Posts like this one are difficult for me to write, I belong to no religion for my own good reasons and yet I recognize the force for good that religion can be - or stand in opposition to. Sometimes things can really go south and the crap will hit the fan and when it is religion it really sprays.
Every organization will have some people acting badly. The bad behaviour will probably reflect a focus or theme of that organization. If it were police, probably violence or money, politics would be influence or money - and on and on. The Catholic Church very much revolves around sex and youth and it is no real surprise that sex and youth are featuring in misbehaviour. That these bad actors are going to exist in any organization is sad and damn inevitable. All organizations have to face that and deal with it. Somebody is going to screw up real bad.
The fact of violence does not make all police violent assholes, it diminishes the standing of the majority who work at a rotten job for poor pay for the benefit of the citizenry and particularly reflects on organizations who try to bury it. The Catholic Church did not face the fact that there would be bad actors in its organization and that they needed to be dealt with - they just wanted it to go away. In the process they turned their backs on most of what they guy they venerate stood for and what they pray for. They also managed to become a part of crimes.
Many organizations are both hierarchical and paternalistic, top down driven with a "the bosses know best" philosophy. This can work well or badly depending on a lot of factors, but one thing is very sure to happen - if the management screws the pooch the first instinct is to protect the management. For an organization centered around moral behavior that can be a fatal failing.
Management in the case of Catholicism tossed aside the interests of its main focus in service of management and in the process has become criminal. An organization in this position has two options - break out a chainsaw and cut dead wood or double down. At this point, Catholicism is apparently doubling down. The really nasty aspect of this is that it turns it into an ongoing criminal conspiracy. I do not give a damn, one way or the other, about Catholicism but I do care about the people of good will and intent who practice it being put in this position by Management. I care that a criminally unsafe environment for children is created.
It begins to look to me as though it is time for The State to take this in hand with criminal investigation and prosecution.
Showing posts with label Crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crimes. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Lindsey Graham On Torture - WTF, Over
If you understand this crock of horse manure you have a very convoluted brain. This moron contradicts himself every other sentence.
When you try to defend the indefensible you are going to have a real big problem with using reason. The funniest part of this is Lindsey's claim to having been a prosecutor most of his life - certainly not now - I'm curious how his reasoning applies to those he put behind bars.
Let me be real clear, I rank torturers and their apololgists with child rapists and keeping their goddam partisan tour away from me would be real damn smart. That's right Lindsey, I don't have a polite adjective to hang with your name and I sure don't have a polite reaction to you. Ten years ago you'd be a pariah for this little speech - that you aren't today speaks volumes to the levels of debasement to which GWBushCo took this nation. I've had you pathetic worms, all of you and your debased supporters.
When you try to defend the indefensible you are going to have a real big problem with using reason. The funniest part of this is Lindsey's claim to having been a prosecutor most of his life - certainly not now - I'm curious how his reasoning applies to those he put behind bars.
Let me be real clear, I rank torturers and their apololgists with child rapists and keeping their goddam partisan tour away from me would be real damn smart. That's right Lindsey, I don't have a polite adjective to hang with your name and I sure don't have a polite reaction to you. Ten years ago you'd be a pariah for this little speech - that you aren't today speaks volumes to the levels of debasement to which GWBushCo took this nation. I've had you pathetic worms, all of you and your debased supporters.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Real Terrorists - The Bush Administration
About the time you start to think that you might possibly have plumbed the depths of the BushCo political malfeasance; something like this comes up. McClatchy, the outfit who as Knight-Ridder got the run up to the Iraq war right, reports that in order to justify the invasion of Iraq the BushCo used torture to elicit confessions of Iraqi involvement with al Qaida. The reporting uses two kinds of sources, one on the record attributed and some anonymous sources and I'm no fan of anonymous sources. Considering the nature of the disclosures and the attributed back-up I'm a bit more willing than usual to accept it. We'll start with 2006 testimony from A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney.
Now regarding the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 an anonymous senior intelligence official had some things to say that are scary. A primary concern was follow up attacks after 9/11 but also important was an invasion of Iraq.
If you think firing US Attorneys because they wouldn't engage in political witch-hunts is offensive or you were put off by being accused of treason for opposing the Iraq war because it is politics run amok you might find torture as a political end something beyond that. Well, welcome to the the new nadir of Bushco and don't even bet this is the end of the plumbing. In order to try to get cover to run a preemptive war in violation of US history these cretins tortured helpless humans. Think about that and then mention it to the die hard Republicans you know.
Why doesn't somebody just go ahead and explain to me how it is that these terrorists aren't in orange jumpsuits and manacles? Ask John Ensign, he's a Republican Senator... (see below)
"While we were there (Guantanamo) a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
Now regarding the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 an anonymous senior intelligence official had some things to say that are scary. A primary concern was follow up attacks after 9/11 but also important was an invasion of Iraq.
"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
If you think firing US Attorneys because they wouldn't engage in political witch-hunts is offensive or you were put off by being accused of treason for opposing the Iraq war because it is politics run amok you might find torture as a political end something beyond that. Well, welcome to the the new nadir of Bushco and don't even bet this is the end of the plumbing. In order to try to get cover to run a preemptive war in violation of US history these cretins tortured helpless humans. Think about that and then mention it to the die hard Republicans you know.
Why doesn't somebody just go ahead and explain to me how it is that these terrorists aren't in orange jumpsuits and manacles? Ask John Ensign, he's a Republican Senator... (see below)
Medical Personnel?
John Ensign just asserted on Hardball that we had medical personnel on hand for enhanced interrogation and that excuses the practices from being torture. Now hold on just a whole damn minute here, if it isn't torture then what possible use or need are medical personnel? If there is no danger of personal damage or physical risk then exactly why is it required to have medical personnel present? If I ask you a question or talk to you about various ethical or moral implications of your behavior in order to persuade you that you should tell me what is going on there is absolutely no reason to think a doctor or medic or any such would need to be at hand.
If I start putting your physical or psychological well-being at risk then it starts to be important to have a doctor around. Once you reach that point you are in violation of virtually every legal statute involving the treatment of human beings. If I can not do it to you and a sheriff or policeman cannot do it to you then crossing that line is torture. Making statements to the contrary on the basis of the federal governmental employment of the torturers is flatly assisting in a felony, either its cover-up or the commission of it. I'd say that John Ensign is not only a unprincipled prick he is involved in criminal behavior - take a good look at him and see a clean cut well-dressed rich scum bag. He may be acting in partisan fashion - I'm not, I don't care what Party he belongs to, though it figures there's an (R) after his name.
If I start putting your physical or psychological well-being at risk then it starts to be important to have a doctor around. Once you reach that point you are in violation of virtually every legal statute involving the treatment of human beings. If I can not do it to you and a sheriff or policeman cannot do it to you then crossing that line is torture. Making statements to the contrary on the basis of the federal governmental employment of the torturers is flatly assisting in a felony, either its cover-up or the commission of it. I'd say that John Ensign is not only a unprincipled prick he is involved in criminal behavior - take a good look at him and see a clean cut well-dressed rich scum bag. He may be acting in partisan fashion - I'm not, I don't care what Party he belongs to, though it figures there's an (R) after his name.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Jay S Bybee Isn't In Jail, Where Is He?
No, he's not in jail, Jay S Bybee is Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Maybe you're wondering how a devout Mormon came to be a Justice on the largest appellate court in the US and a central figure in authorizing torture. You would be forgiven for wondering exactly what version of Christianity a person adheres to that would allow him to write things that sanctioned the psychological torment of pseudo drowning and confinement with an insect they are deathly afraid of or the physical torment of sleep deprivation, slapping, stress positioning to generate muscular pain, or intemperate conditions.
A US Federal Judge proposed that the imposition of pain repeatedly on a helpless human was sanctioned under the law of the US. This puke passes judgement on people in the United States of America. You are supposed to believe that at the last step before the US Supreme Court you will receive something like justice at the hands of someone who OKs interrogation procedures that only stop short of permanent damage. Looking up at that bench you will see the face of a monster.
If you behaved to a fellow human in any of the manners that Jay S Bybee authorized for interrogation you would go to jail for a very long time as a felon. These authorizations were handed down as legal opinion, the sort of thing that is a judge's job. Try real hard to wrap your head around the idea that legal opinions put forward in any case by this guy have any meaning, whatever.
