THE LITMUS TEST

Well Harriet Miers did the right thing and saved the country from watching as the Senate Judiciary Committee tore into her imcompetence for the job. Now we have Samuel Alito ("Scalito") to contend with. Like John Roberts his competence seems a given, however unlike Roberts his track record is both more apparent and not as pleasing. The most questionable ruling comes as a dissent from an opinion that found that a strip-search of a ten year old girl and her mother when they were not named in a warrant but happened to be present when it was administered to a man reputed to be a drug dealer. Screws my previously stated test -because it does the opposite of expanding the individual liberties in the Bill of Rights. The fourth Amendment clearly protects people's persons from unreasonable searches and meandates that warrants must have probable cause-but how can a warrant grant probable cause to search someone who is not named (i.e. the target)in it? There was no exigency involved as the girl and her mother were detained by the officers at the scene -so how else can PC attach? Scary. And this is the guy put forth to replace O'Conner's swing vote? Yikes.

The hearings will likely center aroud questions pertaining to writings where Alito claimed to be proud to have a part in helping to weaken Roe v. Wade. There are the usual complaints from the right about the "litmus test"-abortion. I think there are a few ostensibly legit reasons why it has become a litmus test.

First is that it raises a civil rights issue for women (albeit not squarely): at what point does she lose control over the clump of cells/ organism/fetus/child that resides in her body? It would seem that the opponents of abortion are claiming that from the moment the sperm meets egg those cells are no longer her own but deserving of intervention/protection from literal outsiders. This means that women somehow have less liberty than men, in that there are some restrictions placed on women (when they attain a certain status) that men will never endure. Granted, the unique nature of the physiological gender differences creates this disparity -but that does not erase that it IS a disparity.

Second is that one's position on Roe v. Wade in particular is somewhat indicative of one's position of the central government vs. federalism issue. The problem is that if you think abortion is a constitutional issue (and w/r you think there is a constitutional right or not is irrelevent to w/r it is a constitutional ISSUE), putting the issue to the states is elevating them above the constitution as to certain constitutional rights. Understand -this trancends the side of the fence one finds oneself on re abortion: E.g. if you believe the core issue is the unborn child's right to life, life is a constitutional decision. If conversely you believe that the issue is the woman's right to control what is done to her body, that falls squarely within the 4th amendment's guarantee of a right to privacy (and let's drop the bullsh*t catch-phrase rhetoric -anyone who can read the text of the 4th amendment and come to the conclusion that it does not prevent against government interference of one's privacy is beyond reason. It's all there: "PERSONS, houses, papers and effects") so that in either case, allowing the states to individually decide demotes the constitution from paramount law to being subservient to the states re certain fundamental rights.

Finally, one's position on the abortion issue can function as a strong indicator of one's position regarding the separation of church and state. The issue of whether a life begins at conception is fundamentally a religious issue -the science is incomplete and the secular philosophy doesn't concurr with that view. (How many people who believe life begins at conception believe so out of a completely secular/scientific basis?) Therefore, if one believes that a life has begun at conception and that that life deserves the same constitutional protection as all life at later and post gestational stages, it necessarily follows that (s)he believes that in the U.S. religion can, and should, be used to mandate public policy via the statutory scheme for ALL - whether they share the religious beliefs or not.

We spend entirely too much time in this country on the abortion issue itself given its scope. However the issues it in turn raises are larger than that specific scope and that is why it has become a "litmus test". Perhaps if we stopped trying to argue those issues by cloaking them in the abortion debate and spent more time arguing about them directly we could come closer to settling them, but I'm not holding my breath.

A SONNET FOR HARRIET

OK so boredom and yesterday's post have inspired me to write a sonnet about l'affaire Miers:

John Roberts is a brilliant legal mind;
Although his politics don't fit my mold,
I wouldn't be surprised someday to find
He'd not done slavishly as he was told.
But Harriet Miers is another story
A crony from the inner circle formed
And who, despite Bush promises of glory
Has failed to leave the wingnut coldness warmed.
"Bush broke his promise!" they proclaim, betrayed,
"To nominate another Clarence T!"
"He told us we'd be rid of Roe v. Wade,
but with this woman where's our guarantee?"
She calls Bush the most brilliant man she's met!!!
A sentiment my marrow can't forget!!!

HARRIET WHO?

So Bush has put forth Harriet Meiers as his nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the SCOTUS. The consensus seems to be from both the left and the right that she's possibly the most "stealth" nominee anyone could have imagined, because she has no
"paper-trail", and that her resume hardly qualifies her for the position (her most formidable positions having been her election to head of the Texas State Bar and her time as head of the Texas Lottery.

I have one question:

Is she one of the top 9 legal minds in the country?

Ok that's unfair -I'll rephrase:

Is she one of the top 100?

Top 500?

If not, why are we even talking about her?

This is as I've said a LIFETIME POSITION on the most important court in the land and arguably the most important court in the world. What's she going to bring to it? Anyone? Anyone?

This is after all the woman who claimed that George W. Bush is the most brilliant man she's ever met. That alone should...oh let's be polite and just say "raise a few eyebrows".

My advice: ALL the senators on the Judiciary Committee should reject her, and tell Bush to stop kidding around and send them a serious nominee.

SAME AS IT EVER WAS

From GWB's speech today:

There's always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder.

Perhaps that's why he's had more vacation than any other president in our nation's history?

