican

Via Pharyngula, and apparently a lot of other places.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU[/youtube]

We’ve got company tonight, so this is probably all for tonight.

Josh Marshall on Joe’s future

In my continuing quest to lose my bet with MZ, I submit herewith a new video from Josh Marshall about everyone’s favorite cockroach: Joe Lieberman:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0HOKDIj5a8[/youtube]

This is a pretty good explanation of the way things stand right now, and the (hopefully) probable course in the future. Of course, true satisfaction, sublime schadenfreude, can only come if Obama wins the election. We could get seventy seats in the Senate and we won’t see Lieberman humiliated if McCain is elected, since Joe will be moving on to the cabinet.

Personally, I am becoming more and more convinced that even if we sweep the table, we won’t have Joe Lieberman to kick around anymore after the election. I think if Obama is elected, and we gain seats in the Senate, that Joe will take his final revenge and resign, allowing the lady with the empty head to appoint his successor. At that point all those legislators in Hartford who did nothing when they had the chance will jump up and down protesting that she has no right to steal the seat. Joe will get a highly paid position lobbying for AIPAC. There truly is no justice in this world, but we can always hope. Maybe he’ll be such damaged goods that no one would want him as a lobbyist.