You can find the 18 page pdf. of this mess here. I hope you have a strong tolerance for undiluted evil because you're going to be subjected to page after page of it. One very revealing measure of a society is how it treats the helpless and this is exactly what Bybee addressed in this memo and his measure is criminal. He not only doesn't belong on a bench, he belongs in front of one in irons.
Wanna make any bets?
A US Federal Judge proposed that the imposition of pain repeatedly on a helpless human was sanctioned under the law of the US. This puke passes judgement on people in the United States of America. You are supposed to believe that at the last step before the US Supreme Court you will receive something like justice at the hands of someone who OKs interrogation procedures that only stop short of permanent damage. Looking up at that bench you will see the face of a monster.
If you behaved to a fellow human in any of the manners that Jay S Bybee authorized for interrogation you would go to jail for a very long time as a felon. These authorizations were handed down as legal opinion, the sort of thing that is a judge's job. Try real hard to wrap your head around the idea that legal opinions put forward in any case by this guy have any meaning, whatever.
You can find the 18 page pdf. of this mess here. I hope you have a strong tolerance for undiluted evil because you're going to be subjected to page after page of it. One very revealing measure of a society is how it treats the helpless and this is exactly what Bybee addressed in this memo and his measure is criminal. He not only doesn't belong on a bench, he belongs in front of one in irons.
Wanna make any bets?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sen Webb And Criminal Justice
Sen Jim Webb (VA-D) is pretty sure we need to do something about our system of criminal justice and he lays out some reasons why he's right.
It has been fashionable for Republicans to claim Democrats and other liberal types are soft on crime but these kinds of numbers and facts seem to make a case that the hardliners may have made some mistakes. While crime rate drops matched the aging of the population they didn't seem to have squat to do with draconian punishments. We are closing on a situation of putting nearly an entire generation of black males in prison. If you consider our 25% of the world's prison population with 5% of the population you would have to decide that either we have most of the world's bad people or we are doing something radically wrong - I'm not exactly sold on the bad people proposition.
S714 would establish the National Criminal Justice Commission to look at what the failures are in law and sentencing and to look to other systems for solutions. The numbers are astonishingly bad and point to failure of monumental proportions. 2.38M people are in prison, 32% of black males will be imprisoned in their lifetime, one in 31 people are either in prison, on parole or probation a 290% increase since 1980. Having 3/4 million people returning to their communities from prison annually can only mean trouble and on average 2 of 3 will be rearrested and half will return to prison within 3 years. The War on Drugs is not only grammatically stupid, it is also an abysmal failure, the percentage of high school students reporting a drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain marijuana ranked 86%, cocaine 47%, crack 39%, and heroin 27% in the face of a 1200% increase in prison population since 1980 of drug offenders.
We are bankrupting the government with prison costs and evidently failing across the board with the system. Granted that while commissions are a good way to bury problems they can also be formative of solutions when there is little political benefit to using one as a burial ground. Maybe some pressure to not only establish this committee but also do something with it wouldn't be misplaced. Along with Webb are Specter, Reid, Leahy, Durbin, Graham, Schumer, Murray, Wyden, Kennedy, Brown, Warner, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Cardin, and Burris; if your Senator is missing a note of suggestion might be in order.
With 5% of the world's population, our country now houses 25% of the world's reported prisoners.
Incarcerated drug offenders have soared 1200% since 1980.
Four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.
Approximately 1 million gang members reside in the U.S., many of them foreign-based; and Mexican cartels operate in 230+ communities across the country.
Post-incarceration re-entry programs are haphazard and often nonexistent, undermining public safety and making it extremely difficult for ex-offenders to become full, contributing members of society.
It has been fashionable for Republicans to claim Democrats and other liberal types are soft on crime but these kinds of numbers and facts seem to make a case that the hardliners may have made some mistakes. While crime rate drops matched the aging of the population they didn't seem to have squat to do with draconian punishments. We are closing on a situation of putting nearly an entire generation of black males in prison. If you consider our 25% of the world's prison population with 5% of the population you would have to decide that either we have most of the world's bad people or we are doing something radically wrong - I'm not exactly sold on the bad people proposition.
S714 would establish the National Criminal Justice Commission to look at what the failures are in law and sentencing and to look to other systems for solutions. The numbers are astonishingly bad and point to failure of monumental proportions. 2.38M people are in prison, 32% of black males will be imprisoned in their lifetime, one in 31 people are either in prison, on parole or probation a 290% increase since 1980. Having 3/4 million people returning to their communities from prison annually can only mean trouble and on average 2 of 3 will be rearrested and half will return to prison within 3 years. The War on Drugs is not only grammatically stupid, it is also an abysmal failure, the percentage of high school students reporting a drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain marijuana ranked 86%, cocaine 47%, crack 39%, and heroin 27% in the face of a 1200% increase in prison population since 1980 of drug offenders.
We are bankrupting the government with prison costs and evidently failing across the board with the system. Granted that while commissions are a good way to bury problems they can also be formative of solutions when there is little political benefit to using one as a burial ground. Maybe some pressure to not only establish this committee but also do something with it wouldn't be misplaced. Along with Webb are Specter, Reid, Leahy, Durbin, Graham, Schumer, Murray, Wyden, Kennedy, Brown, Warner, Gillibrand, McCaskill, Cardin, and Burris; if your Senator is missing a note of suggestion might be in order.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Ah Billy, We Hardly Knew Ye
Multnomah County Sherriff
SWIS ID: 733135
Name: Sizemore, William Lee
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Race: White
Height: 6 ft 2 in
Weight: 244 lbs
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Blue
Arresting Agency: Portland Criminal Court
Arrest Date: 12/1/2008 11:36 AM
Booking Date: 12/1/2008 11:58 AM
Current Status: In Custody
Assigned Facility: MCDC
Projected Release Date: Unknown
Court Case No. 001212632 DA Case No. None Citation No. None
Charge Bail Status
CONTEMPT COURT (B Misdemeanor) $0
There's a kind of cute mugshot with the link and BO has courtroom picture. I don't like liars and I don't like thieves and today I'm kind'a happy.
SWIS ID: 733135
Name: Sizemore, William Lee
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Race: White
Height: 6 ft 2 in
Weight: 244 lbs
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Blue
Arresting Agency: Portland Criminal Court
Arrest Date: 12/1/2008 11:36 AM
Booking Date: 12/1/2008 11:58 AM
Current Status: In Custody
Assigned Facility: MCDC
Projected Release Date: Unknown
Court Case No. 001212632 DA Case No. None Citation No. None
Charge Bail Status
CONTEMPT COURT (B Misdemeanor) $0
There's a kind of cute mugshot with the link and BO has courtroom picture. I don't like liars and I don't like thieves and today I'm kind'a happy.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Commissions? We Don't Need No Steenking Commissions,
It has been reported in numerous places that Democrats would like to institute something resembling the 9/11 Commission to investigate torture by the Bush Administration. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that:
There is, somehow, the idea that the rule of law is disposable where Bush & Co are concerned. A commission is a very good way to look very busy and bury something so that it is never acted upon. If there is an idea that some commission's findings would prevent torture with new recommendation a hole immediately appears in the logic. It is entirely unnecessary to find ways to prevent torture, it is already illegal and waterboarding has been a war crime for a very long time - as a specific example. What exactly are the needed steps a commission would find? To make illegal what is already illegal? If illegality was insufficient to prevent torture, perhaps the conviction of a few criminals would get the idea across.
What ever you may think of GW Bush's intellect, he does have a few effective lawyers working for him. Being lawyers, the technical aspects of law are what counts. You might like to consider this from the Wall Street Journal:
If you want to read through all the so-called reasoning behind this, knock yourselves out. Illegal is illegal no matter how many memos you write, they have no force of law. Bush can't acknowledge the illegality by issuing pardons but more to the point is that lack of being pardoned.
It is a point of law that we hold to pretty darn firmly that the accused cannot be forced to testify against himself. Those directly involved don't have any reason to talk and if Congress were to compel them to, the Ollie North mess is the outcome. At these levels you have to have some direct testimony, the actual criminal torturing scum are those who ordered it. This doesn't involve the usual criminal action of some Spec 4 soldier, it involves bureaucrats experienced in isolating themselves from fallout. You need documents and you need the testimony of direct participants, people with every reason to not cooperate.