Ineffective leadership has produced this desire for centuries:

Henry VI part III Act II Scene V

K. Henry:

Here on this molehill will I sit me down. 15
To whom God will, there be the victory!
For Margaret my queen, and Clifford too,
Have chid me from the battle; swearing both
They prosper best of all when I am thence.
Would I were dead! if God's good will were so; 20
For what is in this world but grief and woe?
O God! methinks it were a happy life,
To be no better than a homely swain;
To sit upon a hill, as I do now,
To carve out dials quaintly, point by point, 25
Thereby to see the minutes how they run,
How many make the hour full complete;
How many hours bring about the day;
How many days will finish up the year;
How many years a mortal man may live. 30
When this is known, then to divide the times:
So many hours must I tend my flock;
So many hours must I take my rest;
So many hours must I contemplate;
So many hours must I sport myself; 35
So many days my ewes have been with young;
So many weeks ere the poor fools will ean:
So many years ere I shall shear the fleece:
So minutes, hours, days, months, and years,
Pass'd over to the end they were created, 40
Would bring white hairs unto a quiet grave.
Ah, what a life were this! how sweet! how lovely!
Gives not the hawthorn-bush a sweeter shade
To shepherds looking on their silly sheep,
Than doth a rich embroider'd canopy 45
To kings that fear their subjects' treachery?
O, yes, it doth; a thousand-fold it doth.
And to conclude, the shepherd's homely curds,
His cold thin drink out of his leather bottle.
His wonted sleep under a fresh tree's shade, 50
All which secure and sweetly he enjoys,
Is far beyond a prince's delicates,
His viands sparkling in a golden cup,
His body couched in a curious bed,
When care, mistrust, and treason waits on him

THE END OF THE "BUSH ERA"? YEAH, SO?

E.J. Dionne writes in the WaPo:

The Bush Era is over. The sooner politicians in both parties realize that, the better for them -- and the country.

Recent months, and especially the past two weeks, have brought home to a steadily growing majority of Americans the truth that President Bush's government doesn't work. His policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached and self-indulgent, his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this.

True but irrelevant. The first mistake Dionne makes is in nomenclature: "The Bush Era" is technically correct but wrong in that the forces behind Bush have been at it for decades before his "presidency". The Neocons have been traced as far back as the 1960's with roots even in the Teddy Roosevelt era.

Their principal belief system advocates American hegemony as a way of enabling the business interests in which they're invested. While Bush is inextricably tied into many of those interests he is no more in control of the agenda than headlights control a car. Dionne even touches on this while not recognizing it when he points out the "boutique idea cooked up in conservative think tanks and Wall Street imaginations".

Dionne is right in pointing out that "Those who call for yet more tax cuts risk sounding like robots droning automated talking points programmed inside them long ago." but that's the point -the talking points were programmed inside them long ago, and that "risk" is ignored by all but the political mouthpieces of the agenda, and they only appear to care as a means of staying elected. The agenda itself is larger than any one of its components. In a way that's the "genius" of it, it's literally like a cancer -killing off several cells won't stop its progress. All of the rhetoric of the "true believers" in the social issues is just smoke and mirrors to cover the sociopathic business agenda and keep the money flowing. Perhaps that's the ultimate irony -that while they yack about "Christian" idiology they ignore one of its premier tenets: "[one] cannot serve both God and [money]". (Matthew 6:24)

Joe Conason has written a book that he's currently on the chat circuit about called "The Raw Deal" (which I haven't read and am relying on his comments on the radio) which details the plot to destroy Social Security, where he says that just because they've lost this round doesn't mean that they won't bring it up again. Quite the contrary -the fact that they control 2 (soon to be 3) branches of government continues to rally them to their cause, and it is a mistake to assume as Dionne does that the war is won on the result of a few battles.

Agreed, the people are beginning to see the utter selfishness of the neocon agenda as the aftermath of Katrina unfolds, and I hope that this is the beginning of their rejection of it wholesale -but even if that is the case the end of the "Bush Era" will only drive it underground. It will never be completely anihilated, but it could be tamed and marginalized if the "real" Republicans were to force it out of their party and into a party of its own. That's their fight though, and like the friends/family of addicts (and I think the GOP are addicted to the Neocon fundraising apparatus) the only thing we can do is encourage their forsaking it, be there when they bottom-out, and support their recovery.

(yikes, too many similes metaphors and analogies for one piece, but whatever!)

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

So Michael Brown has resigned his position as head of FEMA amid allegations that he'd padded his resume and was in fact wildly unqualified for any such position.

Enough? Face it folks -FEMA mismanagement cost lives here, plain and simple.

Ask yourself this: If you bought poor quality, inferior brakes and had them installed them in your car -knowing full well that they were poor quality inferior brakes- and then your car killed someone because the brakes failed and it couldn't stop -could you be prosecuted for negligent homicide?

How about this: if you put a loaded pistol in the hands of a 3-year-old and she then fired it, accidentally killing someone -could you be prosecuted for negligent homicide?

Bush appointed Michael Brown head of FEMA -the government body in charge of managing national emergencies- knowing full well that he was not qualified,and based solely on cronyism, and Brown took the position knowing the same, and his mismanagement resulted in deaths in the aftermath of Katrina.

Think they'll be prosecuted? Nope: IOKIYAR.

BUSH POLL NUMBERS AT NEW LOW

45% approval rating -lowest ever for the chimp.

This poll also shows just how fed up those on my side are becoming with the fraidy-crats. (BTW -that phrase is mine and anyone who steals it w/o credit is a punk-ass!)

Also shows how conflicted people are about when and how to withdraw from Iraq. Question: one interviewee said something along the lines of "don't tell them when just do it within 6 mo to a year." WTF?? WHat's the difference between leaving the country in chaos in 6 mo. or in 12?

Finally this poll is yet more fuel for the argument that people never wake up until they're kicked in the wallet. Gas prices are credited fpr the downturn. Think that's why Bush unveiled the latest reason we went to Iraq?

"On the second day of a two-day trip to California, Bush also raised the protection of Iraq's vast oil reserves as a reason for American troops to continue fighting in Iraq.

A former oilman, Bush had avoided linking the war to Iraq's oilfields. But with gas prices soaring, he raised the specter of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi taking over Iraq and its oil reserves.

'If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. "They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

Oh. Gee, it's a good thing it hasn't become a training ground for future terrorist attacks yet...

Guess we're "staying the course". Shouldn't we at least chart one first?

ANY TAKERS?

Former Senator Gary Hart had this to say today in the WaPo.

Great piece. That'd do the trick (the part about apologizing and meeting the parents etc). problem is that (as Hart should know by now having been targeted by the same people himself) anyone Dem or Rep who comes even close to doing that is opening themselves up to being "Smear-boated" or worse. If they're so brazen they'll do it to a grieving mother who's lost her son in a war, who wont they do it to, and what'll they do to a politician?

We do indeed need a Joseph N. Welch "Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?" moment. But for that to happen somebody with some power in the Democratic party needs to come to the realization that his/her own personal fortune is not worth the damage being done by the other side's duplicity. The only person who could take the actions that Hart suggests is one who has decided that they don't care what they lose. Unfortunately, no one has yet shown any willingness to make that level of sacrifice or take that level of risk.

MORE RE MILLER AND COOPER

Here is an exerpt from Judge Tatel's opinion (from Editor and Publisher) which more clearly fleshes-out what I was trying to express in my earlier post :

One last point. In concluding that no privilege applies in this case, I have assigned no importance to the fact that neither Cooper nor Miller, perhaps recognizing the irresponsible (and quite possibly illegal) nature of the leaks at issue, revealed Plame’s employment, though Cooper wrote about it after Novak’s column appeared. Contrary to the reporters’ view, this apparent self-restraint spares Miller and Cooper no obligation to testify. Narrowly drawn limitations on the public’s right to evidence, testimonial privileges apply “only where necessary to achieve [their] purpose,” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976), and in this case the privilege’s purpose is to promote dissemination of useful information. It thus makes no difference how these reporters responded to the information they received, any more than it matters whether an attorney drops a client who seeks criminal advice (communication subject to the crime-fraud exception) or a psychotherapist seeks to dissuade homicidal plans revealed during counseling (information Jaffee suggested would not be privileged, see 518 U.S. at 18 n.19). In all such cases, because the communication is unworthy of protection, recipients’ reactions are irrelevant to whether their testimony may be compelled in an investigation of the source.


Indeed, Cooper’s own Time.com article illustrates this point. True, his story revealed a suspicious confluence of leaks, contributing to the outcry that led to this investigation. Yet the article had that effect precisely because the leaked information -- Plame’s covert status -- lacked significant news value. In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks -- say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson -- the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.

(emphasis and links mine)

ROVE-ING REFLECTIONS

Been thinking about this whole Rove-leak-gate thing.

This is it folks -this is the whole ball of wax. This one slip up by the "turd blossom" symbolizes the entire Bush Administration MO for everything from election 2000 to this: It's the Vince Lombardi theory of American Government: "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."

They don't care about anything but "winning" at all costs and give no regard to anything that might arise from their actions .

Look at the 2000 election. They only cared about winning. Forget that a presidential election should be decided by popular vote -let the SCOTUS decide the election . Forget that people would be disenfranchised -stop the recount. Forget that the party had traditionally embraced state's rights -it's a federal court issue. Who cares how it devides the country?

Look at the Tax cuts -they only cared about the political points they'd gain by giving three tax cuts in three years, and paid no attention to anything else, particularly the fact that we were in a war and (at the time) were headed for another one. Who cares how it screws the economy?

Take the war in Iraq -all they cared about was going to war in Iraq i.e. getting troops over there and deposing the Hussein regime. "Mission Accomplished", right? No planning for the aftermath, no thought given to what to do afterward. Who cares how you get there -just get there. Doesn't matter if you make up a reason -just have one.

NO TEARS FOR JUDY

I'm getting a little tired of all the whining from both the left-leaning and right-leaning press about the fate of poor poor Judith Miller.

Save your tears folks, she's deserving of no special treatment for her crime simply because of her job description.

And save your slippery slope arguments for more deserving cases -this one has a clear distinction that will keep it from being used broadly to destroy journalistic privilege:

This is not a case where the journalist was protecting the identity of someone who was revealing wrongdoing, but one where the journalist was protecting the identity of someone perpetrating it.

Change the crime and it makes more sense: it's the difference between for example, a journalist's protecting the identity of someone who'd witnessed a murder vs. her protecting the identity of the murderer.

Criminals, govermental or otherwise, should not be allowed to hide their crimes behind the shield of journalistic privilege. A free press should not mean free to abet crimes by concealing them from justice.

BTW the SCOTUS agrees with me 6-3 (or, rather, I agree with them), as does this guy

Aren't you getting tired of the lengths to which the press will go to protect their cushy jobs?

RING A BELL?

This cracked me up. Watch out Repubs!!