Once GWB has made it clear that criminal penalties have not been taken off the table, the only alternative is for Congress or DOJ to start taking them off the table to get that "Commission" testimony. GWB avoids pardoning and puts the onus on the Democrats. This leaves the incoming administration with some rather uncomfortable options. They can take the actual dissuasion for torturing - its illegality - off the table or they can get involved in messy and difficult prosecutions that will be labeled by the usual suspects as partisan foul play.
If you're willing to sit on or promote such a Commission, here's the deal, you ought to have to spend a week getting the treatments. If you have in mind the concept that political considerations trump the existing laws, you should get to experience the previous trumping of existing laws. There is exactly no need whatever for a Commission to exist until after a DOJ prosecution of those involved. You do not promote avoidance of behavior by OKing it. If you propose to keep future administrations from playing at torture then there has to be a cost for doing so. Otherwise they will simply look at history and note the outcome for the Bush Torturers and figure, "hell, why not?" Law is a deterrent if it is perceived as functioning and applied, it is not some moral guide post - if that were the case no jails would be built, everybody's morals would keep them from acting up.
Don't hold your breath; the political class is reluctant to kick its own around and particularly to jail them. It seems that having administrations investigate and prosecute the malfeasance of previous ones exposes them to the same when they become previous. There also is a little matter of Congressional votes in regard to this issue and a few others. Can't have people held responsible, now can we?
***Update***
Kari Chisholm, founder of Blue Oregon and Mandate Media, from comments:
The verdict from history is safe, convictions in hand it is even safer. What is it that is proposed to be fixed? This is extraordinarily simple, it is against the law. This is not a question, there may be some mechanics of charging whom with what that gets a little sticky - GW Bush is up to his pie hole in it - but it is simply against the law and has been against the law for a damn long time. The fix for those who would ignore the law is for the law to not ignore them. This is an entirely political bullshit proposition to avoid the nastiness of prosecuting goddamn Republicans. If those pricks want to operate within the laws of a somewhat civilized nation called the US then playing bipartisan is just fine, but outside tha line your ass is the law's.
No, it will not happen. It will not happen because this country is in such a damn mess that Democrats will fall all over themselves to keep from kicking their teeth in. Somehow, if the President does it, it is not illegal. The idea being to avoid truly messy transitions and specious charges being brought at regime changes. The thing about it is that this is egregious, it is not specious, it is not politically motivated, it is and has been against the law and people have been jailed for long periods to doing it. There is exactly one way for people to get over the idea that "I'm from the government," grants carte blanche and that is for not to. Go ahead and try this shit as a private citizen and see what happens. There it is, exactly.
"At a minimum, the American people have to be able to see and judge what happened," said one senior adviser, who asked not to be identified talking about policy matters. The commission would be empowered to order the U.S. intelligence agencies to open their files for review and question senior officials who approved "waterboarding" and other controversial practices.
Obama aides are wary of taking any steps that would smack of political retribution. That's one reason they are reluctant to see high-profile investigations by the Democratic-controlled Congress or to greenlight a broad Justice inquiry (absent specific new evidence of wrongdoing). "If there was any effort to have war-crimes prosecutions of the Bush administration, you'd instantly destroy whatever hopes you have of bipartisanship," said Robert Litt, a former Justice criminal division chief during the Clinton administration. A new commission, on the other hand, could emulate the bipartisan tone set by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton in investigating the 9/11 attacks.
There is, somehow, the idea that the rule of law is disposable where Bush & Co are concerned. A commission is a very good way to look very busy and bury something so that it is never acted upon. If there is an idea that some commission's findings would prevent torture with new recommendation a hole immediately appears in the logic. It is entirely unnecessary to find ways to prevent torture, it is already illegal and waterboarding has been a war crime for a very long time - as a specific example. What exactly are the needed steps a commission would find? To make illegal what is already illegal? If illegality was insufficient to prevent torture, perhaps the conviction of a few criminals would get the idea across.
What ever you may think of GW Bush's intellect, he does have a few effective lawyers working for him. Being lawyers, the technical aspects of law are what counts. You might like to consider this from the Wall Street Journal:
The White House isn't inclined to grant sweeping pardons for former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations and detentions of terror suspects, according to people familiar with the situation.
Some Republicans have been pushing for President George W. Bush to grant pre-emptive clemency to officials who fear being investigated by Democratic critics. White House officials have countered that such pardons are unnecessary, these people say. The officials point to Justice Department legal opinions that supported the administration's methods of detaining and interrogating terror suspects.
If you want to read through all the so-called reasoning behind this, knock yourselves out. Illegal is illegal no matter how many memos you write, they have no force of law. Bush can't acknowledge the illegality by issuing pardons but more to the point is that lack of being pardoned.
It is a point of law that we hold to pretty darn firmly that the accused cannot be forced to testify against himself. Those directly involved don't have any reason to talk and if Congress were to compel them to, the Ollie North mess is the outcome. At these levels you have to have some direct testimony, the actual criminal torturing scum are those who ordered it. This doesn't involve the usual criminal action of some Spec 4 soldier, it involves bureaucrats experienced in isolating themselves from fallout. You need documents and you need the testimony of direct participants, people with every reason to not cooperate.
Once GWB has made it clear that criminal penalties have not been taken off the table, the only alternative is for Congress or DOJ to start taking them off the table to get that "Commission" testimony. GWB avoids pardoning and puts the onus on the Democrats. This leaves the incoming administration with some rather uncomfortable options. They can take the actual dissuasion for torturing - its illegality - off the table or they can get involved in messy and difficult prosecutions that will be labeled by the usual suspects as partisan foul play.
If you're willing to sit on or promote such a Commission, here's the deal, you ought to have to spend a week getting the treatments. If you have in mind the concept that political considerations trump the existing laws, you should get to experience the previous trumping of existing laws. There is exactly no need whatever for a Commission to exist until after a DOJ prosecution of those involved. You do not promote avoidance of behavior by OKing it. If you propose to keep future administrations from playing at torture then there has to be a cost for doing so. Otherwise they will simply look at history and note the outcome for the Bush Torturers and figure, "hell, why not?" Law is a deterrent if it is perceived as functioning and applied, it is not some moral guide post - if that were the case no jails would be built, everybody's morals would keep them from acting up.
Don't hold your breath; the political class is reluctant to kick its own around and particularly to jail them. It seems that having administrations investigate and prosecute the malfeasance of previous ones exposes them to the same when they become previous. There also is a little matter of Congressional votes in regard to this issue and a few others. Can't have people held responsible, now can we?
***Update***
Kari Chisholm, founder of Blue Oregon and Mandate Media, from comments:
What about a South African -style Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Basically, the idea is that if you testify completely, answering all questions truthfully, then you're immune from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.
I do think that one key here is the civil liability issue. The DOJ may wind up uninterested in prosecuting people, but they won't be immune from losing their house.
Seems to me that as much as we'd like people to go to prison, it can be more valuable to turn them into pariahs and render the verdict of history.
And then, we can change the law to ensure that Presidents are never again able to issue executive orders to undermine basic human rights and American principles against wiretapping, torture, and the rest of the atrocities.
11/26/2008 05:10:00 PM
The verdict from history is safe, convictions in hand it is even safer. What is it that is proposed to be fixed? This is extraordinarily simple, it is against the law. This is not a question, there may be some mechanics of charging whom with what that gets a little sticky - GW Bush is up to his pie hole in it - but it is simply against the law and has been against the law for a damn long time. The fix for those who would ignore the law is for the law to not ignore them. This is an entirely political bullshit proposition to avoid the nastiness of prosecuting goddamn Republicans. If those pricks want to operate within the laws of a somewhat civilized nation called the US then playing bipartisan is just fine, but outside tha line your ass is the law's.
No, it will not happen. It will not happen because this country is in such a damn mess that Democrats will fall all over themselves to keep from kicking their teeth in. Somehow, if the President does it, it is not illegal. The idea being to avoid truly messy transitions and specious charges being brought at regime changes. The thing about it is that this is egregious, it is not specious, it is not politically motivated, it is and has been against the law and people have been jailed for long periods to doing it. There is exactly one way for people to get over the idea that "I'm from the government," grants carte blanche and that is for not to. Go ahead and try this shit as a private citizen and see what happens. There it is, exactly.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
$1.5 Million Golf Clubs Paid For By Illegal Serfs
Gordon Smith, a man who has proven his truthfulness with lying political advertisements, may have a bigger lie to defend. That lie would have to do with how it is he makes his millions of dollars to buy golf clubs and mansions and exotic Senate office furnishing with.