Hundreds of Turkish sheep follow leader off cliff:

"ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Hundreds of sheep followed their leader off a
cliff in eastern Turkey, plunging to their deaths this week while shepherds
looked on in dismay.

Four hundred sheep fell 15 meters (yards) to their
deaths in a ravine in Van province near Iran but broke the fall of another 1,100
animals who survived,
newspaper reports said on Friday.
Shepherds from
Ikizler village neglected the flock while eating breakfast, leaving the sheep to
roam free, the Radikal daily said.

The loss to local farmers was estimated at 100,000 new lira
($74,000).
($1=1.3440 new lira) "

So far the loss from our sheep is far greater: 87 billion and growing, 1700+ lives. Untold damage to the economy, civil rights, and the environment.

*sigh*

A NEW JUSTICE

Debate has begun in earnest about who will replace the woman who was arguably the most powerful person in the world. Think that's exaggerating? Think about it -she was the "swing-vote" on the highest court of the most powerful nation in the world. Her one vote could decide whether a case was won or lost or whether a piece of legislation or a lower court holding would stand as constitutional or fail as not. Scared yet?

Personally, I have two requirements for a Supreme Court Justice:

1. That they rule in accordance with stare decisis (settled law)
2. Unless they are breaking from precedent to protect the individual rights granted in the Bill of Rights, or to overturn existing law in order to grant greater individual rights under the Bill of Rights.

Pretty simple, eh?

Using that test none of the ten controversial judges who were catalysts for talk about the "Nuclear Option" would stand a chance as they all had records of ruling contrary to binding precedent and not to prop-up or expand individual rights, but to favor corporate or governmental rights. See my post "THE FILIBUSTERED TEN" for details.

Does Alberto Gonzalez withstand the test? Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with his record as a Texas Judge to know. I am however predictably suspicious that he fails, because his recent exploits as a Bush toadie, weaseling past and disparaging the Geneva Convention rules, do not give one reason for optimism. I'm sure that we'll find out in the days ahead.

Start the pop-corn popping -this should be fun.

POLITICIZING THE BRITISH BOMBINGS

Sympathies and condolences to the families of the dead and wounded from the bombings in London.

The messages from the right are typically appalling: a panel of dopes on Fox "News" gleefully recounted how the bombings bitchslapped the leaders at the G8 summit into dropping the AIDS, poverty in Africa, and Global Warming issues and bringing terrorism back to the fore. Others are using it to whip up more frenzied fear in the American electorate as a means of distracting from both the titanic failures and outright criminal and ethical violations of the Bush Administration and their supporters in the GOP.

Yes sh*theads -we know terrorism is still a threat. Duh.

If the British want to follow our playbook they should deploy to Northern Pakistan but leave before they get Bin Laden and withdraw to attack and (re)occupy India.

If anything this attack should prove just how little anything we've done has curbed that threat. By the way what have "we" done to "curb the threat"?

1. Hunted down those who orchestrated the attack on us on 9/11 and then abandoned the hunt before they were captured.
2. Waged an illegal war of agression with an enemy who had nothing to do with the attack on us and began an occupation of that nation for the forseeable future.
3. Employed a vast army of "civilian" contractors who are subject to no laws on the planet to "support" that war effort.
4. Created yet another bloated government bureaucracy -the DHS.
5. Authored a statutory scheme that supresses the rights guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights.
6. Detained hundreds of people with no charges against them, and no access to courts of justice to determine their fate.
7. Begun a policy of torture for those we've detained.
8. There's more but do you really need it?

Has any of it made it one iota less likely that we'll have another terrorist attack?

Here's a scary anecdote: my neighborhood was lit up like the Tet Offensive with illegal fireworks this 4th of July. Illegal fireworks. That means that they had to come over the border from Mexico because those fireworks aren't made here. The LAFD complained that the amount of illegal fireworks this year was greater than at any year in the past.

What that means is that large numbers of illegal explosives are coming into the country over the border undetected, by customs, border patrol or stupid f*cking "Minute Men". The fact that they're for recreational or pyrotechnic use is irrelevant -they're expolsives, they're illegal and they're coming across undetected.

Feel safer?

SO ROVE'S THE RAT?

Apparently Bush puppetmaster Karl Rove has been fingered as the source of the leak in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

If this is true Rove could be indicted and tried under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Without going into too much depth (you can follow the link and read it for yourself) the act makes it a crime punishable by anywhere from 3 to 10 years in prison or up to $50,000 dollars or both to disclose the identity of a covert intelligence operative when:

1. the person has or had authorized access to classified information
2. the person, through or because of that access learned the identity of said operative, AND (and this is a big and)
3. the person intentionally disclosed the identity to someone else not authorized to know that the identified was a covert operative.

It's a pretty narrow test and difficult to prove the intent prong (as this article in Slate details in regard to Robert Novak -the original publisher of Plame's name. )

It's tempting to envision Rove doing the "perp-walk" in orange jumpsuit for the cameras but it's unlikely even if he's indicted.

Hope he gets the Susan McDougal treatment. I was watching "The Hunting of the President" last week, and the most poignant moment of the film was when Susan McDougal (who was dragged through the mud and worse in the right-wing hit campaign dubbed "Whitewater") recounted her treatment in prison after she was sent there because she refused to lie about the Clintons.

She was dressed in red prison scrubs and housed in the wing reserved for women who have killed their children. She said that every time she went past other parts of the prison the other prisoners threatened derided and threw things at her because they thought that she was a child killer because of the color of her scrubs. She was given death threats and needed additional security while she was there. Moreover, every time she appeared in court she was forbidden from wearing civilian clothes and was led in manacles back and forth from court.

If Rove is convicted (and I say "if" because I'm a liberal and so I still believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, even for those I detest like Rove) I have a twisted fantasy of him being housed in the pedophile wing and dressed accordingly. (*sigh*)

Not that I'm vindictive or anything. ;-)

Actually my favorite part of the DVD was the "special feature" of Clinton's videotaped speech after the Sundance premiere of the film. Damn I miss him! He's just so exponentially more intelligent than anyone in the Bush cabal.

Anyway, he made what I think is a crucial point: we (democrats) cannot fight back by becoming them( the GOP) -i.e. by using their tactics. We have to 1. not back down (listen up Harry Reid) 2. continue to point out why their wrong using the truth and facts, and 3. (and this IMHO is the BIG POINT) say how we'd do it differently.

It was nice to have some validation for what your own OP has been saying for sometime now. And from none other than the man himself.

UPDATE: THE AUTOPSY IS IN

The results of the Terri Schiavo autopsy are in, and to what should be no one's surprise:

1. Her brain had atrophied to half the weight of a normal human brain (so she was in fact in a Persistent Vegitative State)
2. She was blind because the vision centers in her brain were dead (in other words -the video that apparently showed her visually tracking an object was misleading).
3. She was incapable of ingesting food by mouth as her parents insisted.
4. She died of dehydration not starvation.
5. There was no evidence of her ever having been abused.

So just as her husband and over 40 judges having relied on numerous medical examinations had said, she was no longer conscious. Therefore the majority of the drama was the result of the shameful manipulation of the natural emotions of her grieving parents by vultures who had no other motive but political or financial gain.

Meanwhile her husband was subjected to unbelievable and unconscionable slander.

Will there be any apologies from Congress or the other slimebags who shot their mouths off?

Don't hold your breath.

THE BEST JUSTICE MONEY CAN BUY

Well -yet another major celebrity has slipped through the long arms of the law. Micheal Jackson was found "weird but not sick" by a jury of his non-peers.

This prosecutor apparently had his legs cut out from under him when the 1993 case against Jackson was settled. That, from all accounts was the case that "had legs". He reportedly obsessed about that case afterward, and went on a worldwide search for other cases against Jackson -even traveling to Australia (a *local* prosecutor!) to chase down rumors of other victims.

From listening to the jurors, they simply didn't have enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. They also made it clear what a huge gaff it was to put the mother on the stand.

What surprised me was that they didn't even convict him of *attempted* lewd acts with a minor. Attempt requires planning plus a substantial step toward completion of the act, and a defendant does not have to be guilty of the completed act to be guilty of attempt.

I guess they didn't find the porno mags enough for "planning" (or didn't believe the testimony about the mags) and since they didn't find him guilty of giving the kids wine -that couldn't count for planning either.

On the other hand the not guilty for the conspiracy charges was no surprise: conspiracy requires 2 or more parties and from what (little) I heard there was no one who could be considered co-conspirator.

Have to say though -it sure seems like you can buy your freedom down here. OJ, Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, Jackson -sing it with me:

"One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn't the same..."

(hey what do you want -I have two kids under 3)

UPDATE: THE OTHER MEMOS

(NOTE: I've been trying to make this blog a series of "columns" -that takes way too much time and results in my only posting every several weeks or so -in the meantime I miss out on events because I don't have time to write a "column" for each one.

Therefore I've decided to try to write more "blog style" so that I can post more and keep current.

-OP )

***

More memos have been published in the Times UK which 1) predate the Downing Street Memo and 2) further substantiate the idea that the Bush cabal were looking for an excuse to go to a predetermined war and not as Bush has claimed as a last result.

Of course the mainstream press have regretted the error of their ways and have pursued this with the vigor better suiting an independent press...Oh they haven't? Crap.

Actually - some news orgs are starting both notice and discuss the appalling lack of attention paid to this bombshell -is the worm turning? Don't bet on it. The AP itself didn't report this, it just admitted it when questioned.

Representative John Conyers has created a website with a letter that can be signed by folks that will be presented to Bush on Thursday 6/16/05.

SMOKING GUN? / THE OTHER (BETTER) GEORGE

So here it finally is -confirmation that what those of us on the left have been complaining about, and what was supported by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former NSC guy Richard Clarke (who were dismissed as kooks by the Bushies) is absolutely true.

The "Downing Street Memo" should be the smoking gun that brings down the White House -like the Nixon Tapes. It will however be relegated to the dustbin of history as the ultimate proof that Americans have completely lost touch with the activities of their elected officials.

The memo proves that

1. the Bush Administration was planning to go to war with Iraq at least as as early as July of 2002 -Long before Colon Powell's grand opera before the UN.
2. They were "fitting the facts and intel to the war"
3. The US had no plan for after the war.

Now 89 members of Congress have asked Bush to explain the memo -but raise your hand if you honestly think it will change one thing...anyone? Anyone? Ok you over there with the Dave Matthews T-shirt put your hand down.

Apparently the Brits would be on board -but they understood that the legal ways to go to war were either direct threat, ultimatum, or UN sanction, and since there was no perceivable direct threat, and since neither Iraq nor the US had issued an ultimatum, they insisted that we go the UN route. They also insisted that the USA provide a fuller picture of their planning ---

HHEEEEHHHHEEEHHHAAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*ahem* *cough*

Sorry -uncontrollable laugh break

A fuller picture *snicker* of their pla- *snort* Ok (control yourself OP!)