Willamette Week went over to Weston, Oregon to take a look at Smith Frozen Foods and - oooh, big surprise - found out that most everyone knows they hire illegally. They pay real crappy also, you can do that and make millions if you've got an illegal source of labor - I've said it before - the new serfs. Minimum wage to process food, irregular work, and apparently draconian employment policies all can follow hand in glove if you have an easily repressed work force. It is real tough to make the case that these jobs are being taken away from Americans, the wages and conditions are way too shoddy to garner much interest. From that point you might start to ask questions - like why are the wages and conditions too crummy?
Yup. Obviously working at Smith's plant is a real incentive for legal immigrants - everybody wants to work for peanuts and get treated badly - while they make a smarmy haircut millions. You may have heard of E-verify, a voluntary program that allows businesses to check that Social Security numbers match the person,
But Smith wasn't pleased with it, they didn't like it,
Well it certainly would be inconvenient to the practice of hiring illegally. It would sort of dry up that piece of the labor market - unless you were willing to blatantly hire illegally. Legally you can deny a certain amount of responsibility for illegal hiring but there are limits to it, not sufficient limits, but they exist. You are supposed to photocopy documents used for employment verification -
But, but...
You have to remember that there is little incentive for the plutocrats to hire legally when they have access to a labor pool that they can exploit. Wages in E OR are below the State's median income, it certainly doesn't help when a US Senator is doing his level best to get rich off the backs of people he can exploit while he does favors for other plutocrats. I think maybe it is time that Gordon got a break from the rigors of Congressional duty and took some care of his business, like before he winds up charged with a crime. He is aware that it is criminal behavior.
What a punk.
Willamette Week went over to Weston, Oregon to take a look at Smith Frozen Foods and - oooh, big surprise - found out that most everyone knows they hire illegally. They pay real crappy also, you can do that and make millions if you've got an illegal source of labor - I've said it before - the new serfs. Minimum wage to process food, irregular work, and apparently draconian employment policies all can follow hand in glove if you have an easily repressed work force. It is real tough to make the case that these jobs are being taken away from Americans, the wages and conditions are way too shoddy to garner much interest. From that point you might start to ask questions - like why are the wages and conditions too crummy?
On Aug. 14, Smith told WW: “We need to support legal immigration and not incentivize illegal immigration.” A year earlier he told KXL’s Lars Larson his company goes “the extra mile” to make sure it doesn’t hire any illegal immigrants.
Yup. Obviously working at Smith's plant is a real incentive for legal immigrants - everybody wants to work for peanuts and get treated badly - while they make a smarmy haircut millions. You may have heard of E-verify, a voluntary program that allows businesses to check that Social Security numbers match the person,
A spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement defended the free, voluntary program. “If an employer uses E-verify and they encounter errors, there are steps in place to address that,” says ICE spokeswoman Lorie Dankers. A representative for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services added that E-verify results in errors less than 1 percent of the time.
But Smith wasn't pleased with it, they didn't like it,
Smith Frozen Foods chooses not to use this program. “We tried it in the past, and we were not very happy with it,” Brown says of E-verify, which is used by 80,000 companies in the United States. “It doesn’t work very well.”
Well it certainly would be inconvenient to the practice of hiring illegally. It would sort of dry up that piece of the labor market - unless you were willing to blatantly hire illegally. Legally you can deny a certain amount of responsibility for illegal hiring but there are limits to it, not sufficient limits, but they exist. You are supposed to photocopy documents used for employment verification -
According to a May 23, 1988, memo from the U.S. Department of Justice obtained by WW, Bob Cortinas, who was then Smith’s personnel director, told federal investigators he was instructed by Smith’s legal department not to photocopy workers’ documents “so that it would make it harder for [immigration officials] to find errors.”
But, but...
He is a U.S. senator who voted against granting amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the United States.
You have to remember that there is little incentive for the plutocrats to hire legally when they have access to a labor pool that they can exploit. Wages in E OR are below the State's median income, it certainly doesn't help when a US Senator is doing his level best to get rich off the backs of people he can exploit while he does favors for other plutocrats. I think maybe it is time that Gordon got a break from the rigors of Congressional duty and took some care of his business, like before he winds up charged with a crime. He is aware that it is criminal behavior.
What a punk.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Hunting Of The Snark - Gitmo
“I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.” - Lewis Clark and Court of Appeals DC Circuit may make you wonder what the heck.
All this about Huzaifa Parhat, a member of the ethnic Uighur Muslim minority in western China, who has been held in Gitmo for more than six years for being an enemy combatant. “Those bare facts,” the decision said, “cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant.”
The DC Circuit finds BushCo to be Alice in Wonderland? This blog and my previous communications with people regarding this bunch has consistently been that just because they say so doesn't mean it is so. This man has been held for six years in nasty circumstances, longer than many manslaughter convicts on the basis of "I told you." Does any thinking person not have a problem with that?
I have no idea if this person is a nice guy or a nasty bad man and quite evidently neither did the military. On a scale of potential damage I'd put George II above this guy. The point is whatever a human being is like happens to be irrelevant unless you have some kind of proof. Just in case it has missed your notice we United States citizens were under this same "law." Where is January 20th, 2009?
With some derision for the Bush administration’s arguments, a three-judge panel said the government contended that its accusations against the detainee should be accepted as true because they had been repeated in at least three secret documents. -NYT
“This comes perilously close to suggesting that whatever the government says must be treated as true,” said the panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
All this about Huzaifa Parhat, a member of the ethnic Uighur Muslim minority in western China, who has been held in Gitmo for more than six years for being an enemy combatant. “Those bare facts,” the decision said, “cannot sustain the determination that Parhat is an enemy combatant.”
The DC Circuit finds BushCo to be Alice in Wonderland? This blog and my previous communications with people regarding this bunch has consistently been that just because they say so doesn't mean it is so. This man has been held for six years in nasty circumstances, longer than many manslaughter convicts on the basis of "I told you." Does any thinking person not have a problem with that?
I have no idea if this person is a nice guy or a nasty bad man and quite evidently neither did the military. On a scale of potential damage I'd put George II above this guy. The point is whatever a human being is like happens to be irrelevant unless you have some kind of proof. Just in case it has missed your notice we United States citizens were under this same "law." Where is January 20th, 2009?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Joe Horn's Mistake
Today Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the shooting deaths of two people burgling his neighbor's home. The Houston Chronicle has more details but the essence is pretty simple, Mr Horn was in his home when he heard breaking glass, saw two men entering his neighbor's home and called 911. While conversing with the operator about going to see what he could do carrying a shotgun and being dissuaded by the operator he saw the men exiting and went out. He called out to them "...move! you're dead." and shot them.
The thing that saved Horn was that the men crossed onto his property where he was and came close to him, apparently causing him to fear for his safety and he called a warning. Texas law is not the same as it is in all states so not too much should be taken into account anywhere else. Horn was sufficiently in the legal right to stay out of court but he is said to be terribly affected and would next time stay inside.
Horn's actions were mistakes on many levels and he will have to live with that. It is impossible to state whether a police officer might have shot one or both, since that's not what happened, but Horn did. Mr Horn had the right to go outside, but doing so placed him in imminent danger from someone committing a crime. He had no knowledge of what risks he was placing himself in the way of to do something about a property crime. He could easily have gone out there and been shot by them for his trouble, over a bag of stuff. He could also have walked into police officers already in a stressful position with a shotgun and have provoked a shooting that way or have distracted officers from the criminals. What he did do was make this particular burglary a capital crime, the offenders died for it.
Theft is an infuriating crime that seldom gets prosecuted because the thieves are seldom caught. People are rightfully upset to have their stuff taken, just because it can be, after they've put work into the getting of it. That doesn't change the fact that it is just stuff, some hours worth of work to be replaced versus life that cannot be gotten back. These two illegal alien thieves are not disposable because of that, people have been known to change their lives and that cannot happen when they're dead. Maybe they never would have amounted to more than a waste of air, that judgement really shouldn't have been made in this case or forced to have been made.
Police are paid to know what to do and how to do it and particularly to keep citizens from having to do it. It is dangerous and foolish to try to do what professionals are paid to do. Had Mr Horn been in his own home and shot them in there I wouldn't have any criticism of his behavior, that is not what happened.
I have to admit that if I saw someone breaking into my work truck I'd be really torn about not stopping it. I'm pretty sure I'd make the 911 call and at the least shout out the door to try to short circuit my loss. What I am sure of is that I wouldn't go outside at the risk of my life so I'd have to take a gun and that immediately makes my stuff worth killing for. As important as my tools are to making a living they're not a life and death matter.
Please note, I do not know your state laws and you should if you have a weapon.
The thing that saved Horn was that the men crossed onto his property where he was and came close to him, apparently causing him to fear for his safety and he called a warning. Texas law is not the same as it is in all states so not too much should be taken into account anywhere else. Horn was sufficiently in the legal right to stay out of court but he is said to be terribly affected and would next time stay inside.
Horn's actions were mistakes on many levels and he will have to live with that. It is impossible to state whether a police officer might have shot one or both, since that's not what happened, but Horn did. Mr Horn had the right to go outside, but doing so placed him in imminent danger from someone committing a crime. He had no knowledge of what risks he was placing himself in the way of to do something about a property crime. He could easily have gone out there and been shot by them for his trouble, over a bag of stuff. He could also have walked into police officers already in a stressful position with a shotgun and have provoked a shooting that way or have distracted officers from the criminals. What he did do was make this particular burglary a capital crime, the offenders died for it.
Theft is an infuriating crime that seldom gets prosecuted because the thieves are seldom caught. People are rightfully upset to have their stuff taken, just because it can be, after they've put work into the getting of it. That doesn't change the fact that it is just stuff, some hours worth of work to be replaced versus life that cannot be gotten back. These two illegal alien thieves are not disposable because of that, people have been known to change their lives and that cannot happen when they're dead. Maybe they never would have amounted to more than a waste of air, that judgement really shouldn't have been made in this case or forced to have been made.
Police are paid to know what to do and how to do it and particularly to keep citizens from having to do it. It is dangerous and foolish to try to do what professionals are paid to do. Had Mr Horn been in his own home and shot them in there I wouldn't have any criticism of his behavior, that is not what happened.
I have to admit that if I saw someone breaking into my work truck I'd be really torn about not stopping it. I'm pretty sure I'd make the 911 call and at the least shout out the door to try to short circuit my loss. What I am sure of is that I wouldn't go outside at the risk of my life so I'd have to take a gun and that immediately makes my stuff worth killing for. As important as my tools are to making a living they're not a life and death matter.
Please note, I do not know your state laws and you should if you have a weapon.
Second Amendment Individual Right And End Of World
Heller V DC just brought civilization as we know it in these United States to an end. Really, the gun control, gun ban crowd would have you believe the streets will be awash in blood thanks to a finding in favor of an individual right. DC Mayor Fenty states that more guns means more crime, and says it with not only a straight face, he says it with conviction. So now guns will just be everywhere in DC and everybody will have one and just shoot each other to pieces?
Let's just back the train up here. DC has had a draconian handgun ban since 1976 and they still are shooting each other to pieces. DC pols blame VA for this. What they really mean is that despite a gun ban there are guns aplenty in DC. What guns there are not in DC are the ones in law-abiding hands. There can't be because it is against the law. To be sure there are probably ordinarily law-abiding people who violate this one, but is asking for all kinds of trouble. If every law-abiding citizen who wants one buys a gun that will surely result in a net increase of firearms in DC.
There evidently hasn't been much problem with the getting of a gun in DC, there seem to be plenty to go around in criminal circles. Law-abiding citizens having them will result in more crimes for what reason? People who haven't killed their neighbors or spouses will suddenly want to because they can buy a gun? Criminals in search of guns will break into houses to get them? That might actually be a side benefit of a burglary but as a motive it is a rather risky method compared to buying an illegal one. It is surely an aspect of legal ownership that burglary will become a bit more risky in DC. I qualify that statement with reason, I strongly doubt that DC will not put road blocks in the path to private ownership. They're going to have some real problems if it becomes capricious or elitist.
There are a handful of communities in the nation with draconian, capricious, or otherwise questionable firearm regulations. California and Massachusetts may have some difficulties with their laws. One thing is quite certain, owning firearms is not a universal desire in this country. The numbers of lawfully held firearms will increase but where that leads to an increase in mayhem is unclear. Most of the bloodshed pictured by the gun banners is already either a fact - in criminal circles - or accomplished with other means by homicidal bent people. Do I think firearms crimes won't increase? No, I think they will, but I don't think the number of murders will increase. The guy who beats his wife to death may opt for shooting her, the intention is the same and the result the same, simply a different means. I think firearm accidents may well increase as inexperienced people acquire things they should learn about and don't. I'm afraid our culture has mystified and mythologized firearms to the point where that is the common denominator among non-shooters.
Entertainment media and, most unfortunately, news media present inaccurate and frequently completely stupid portrayals of firearms. It is not an easy thing to hit a target with any firearm and handguns are particularly not easy, just pointing isn't likely to achieve good results without a tremendous amount of practice. Firearm lethality is exaggerated in many cases, a handgun is certainly a lethal weapon, but the bullet must hit something lethal and the body isn't that chock full of them. Entertainment depicts things that just flatly don't happen, people are not thrown or even knocked down by bullet impacts. The idea that body parts explode is a fantasy excepting large caliber high velocity bullets, or small caliber hyper-velocity bullets.
There may be some people hurt or killed by firearms that shouldn't have been as a result of this decision and there may well be people hurt or killed who should be, how that will balance I'm unsure. There will be cases where the presence of a firearm will just stop a crime without anyone hurt and there will be crimes uncommitted out of fear of running into an armed victim. These latter cases will not be documented in any meaningful way and thus not appear in the record. Gun banners are fond of citing the lack of such numbers and never bother to note that they aren't really reported.
The world isn't going to end and neither is violent crime going to disappear as a result of this decision.
Let's just back the train up here. DC has had a draconian handgun ban since 1976 and they still are shooting each other to pieces. DC pols blame VA for this. What they really mean is that despite a gun ban there are guns aplenty in DC. What guns there are not in DC are the ones in law-abiding hands. There can't be because it is against the law. To be sure there are probably ordinarily law-abiding people who violate this one, but is asking for all kinds of trouble. If every law-abiding citizen who wants one buys a gun that will surely result in a net increase of firearms in DC.
There evidently hasn't been much problem with the getting of a gun in DC, there seem to be plenty to go around in criminal circles. Law-abiding citizens having them will result in more crimes for what reason? People who haven't killed their neighbors or spouses will suddenly want to because they can buy a gun? Criminals in search of guns will break into houses to get them? That might actually be a side benefit of a burglary but as a motive it is a rather risky method compared to buying an illegal one. It is surely an aspect of legal ownership that burglary will become a bit more risky in DC. I qualify that statement with reason, I strongly doubt that DC will not put road blocks in the path to private ownership. They're going to have some real problems if it becomes capricious or elitist.
There are a handful of communities in the nation with draconian, capricious, or otherwise questionable firearm regulations. California and Massachusetts may have some difficulties with their laws. One thing is quite certain, owning firearms is not a universal desire in this country. The numbers of lawfully held firearms will increase but where that leads to an increase in mayhem is unclear. Most of the bloodshed pictured by the gun banners is already either a fact - in criminal circles - or accomplished with other means by homicidal bent people. Do I think firearms crimes won't increase? No, I think they will, but I don't think the number of murders will increase. The guy who beats his wife to death may opt for shooting her, the intention is the same and the result the same, simply a different means. I think firearm accidents may well increase as inexperienced people acquire things they should learn about and don't. I'm afraid our culture has mystified and mythologized firearms to the point where that is the common denominator among non-shooters.
Entertainment media and, most unfortunately, news media present inaccurate and frequently completely stupid portrayals of firearms. It is not an easy thing to hit a target with any firearm and handguns are particularly not easy, just pointing isn't likely to achieve good results without a tremendous amount of practice. Firearm lethality is exaggerated in many cases, a handgun is certainly a lethal weapon, but the bullet must hit something lethal and the body isn't that chock full of them. Entertainment depicts things that just flatly don't happen, people are not thrown or even knocked down by bullet impacts. The idea that body parts explode is a fantasy excepting large caliber high velocity bullets, or small caliber hyper-velocity bullets.