Pla-nnning, *HEHE* before they committed troops.

So just as I and every other liberal have said since the words "Saddam" and "Iraq" were first confoundingly muttered by W and his handlers when we were retaliating at Al Q'aeda in Afghanistan, this war was manufactured out of whole cloth to line the pockets of the PNAC profiteers.

Of course once again the "liberal media" are all over this one and are shaking it by the neck like the watch dogs they ar-- oh, rats.

Well ok, at least Americans are informing themselves using the publicly available materials on this story and using their outrage at the deceit to...to...oh, hell.

Ever wonder when we'll be able to live in America again?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the same vein:

GOD BLESS GEORGE GALLOWAY!!!!

In case you haven't yet heard -George Galloway is a British politician who was called to testify before the Senate subcommittee on Homeland Security by Senator Norm Coleman (R- MN). Coleman apparently was psyched to be in the spotlight and was hoping to make a name for himself as the guy who finally gave it to the Oil For Food scandal people.

Coleman was all set to lambaste Galloway -but Galloway handed him his ass!! Truth can be such an aphrodisiac -I'm not gay but even I have to admit I got a little hot listening to that Scottish brogue nail the truth to Coleman's forehead!!

And predictably the only news source carrying a complete transcript of his testimony was the London Times -US sources have tightly edited versions interspersed with Coleman's afterward whining that Galloway's testimony isn't credible. Read it and judge for yourself. Or better yet -watch or listen! Of course the wingnuts are going to spin the bejesus out of this one and hope it dies a quiet death, which the "liberal media" will ensure it will.

WARMING-OVER THE COLD WAR

Bush's trip to the former Soviet Block as well as his caustic comments toward Russia would at first seem puzzling -after all haven't we become allies with Russia, with Bush playfully referring to the Russian President as "pooty-poot"? Haven't many of the former Soviet satellites become democratic nations? Haven't we both joined forces to combat the "greater threat" of the Big T?

Perhaps, but let's review:

The worst thing to ever happen to the (to borrow an old phrase) Military Industrial Complex was the end of the cold war. They'd staked their financial futures on being able to keep stockpiling weapons to subdue the 'threat' of the 'evil empire', and when the Iron Curtain came down and revealed not a giant grizzly but an old and shaky Russian circus bear - they went into freefall.

They tried to use the (to them) great stroke of luck that 9/11 provided to change the evil 'ism' from commun-ism to terror-ism, but that has failed in majority public opinion because of the administration's bumbling tactics and neck breaking switch of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. It also hasn't provided the same economic opportunities that developing new and bigger weapons did because the warfare style doesn't require them.

With the 20th anniversary of the end of the cold war mere years away, and with the increasing memory-loss of the American electorate in their back pockets -why not try to resurrect hostilities with our old nemesis now? After all the Secretary of State is a former cold war specialist, and the VP a former defense contractor -the time is ripe! We know for a fact they have nuclear weapons -so we wouldn't have to sell the threat so hard this time. We also know they've been in league with Iran, Cuba and other numbers of our enemies. It's ready-made resuscitation for the sagging weapons industry!

Now if we can only somehow tie them to 9/11...

THE FILIBUSTERED TEN

By now the statistic that the Senate has confirmed over 200 of the judicial appointees Bush has nominated, and that 10 of those have been disputed (less than 5%) is everywhere. What are less bandied-about are the reasons the disputed nominees have been opposed.

Let's review their individual records shall we (thanks to People for the American Way) :


Terrence Boyle

• Worst reversal record of all district court judges nominated by Bush (and some of the reversals were for errors that were already appealed reversed and sent back to him where he ruled the same way AGAIN)
• Tried to exempt state agencies from federal anti-discrimination laws.
• Said that state discrimination is explained by its "culture".

Janice Rogers Brown:

• Disregarded precedent -especially in regard to civil and constitutional rights.
• Favors property rights over constitutional liberties provided in the Bill of Rights.
• opined that govt employees could wave their constitutional rights by virtue of their employment.
• opposed by the ABA.
• Compared Social Security and Medicare to "being on the government dole"

Richard Griffin:

• Ruled that prisoners are exempt from federal and state disability laws.
• Was reversed by the state Supreme Court for ruling that striking workers who were replaced by permanent replacements were not entitled to unemployment benefits, which contradicted his state's law.

Thomas Griffith:

• Opposes Title IX, and has ruled in contradiction of it. (who is "legislating from the bench" then? )
• Practiced law in Utah w/o a state license as required by that state.

William Haynes:

• Played a central role in formulating policies that led to abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and elsewhere.
• Policies he created were opposed by military defense attorneys, the ABA, the committee for Human Rights, and even two of Bush's appellate appointees in the 2nd circuit.
  Brett M. Kavanaugh
• Has the second least amount of experience for his nominated position -2nd only to Ken Starr his mentor.
• As part of Starr's team worked tirelessly to destroy executive privilege -yet has worked as tirelessly to protect it for Bush.
• As associate counsel to the president under Alberto Gonzalez coordinated the administration's nominations of the most controversial and divisive judges.
  

David McKeague:

• Ruled against environmental polices required by statute. (reversed)
• Ruled that a hospital could fire an HIV positive employee rather than accommodate his condition as required by the ADA. (reversed)
• Ruled that a police department could monitor messages sent to an officer's private pager -contradicting federal law. (reversed)

William G. Myers III:

• Filed an amicus brief stating that the property rights of cattle ranchers are as fundamental as Bill Of Rights rights, and that therefore the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional. He was reversed by the SCOTUS and not one justice -not even Rehnquist or Scalia- bought his constitutional argument.
• Tried to twist a land management statute to prohibit an Native American tribe's ability to practice their religion.