There may be some people hurt or killed by firearms that shouldn't have been as a result of this decision and there may well be people hurt or killed who should be, how that will balance I'm unsure. There will be cases where the presence of a firearm will just stop a crime without anyone hurt and there will be crimes uncommitted out of fear of running into an armed victim. These latter cases will not be documented in any meaningful way and thus not appear in the record. Gun banners are fond of citing the lack of such numbers and never bother to note that they aren't really reported.
The world isn't going to end and neither is violent crime going to disappear as a result of this decision.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Jail For Lying Greed Heads?
Ralph Cioffi, 52, and Matthew Tannin, 46, were arrested Thursday morning and it looks as though ultra wealthy investors will be looking for payback. McClatchy reports the two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers concealed from investors their personal knowledge of the impending disaster in the sub prime mortgage credit business.
You've probably figured out that the victims aren't worried about losing their 1400 square foot house, that they're in entirely another league than anybody reading this blog. (or probably any blog) The FBI is looking at 19 others in the same kind of misdeeds. Rest assured, the Republican government is looking out for your interests, while you're living in a cardboard box the guys who swindled multi-millionaires might get punished while the economic damages get eaten by taxpayers and home owners. You might ask McCain's economic advisor Phil Graham if this is what he had in mind while he was writing deregulation and lately lobbying for an investment bank.
So far do you feel represented? Do you think any of these lawyers actually believe what they're quoted as saying?
To be sure those wealthy people may have their "blood run cold," but there are a whole lot of people who'll just get damned cold this fall as the construction industry fueled economy tanks. BushCo may have presided over the worst natural disaster in Katrina in a failed manner but this one is gonna really suck and it won't be localized and it sure wasn't natural. You have to give McClatchy credit for sneaking this one into the story:
Ask John McCain about his pal Chuck Keating and Phil Graham about the Enron loophole. Go ahead and Google that mess. Try and find a fairly recent financial disaster that doesn't have McCain's fingerprints somewhere on it. St Ronnie told you the problem was government and Johnny and Georgie have proved that it is, their Republican version is. Deregulation doesn't mean the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't get a mud hole stomped in them, it means the ultra wealthy get to rape the citizenry while the Government holds them in place for it. If you don't like it Uncle Sammy is watching...you thought this crap was about ourfreedomshatingIslamofundamentalistreligioterristicferriners? Sitemeters are wonderful things; this little two bit blog gets regular US Government attention. Really, no kidding, you readers are a part of it...
The indictment alleges the two deceived investors into believing the hedge funds, which held special mortgage bonds that were backed with now-toxic sub-prime home loans, were healthy when they knew clearly they were not. The end result was that well-heeled investors like the one described in the indictment, Major Investor #1, collectively lost more than $1.5 billion.
You've probably figured out that the victims aren't worried about losing their 1400 square foot house, that they're in entirely another league than anybody reading this blog. (or probably any blog) The FBI is looking at 19 others in the same kind of misdeeds. Rest assured, the Republican government is looking out for your interests, while you're living in a cardboard box the guys who swindled multi-millionaires might get punished while the economic damages get eaten by taxpayers and home owners. You might ask McCain's economic advisor Phil Graham if this is what he had in mind while he was writing deregulation and lately lobbying for an investment bank.
"Hedge fund investors, like all investors in our national markets, are entitled to rely on those to whom they entrust their investment dollars," Benton Campbell, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in announcing the charges. "Honesty and fair dealing are at the foundation of this relationship of trust and confidence. These defendants chose to breach that trust, and they will now be held to account."
Matt Tannin is innocent. He is being made a scapegoat for a widespread market crisis," Susan Brune, a defense attorney, said in a statement.
Cioffi's attorney said in a statement that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department were caught off guard by the sub-prime crisis, and his client was swept up in the same downturn that caught competitors and regulators by surprise.
"Ralph Cioffi's funds lost money in exactly the same way. Because his funds were the first to lose might make him an easy target but doesn't mean he did anything wrong," said attorney Ed Little.
So far do you feel represented? Do you think any of these lawyers actually believe what they're quoted as saying?
"The Bear Stearns indictments present a remarkable trail of emails regarding what the Bear Stearns managers knew, when they knew it, and what they told investors. The tale the alleged emails tell, if true, should make an investor's blood run cold," Kurt Eggert, a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., said in a written analysis of Thursday's indictment.
To be sure those wealthy people may have their "blood run cold," but there are a whole lot of people who'll just get damned cold this fall as the construction industry fueled economy tanks. BushCo may have presided over the worst natural disaster in Katrina in a failed manner but this one is gonna really suck and it won't be localized and it sure wasn't natural. You have to give McClatchy credit for sneaking this one into the story:
The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s had villains like banker Charles Keating, the collapse of energy giant Enron Corp. had the unsympathetic CEO Kenneth Lay, and now the sub-prime meltdown has Cioffi and Tannin.
Ask John McCain about his pal Chuck Keating and Phil Graham about the Enron loophole. Go ahead and Google that mess. Try and find a fairly recent financial disaster that doesn't have McCain's fingerprints somewhere on it. St Ronnie told you the problem was government and Johnny and Georgie have proved that it is, their Republican version is. Deregulation doesn't mean the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't get a mud hole stomped in them, it means the ultra wealthy get to rape the citizenry while the Government holds them in place for it. If you don't like it Uncle Sammy is watching...you thought this crap was about ourfreedomshatingIslamofundamentalistreligioterristicferriners? Sitemeters are wonderful things; this little two bit blog gets regular US Government attention. Really, no kidding, you readers are a part of it...
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
GOP Cretins and John McCain
Dallas News finds that the Texas GOP State Convention has vendors like Republicanmarket that don't seem to have gotten the McCain memo about civil campaigning. This would seem to be another example that the right should forgo "humor."
Does anybody start to see a pattern emerging? This US Senator called the Supreme Court decision re-affirming Habeas Corpus the worst decision in history. The prime directive of law, the idea that you get to have a trial, is the worst decision. I know he managed to graduate the Naval Academy in the bottom 1% of his class but you'd think that idea wouldn't escape him. He certainly can't be running for GWB's third term since he thinks the Constitution is toilet paper and we've never had a President with that attitude...um...well maybe we have and maybe he is.
It doesn't matter how bad an idea George II has had, John McCain is for it. Torture? A former POW thinks it's a fine idea if George does. Warrantless spying on Americans? George likes it and so do John's telecommunication buddies, so he does. Tax breaks for the plutocrats? Bankrupting the nation so some plutocrats can be making obscenely more obscene amounts of money is a good thing, George thought so. Use the government to privatise profits while socializing the risk is the new Republican vision, George said so and John McCain is all for it. He doesn't want your tax dollars wasted on earmarks, he's adamantly against it, but corporate sucking at the government tit is the order of the day. If we throw enough blood and treasure at Iraq they'll hate us but they'll be a victory, and that's really important. It's really really important that John McCain gets to wear his laurel in the Triumph, no more Viet Nams.*
If you want a doddering old fool's pandering, fear mongering, and tired ideas make sure to just let it go. Don't call him on his crap, let him play both ends to the middle as an honorable man. He's not. He is a fraud and charlatan masquerading as a Maverick and a hero. Soldiers serve and their manner of service deserves respect, but the man is who he is and his character is what it is and John McCain deserves to be sent home with his tail between his legs and his reputation based on who he is today - not that airman POW of over three decades ago. Ask the hero about Chuck Keating and ask him about his Campaign Manager Rick Davis and a warning from the NSC that he was undercutting US policy - for money. Oh yeah, he's got experience - as a tool of corrupt influence pedaling cretins.
*We lost Viet Nam because the politicians wouldn't let us win - see RMN & Kissinger...
Crackers? There is something to be said for being upfront about being a horse's ass, but there's a lot more to be said for not being one. You're supposed to believe John McCain isn't a part of this stuff. "Oh my, that's not nice..." but I'll sure take whatever you clods can reel in for me. I won't go to Clayton Williams' fundraiser since he was cretin enough to compare rape to bad weather, but I'll sure take his $300K. Maybe it's just getting real difficult to avoid associating with slimeballs in Republican politics.
“These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time it was scheduled,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said. “It’s positive that he did apologize at the time, but the comments are nonetheless offensive.”Just exactly how dim do you have to be to miss this? Google does Clayton Williams in 0.22 seconds and the third listing headlines "rape joke." Now I realize John McCain grew up rodeoing dinosaurs and all and the level of competence expected of Republicans doesn't include screwing in light bulbs but hey, they seem to be able to find smut on the 'net anytime they need something to complain about. (or have prurient reactions to...) Evidently in New Mexico all y0u have to be able to do is crash several expensive Navy planes and get taken prisoner to qualify as Senator, but hopefully the nation at large has higher standards when it comes to President.
Does anybody start to see a pattern emerging? This US Senator called the Supreme Court decision re-affirming Habeas Corpus the worst decision in history. The prime directive of law, the idea that you get to have a trial, is the worst decision. I know he managed to graduate the Naval Academy in the bottom 1% of his class but you'd think that idea wouldn't escape him. He certainly can't be running for GWB's third term since he thinks the Constitution is toilet paper and we've never had a President with that attitude...um...well maybe we have and maybe he is.
It doesn't matter how bad an idea George II has had, John McCain is for it. Torture? A former POW thinks it's a fine idea if George does. Warrantless spying on Americans? George likes it and so do John's telecommunication buddies, so he does. Tax breaks for the plutocrats? Bankrupting the nation so some plutocrats can be making obscenely more obscene amounts of money is a good thing, George thought so. Use the government to privatise profits while socializing the risk is the new Republican vision, George said so and John McCain is all for it. He doesn't want your tax dollars wasted on earmarks, he's adamantly against it, but corporate sucking at the government tit is the order of the day. If we throw enough blood and treasure at Iraq they'll hate us but they'll be a victory, and that's really important. It's really really important that John McCain gets to wear his laurel in the Triumph, no more Viet Nams.*
If you want a doddering old fool's pandering, fear mongering, and tired ideas make sure to just let it go. Don't call him on his crap, let him play both ends to the middle as an honorable man. He's not. He is a fraud and charlatan masquerading as a Maverick and a hero. Soldiers serve and their manner of service deserves respect, but the man is who he is and his character is what it is and John McCain deserves to be sent home with his tail between his legs and his reputation based on who he is today - not that airman POW of over three decades ago. Ask the hero about Chuck Keating and ask him about his Campaign Manager Rick Davis and a warning from the NSC that he was undercutting US policy - for money. Oh yeah, he's got experience - as a tool of corrupt influence pedaling cretins.
*We lost Viet Nam because the politicians wouldn't let us win - see RMN & Kissinger...
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Obama Would Investigate White House
In an interview with Will Bunch at Philly.com Barack Obama said he would investigate the previous administration if there was evidence of criminal behavior. It was a cautious answer, noting that he would not want his actions to be symptomatic of a political witch hunt.
What I found of particular interest was the comments section - it made me really thankful for my comments section participants. There were essentially three points of view, the obvious one being those in favor of the idea and two either against or scoffing at it ever happening. The negative view seemed to break down into two camps: whatever was done for security was justified and the nothing bad ever happened - it's a librul plot against St George. I found the scoffers most interesting: a segment that held that nothing would ever be done to the powerful and the Obama is a liar segment. These are two distinctly different groups, one holding that the nature of power is such that it just won't happen and one which puts the lack of likelihood on Obama in particular. The latter were or seemed to be Hillary people.
Of the anti-camp all I can manage is puzzlement, were the laws violated ones involving say dealing pot they'd be falling all over themselves to hang the bastards (OK, I suppose blowjobs are included) but sainted George II is somehow too good to be pursued (and by extension any of his cronies). Any suggestion that they wouldn't want it done to their children is turned on its head as hate of Americans - somehow the evil left is suggesting it should be done to Americans . The others seem not to have any awareness of the news world beyond the fact that libruls are questioning some imaginary events. I am not talking about a question of whether there is question of legal cover, these things simply never happened. Here's the rub, this group was apparently able to read the article and type comments so they are literate.
I completely understand the sentiment that says nothing bad will happen to the wielders of power, I haven't exactly noticed it being prevalent in our society, either. It is not that I find such malfeasance inevitable, it is mostly the strength of character and will required is rare in such circles. The constant struggle to get votes and financing and pass legislation involves a lot of compromising and it assuredly gets pretty easy to have flexibility slide into spinelessness and weathervane ethics. You will please note that I am not using this brush to tar wide swathes of elected officials, such is not my assertion. Wealth and power confer huge advantages on people in conflict with the legal system.
The Obama deniers I have a bit more trouble with and I'm lukewarm on the guy. I have found no evidence that he is particularly ethically or morally challenged and yet there is an assumption that everything the man says is a lie. I'd be the last to assert that any politician doesn't exaggerate some or put the very best light on something questionable, but this requires a nearly pathological liar. How exactly Hillary and Bill getting caught out on absolute prevarications transfers to Obama I'm not sure. Evidently one's opponent must be Satan for being the opponent. This crap is going to cause real trouble in the General election - what strikes me is that it is so...Republican.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.
I am quoting lightly, the article is Bunch's and I have no desire to step on his work. This quote is pulled from the middle of a longer quote with much more content. I encourage you to go there for the entire article.
Obviously my strong concerns for the Bill of Rights and other protections within the Constitution generate some enthusiasm for this outlook. While I am sure that some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress leave a fair amount of wiggle room for the thugs of this administration, there has been quite a bit of wiggling going on. I have little doubt there is dirt laying around. Some have proposed that George II would pardon everybody - including himself - there is a problem with that idea. Self-serving pardons are considered void.What I found of particular interest was the comments section - it made me really thankful for my comments section participants. There were essentially three points of view, the obvious one being those in favor of the idea and two either against or scoffing at it ever happening. The negative view seemed to break down into two camps: whatever was done for security was justified and the nothing bad ever happened - it's a librul plot against St George. I found the scoffers most interesting: a segment that held that nothing would ever be done to the powerful and the Obama is a liar segment. These are two distinctly different groups, one holding that the nature of power is such that it just won't happen and one which puts the lack of likelihood on Obama in particular. The latter were or seemed to be Hillary people.
Of the anti-camp all I can manage is puzzlement, were the laws violated ones involving say dealing pot they'd be falling all over themselves to hang the bastards (OK, I suppose blowjobs are included) but sainted George II is somehow too good to be pursued (and by extension any of his cronies). Any suggestion that they wouldn't want it done to their children is turned on its head as hate of Americans - somehow the evil left is suggesting it should be done to Americans . The others seem not to have any awareness of the news world beyond the fact that libruls are questioning some imaginary events. I am not talking about a question of whether there is question of legal cover, these things simply never happened. Here's the rub, this group was apparently able to read the article and type comments so they are literate.
I completely understand the sentiment that says nothing bad will happen to the wielders of power, I haven't exactly noticed it being prevalent in our society, either. It is not that I find such malfeasance inevitable, it is mostly the strength of character and will required is rare in such circles. The constant struggle to get votes and financing and pass legislation involves a lot of compromising and it assuredly gets pretty easy to have flexibility slide into spinelessness and weathervane ethics. You will please note that I am not using this brush to tar wide swathes of elected officials, such is not my assertion. Wealth and power confer huge advantages on people in conflict with the legal system.
The Obama deniers I have a bit more trouble with and I'm lukewarm on the guy. I have found no evidence that he is particularly ethically or morally challenged and yet there is an assumption that everything the man says is a lie. I'd be the last to assert that any politician doesn't exaggerate some or put the very best light on something questionable, but this requires a nearly pathological liar. How exactly Hillary and Bill getting caught out on absolute prevarications transfers to Obama I'm not sure. Evidently one's opponent must be Satan for being the opponent. This crap is going to cause real trouble in the General election - what strikes me is that it is so...Republican.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Bush The Sadist
In order to preserve his kingly right to torture any peasant he pleases, George II today vetoed legislation specifically banning waterboarding. This should end all debate over whether they only did it because its illegality was debatable. It is now beyond argument that in order to satisfy their Faux 24 movie magic sadism they will keep internationally abhorred torture methods on the table. If you do not understand the guilty sexual pleasure obtained from misusing another human, you're not alone. It is classified as sexual deviancy of an obsessive nature and in many quarters, incurable. Its forerunners are the torture and maiming of creatures and a typical symptom is verbally abusive domination, typified by humiliating nicknames for intimates. It is truly sick when practiced on the unwilling, victims. Alcoholism and drug addiction are frequent accompanying disorders.