Priscilla Owen:

• Rulings opposed even by AG Gonzalez
• Repeatedly ignores statute in favor of a conservative agenda, and this has been a complaint of conservatives as well as progressives.

William Pryor:

• Supporters have labeled his penning of majority opinions re civil rights "defending liberties" when they were all cases where the law provided no "wiggle-room" and the court could rule no other way. (at least he follows the law -unlike the others)
• Claims he wants to "end the politicization of the legal system" yet somehow always seems to rule on the predictable conservative side of the issues w/r in the majority, minority, or plurality.

Henry Saad:

• Reversed by his state's supreme court for overturning a jury verdict and requiring a new trial when the verdict and award could have been "harmonized".
• Reversed a trial court's decision that an insurance company was liable to a plaintiff because the insurance company's claim that the defendant hadn't notified them of the suit barred liability was contrary to state law. Was in turn reversed unanimously by the state Supreme Court.

So what's the throughline in all of these nominees, other than that they're all neocon lap-dogs? That they all (Pryor perhaps being the lone exception) show a propensity to rule in contradiction of state and federal law and settled judicial precedent. And what is the Bush administration's response to their being filibustered down -even though over 95% of Bush's nominees have been confirmed? TO RE-NOMINATE THEM!!! That says more about the Bush administration's view of our country's laws than any opposing view could ever manage to do.

Moreover it proves that any Bush supporter who decries "legislation from the bench" or "judicial activism" is a raving partisan hypocrite. But then, after four+ years of them what do you expect?

KICKING THE HABIT

The LA Times had an article today about how the "culture of life" is splitting the GOP. But all I can see is how the Democrats screwed up yet again.

"Democrats never developed a clear message on the Schiavo case, with the party's House leaders dividing in their votes and few party leaders making strong statements. But many Democratic strategists believe the party could benefit among moderate swing voters who believe Republicans overreached in the matter. Some Democrats noted that in several surveys last week, Bush's approval rating slipped to 45% or below -among his worst- while the marks for Congress skidded under 40%.

'The Republican Party traditionally has been the party opposed to the expansion of the federal government,' said Mellman, the pollster for Kerry. 'Now, across a whole range of issues, they have shown a commitment to expanding the reach of the federal government into personal life beyond which anybody has contemplated before.' "

This should have been the iceberg that sunk the Titanic because the right are indeed fractured and licking their wounds from this case after wildly misjudging the opinion of the country on this issue, but already the GOP are starting to spin this colossal misstep in their favor:

"When you take [Democratic] opposition to partial-birth abortion at the beginning of life, and [acceptance of] pulling plugs at the end of life, you begin to get in a danger zone," said one GOP strategist close to the White House. "It could be that this case reinforces a larger impression ...of the Democratic Party."

and predictably, the Democrats are letting the "iron" cool.

Once again the Democrats have dropped the ball in coordinating an effort to get a defining and unifying message out, just as they have with Social Security, and have let the GOP define the issue.

The way they do this is by attacking the GOP for their idiotic actions without saying what they'd do differently. It's going to take regimented training, but here's how they can improve (and this is not my idea, but my adaptation of a concept that James Carville and Stanley Greenberg originated in their Democracy Corps memo "Re Social Security -A time for purpose and renewal" ):

From now on every speech from a democrat should begin with 'This is not about (X), it's about (Y)' and should not end without the phrase 'we believe' being used at least twice. Simplistic I know, but how else can you break bad habits?

Mellman's comment above illustrates just how pervasive insidious, and ingrained the current attack-paradigm is, and how important it is to tear ourselves away from it.

Break down what he says and it comes out as 'they have always said ___, now they're trying to do the opposite to an exponential degree' How does that tell the world what we believe? Why should they trust us?

Here's how it should have been said:

'This is not about w/r Terri Schiavo lives or dies -that's up to God and her family. This is about w/r the government should step in between a family and its personal medical decisions. We believe in families, and we believe that they have a right to make the difficult medical decisions that they face free from political intervention.'

It's hard not to point out how stupidly the GOP act -particularly when, as here, their hypocrisy is so flagrantly on display, but it's easy and lazy to stop after attacking their actions without promoting our alternative point of view, and we must break that habit. We should take support from the fact that the majority of the country agrees with us on this issue, but take care not to let it lull us into inaction.

MORE RE TERRI SCHIAVO

Why is it that the same cons who spew

1. sanctity of marriage

2. state's rights

3. anti 'judicial activism'

crap have completely abandoned those positions and are now advocating

1. Parental rights trumping marital rights.

2. Federal government involvement in issues that have been decided by state appellate courts and rejected by the SCOTUS.

3. Judicial overruling of established statutes and precedent

for ONE SINGLE CASE?

Flippety floppety.

Those advocating continued treatment here are advocating an end run around the statutory scheme of a state AND the judicial decisions of nearly 20 judges over 15 years for political points.

And let's be clear -if 'feeding' must be accomplished by surgical means it falls under the category of medical treatment not merely food. As someone else said - feeding her would be giving her a sandwich and a glass of water, this is medicine.