There is no longer any reason to wonder if our government asserts the right to torture you, Bush says they have it and will use it at his direction, and the Attorney General. People, including Americans, have spent considerable time in jail for waterboarding. It is criminal in most of the world, including places you wouldn't want to visit. I want you to note the vote was 222-199 in the House and 51-45 in the Senate. You do understand the implications of those numbers, this means that the Senate Republicans voted as a near block as did the House Republicans to allow this cretin to torture. You need to read Here's the Enemy, Democrats if you wonder how I feel about the Republican Party and their crap. If forced to be physically dangerous I would be a very nasty foe and hurt you very badly with little or no guilt, but I find this absolutely stomach turning. I feel an immense guilt to call myself an American in the face of this official American policy. It is no wonder these filth object to Michelle Obama not always being proud of her country, they place no limits on our behavior. George II's words leave no doubt, it is not simply waterboarding he wants on the table, he wants no limits. This is a truly sick individual who heads a Party of similar minded pukes. George, I promise not to travel to any place you are and you stay the hell away from me because I'll spit in your goddam face if I'm ever that close to you. I didn't think anybody could ever get my blood hotter than RMN and I'm astonished by how wrong I was. goddam damn damn damn...arghhhh
There is no longer any reason to wonder if our government asserts the right to torture you, Bush says they have it and will use it at his direction, and the Attorney General. People, including Americans, have spent considerable time in jail for waterboarding. It is criminal in most of the world, including places you wouldn't want to visit. I want you to note the vote was 222-199 in the House and 51-45 in the Senate. You do understand the implications of those numbers, this means that the Senate Republicans voted as a near block as did the House Republicans to allow this cretin to torture. You need to read Here's the Enemy, Democrats if you wonder how I feel about the Republican Party and their crap. If forced to be physically dangerous I would be a very nasty foe and hurt you very badly with little or no guilt, but I find this absolutely stomach turning. I feel an immense guilt to call myself an American in the face of this official American policy. It is no wonder these filth object to Michelle Obama not always being proud of her country, they place no limits on our behavior. George II's words leave no doubt, it is not simply waterboarding he wants on the table, he wants no limits. This is a truly sick individual who heads a Party of similar minded pukes. George, I promise not to travel to any place you are and you stay the hell away from me because I'll spit in your goddam face if I'm ever that close to you. I didn't think anybody could ever get my blood hotter than RMN and I'm astonished by how wrong I was. goddam damn damn damn...arghhhh
Friday, March 07, 2008
More King George II
The Constitution sets out certain responsibilities in government, and one of those is that the Senate ratifies treaties. Well it thought it did up until GeorgeII set them straight. He does exactly as he pleases in regard to Iraq because he's got the Authorization to Use Force. This is sort of like the CiC position, he can do as he damn well pleases because we're at war. Let's ask some of those Senators who voted for that piece of unmitigated junk if they're real happy right now. Hillary is, this was a negotiating tool, she says so.
WaPo notes:
Congress has the nerve to act surprised. They've let this bunch of incompetent crooks get away with this same behavior for 7 years and at this late date they expect something else? It's really hard to believe that it is going to be 11 months until we're rid of this cretin and his cohorts and patience is the only recourse.
WaPo notes:
The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.
Congress has the nerve to act surprised. They've let this bunch of incompetent crooks get away with this same behavior for 7 years and at this late date they expect something else? It's really hard to believe that it is going to be 11 months until we're rid of this cretin and his cohorts and patience is the only recourse.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Oh That Lapel Pin
Hat tip to Balloon Juice for "kiss my lapel pin."
By the way, it wasn't the Pledge, it was the National Anthem, despite all the spin and news organizations' inability to get the thing straight.
By the way, it wasn't the Pledge, it was the National Anthem, despite all the spin and news organizations' inability to get the thing straight.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Support the Troops
This is not something new, I just had no idea this was still going on. Get hurt in combat and be unable to finish your tour and the DOD wants back the portion of the signing bonus matching your unfinished tour.
I'm used to finding myself actually angry about this BushCo Administration, but this time around I want to hurt somebody. There's no whom there, though, so I'm stuck with a feeling I haven't had for a really long time, and I don't like it, one bit.
Ah.......
I'm used to finding myself actually angry about this BushCo Administration, but this time around I want to hurt somebody. There's no whom there, though, so I'm stuck with a feeling I haven't had for a really long time, and I don't like it, one bit.
Ah.......
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The Death Penalty and Deterrence
The recent Supreme Court moratorium on lethal injection executions has brought back to the fore the argument about whether the death penalty is a deterrent. The individual executed is certainly deterred but the effect on the broader population seems to be the question; and that question is central to the debate over capital punishment. In the 1976 ruling that reinstated capital punishment Justice Potter Stewart wrote for three of the majority that while the studies of the time were inconclusive, “the death penalty undoubtedly is a significant deterrent.”
The NYT notes the new controversy involves studies done over the past decade primarily by economists showing a significant deterrence and studies primarily in law journals debating that. While it may seem odd for an economist to study the death penalty the models for measuring an effect are based on economics - "To economists, it is obvious that if the cost of an activity rises, the amount of the activity will drop." Lawyers point out that while the studies seem broad, one looked at 3054 counties over 20 years, the actuality is that there are only a few death cases and executions, in 2003 there were 153 death penalties and 65 executions, about one in 300 homicides results in a death penalty so the chances of receiving one for a murder are rather slim.
The economist's models attempted to account for varying crime rates, conviction rates and other factors and came up with murders declining as executions climbed. Various studies have indicated between 3 and 18 lives saved per execution. However,
Some folks like to do the trade game of one life, the executed, for many and in terms of a dead murderer saving several lives it seems almost reasonable. There is the little matter of the state killing a helpless human being after having them contemplate that idea for some extended period of time. There is to me not only the wrongness of the act, but the worse attribute of the responsibility being spread amongst all the citizens who are so divorced from the actual deed. There is the final horror of the whole thing, humans and their systems are not infallible, some innocents will be in the mix and once you have been a part of that, you are not one iota different from the most cold blooded of killers, considering all that goes with an execution.
This nation should be able to come up with a workable alternative to capital punishment, but .then there are a lot of things we really ought to be able to come up with...
The NYT notes the new controversy involves studies done over the past decade primarily by economists showing a significant deterrence and studies primarily in law journals debating that. While it may seem odd for an economist to study the death penalty the models for measuring an effect are based on economics - "To economists, it is obvious that if the cost of an activity rises, the amount of the activity will drop." Lawyers point out that while the studies seem broad, one looked at 3054 counties over 20 years, the actuality is that there are only a few death cases and executions, in 2003 there were 153 death penalties and 65 executions, about one in 300 homicides results in a death penalty so the chances of receiving one for a murder are rather slim.
The economist's models attempted to account for varying crime rates, conviction rates and other factors and came up with murders declining as executions climbed. Various studies have indicated between 3 and 18 lives saved per execution. However,
“Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program,” Professor Shepherd of Emory wrote in the Michigan Law Review in 2005. She found a deterrent effect in only those states that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996.The facts surrounding prison life may have more of a deterrent effect,
A 2003 paper by Lawrence Katz, Steven D. Levitt and Ellen Shustorovich published in The American Law and Economics Review found a “a strong and robust negative relationship” between prison conditions, as measured by the number of deaths in prison from any cause, and the crime rate. The effect is, the authors say, “quite large: 30-100 violent crimes and a similar number or property crimes” were deterred per prison death.The math doesn't seem to be quite as clear as it does at first blush, questions remain as to whether murders are actually capable of making those rational calculations, and worse considering the solution rate for murder and then the number of death penalties imposed if the calculation might fall on the side of murder. When things like criminal thinking errors (I'll never get caught), obsessions, passions, greed, and a host of other mental malfunctions get tossed into the mix one really has to wonder if fear of execution has much to do with anything.
Some folks like to do the trade game of one life, the executed, for many and in terms of a dead murderer saving several lives it seems almost reasonable. There is the little matter of the state killing a helpless human being after having them contemplate that idea for some extended period of time. There is to me not only the wrongness of the act, but the worse attribute of the responsibility being spread amongst all the citizens who are so divorced from the actual deed. There is the final horror of the whole thing, humans and their systems are not infallible, some innocents will be in the mix and once you have been a part of that, you are not one iota different from the most cold blooded of killers, considering all that goes with an execution.
This nation should be able to come up with a workable alternative to capital punishment, but .then there are a lot of things we really ought to be able to come up with...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)