This woman was a bulimic who vomited so much that her low potassium levels caused heart failure. She was given heroic measures that failed and her brain was severely damaged. She has since deteriorated to the point where she has no cerebral cortex, only spinal fluid in its place. She is incapable of higher brain function, and not even the most promising stem cell treatments can change that. Let her soul be free.

What do you think they'd say if she was an 80-year-old black woman? What if Theresa were Terrence and his family was arguing for discontinued treatment while his partner was fighting to keep him alive, and they'd been married in Massachusetts?

Gee, what do you think would happen to the "Culture of Life" then?

MORE DAMAGE DONE TO MARRIAGE BY CONGRESS

...yesterday, than any court could ever manage.

At the core all marriages as far as the govt. is concerned are
nothing more than a proffer of a bundle of legal rights, given for
agreeing to enter into a committed relationship.

That's the only reason the govt. is EVER involved in marriage (or
anything else for that matter) -to grant and protect legal rights.

Among the rights granted by marital status are medical power of
attorney.

Now the Republican majority Congress has met *on a Sunday* to state
categorically that parental rights trump one heterosexual married
couple's medical power of attorney rights.

Where's the "sanctity of marriage" here? Is this a clever attempt by
the republican Congress to to destroy all marriage so that gays and
lesbians can't have it either?

The fanatics attack Michael
Sciavo for having another relationship 5 years after his wife's
injury -but understand, that's completely irrelevant to the fact that
legally he has medical power of attorney. Even if he were the biggest
A-hole on the planet to her having 7 mistresses while she was still
ablebodied it wouldn't matter -he'd still have medical power of
attorney as long as they were legally married.

Congress' taking that away from him weakens marriage and the rights
it grants more than any expansion of the "definition" of it ever could.

Here's a relatively unbiased blog recounting the story so far...

WTF IS GOING ON IN THAT WHITE HOUSE?

The saga of Jeff Gannon/James Guckert is just plain wierd. He reminds me of the character Joe Pesci played in JFK.

As it turns out, James Guckert is the real name of Jeff Gannon. Reporters use ficticious names all the time -"nom de plume" is commonplace. So that's not too wierd.

It gets wierd when the guy is given regular "daily passes" to the White House press briefings for 2 years. The "hard-pass" or Congressional pass is apparently hard to come by and requires a serious background check. Maureen Dowd, the New York Times Columnist who has been reporting on the White House for over 20 years, had her pass taken back pending a new background check and, well, gee, it's taking a while for her to get it back. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that she's criticized the Bush Administration would it? The Daily pass apparently doesn't have as strenuous a background check, but then how can one person continually get Day-passes for 2 years? After 9/11???

What's more, if the Secret Service/DOJ/FBI/DHS (or whoever is doing the background checks now) had done even the most cursory check perhaps they would have discovered -as the folks at americablog.com did, that this guy was a gay prostitute. I'll type that again: this guy was a gay prostitute. OK *that's* wierd.

The fact that there was no background check is the key here. I mean "9/11 changed everything"- right?

I want to be careful here. The issue is NOT that Gannon/Guckert is gay -that's just a little wierd given the "organization" he came from. The cons would have you believe that the fact that folks on the left are discussing the fact that Gannon/Guckert is gay is somehow discriminating against him, or hypocritical. Horsesh*t -it wouldn't matter at all -except that the folks he was shilling for are so hell-bent on persuing their ANTI-gay agenda. As such it's hypocracy of the highest order on their part.

Additionally, it would be one thing if he were merely gay (still hypocritical but Ok whatever), or even if he were the lover of someone in the White House -sexual nepotism is nothing new, but this guy was a prostitute, - and while that fact slipped by the FBI/DOJ/DHS or whoever it WAS was uncovered by *bloggers* fer chrissakes!!!! How the hell does a guy like that get to ask the president anything?

WTF is going on in that White House?

And that's not even to mention that he was attending White House briefings a mere month after the phony news organization he works for came into existence!!

Of course the "liberal media" are all over this story and are...Oh...wait...where are they?

I repeat: WTF?

That old song by The Crass ("WTF")keeps going through my mind.

Read More:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/9/191334/0754

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gannon.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14148-2005Feb10.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/281982p-241637c.html

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=Jeff%20Gannon

WHAT IF BUSH IS RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ?

Mark Brown, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times has a problem. The problem is that he's seen the TV coverage of elections in Iraq and is now questioning his resolve against the war. In his latest column "What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?" he wrings his hands, and gives an Oscar caliber performance as what the cons call "the whining liberal".

"But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?"

Well it would be Mark, except that to believe Bush is "right" about Iraq, you have to have at least a passing memory of the several versions of the facts he and his minions have presented the American People and then allow that it is true.

Here are just a few:

1. Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD that could be deployed in as little as 45 minutes using unmanned drones to attack US shores.

2. Iraq had recently purchased yellow-cake uranium from Niger that could be used to build a nuclear centrifuge.

3. Iraq was in violation of the UN security council's resolution 1441 which needed to be enforced even if that same body was an inconsequential bunch of liars and cheaters.

4. The people of Iraq were simply begging us to go there and liberate them, and would welcome us with flowers.

5. Ahmed Chalabi (remember him?) had given us credible intelligence and therefore should serve as the interim Priminister.

6. Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the whole operation.

7. Saddam and Al Qaeda were both responsible for 9/11.

8. The armed forces are prepared to fight this conflict -and even if they aren't "you go to war with the army you have".

Don't at least several of the above reasons need to be true for Bush to be "right all along" about Iraq?

Or does it only take one weasely "liberal"'s second guessing himself for neocons to be "right"?