Playback: Politics and culture Archives

June 13, 2006

The United States of Torture

I have heard the arguments in favor of increased prisoner abuse. This is a new kind of war with an enemy that kills civilians without mercy. This enemy has bombed the World Trade Center; it bombed nightclubs in Indonesia when the discos were crowded; it bombed subways in London at rush hour. It has bombed busy intersections and markets and even mosques all over Iraq. Its own record of prisoner abuse is horrible; it even kills its own people if they fail some ethnic or religious litmus test.

This week’s suicide at Guantanamo has given the Bush barbarians another opportunity to display their pathological personalities, calling it “a good PR move” and an act of “asymmetrical warfare.” The collective narcissism, the sociopathic self-interest, and sheer inhumanity of these bastards becomes more manifest every day. Not only are they incapable of admitting error, they are incapable of recognizing the ugliness and immorality of their souls.

A* C* and Michael Savage are not as extreme as we’d like to believe; I fear they are expressing the true souls of the administration. I feel increasingly desperate for a way to make the sleeping middle of America awaken to the viciousness of the leaders they elected. If we don’t turn this around soon, it will be too late.

May 21, 2006

"Two Cents" re the NSA

I’m in the SF Chronicle’s “Two Cents” reader-response column again today.

The question was, “Ever say anything on the phone you don’t want the NSA to hear?”

My favorite answer was from Jo-Anna Pippen:

I’m sure in the last four years I’ve said: “Michael Moore, shotgun, Internet, ACLU, Berkeley, indicted, Hillary, drugs, cell, data, gay marriage, SpongeBob, peace, France, oligarchy, bomb, cell, Cheney, contraception, AT&T, Democrat, 29 percent, White House, turd blossom, tequila, Jeb, firewall, NBC and New York Times.” I’m probably on a watch list already.

Read ‘em all.

Posted by gans at 7:31 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 20, 2006

Happy birthday, Mr. Gravy

Tonight is Wavy Gravy’s birthday party at the Berkeley Community Theater, as always a benefit for SEVA.

C.W. Nevius writes about Wavy in today’s San Francisco Chronicle. Compassion comes easy to this clown

A few excerpts:

….this has been a remarkable run, from making announcements atop the stage at Woodstock to having Ben & Jerry’s name a flavor of ice cream after him.
It was tasty, too.
With no visible means of support to speak of — Gravy calls himself “an activist, clown and former frozen dessert” — he’s not only lived a life in full, but filled it with an extraordinary zest and good deeds.
[…]
And then there’s the time he was poetry director at the Gaslight in Greenwich Village.
“I convinced the owner to bring on a kid named Bob Dylan.”
Dylan, by the way, wrote “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall” on Gravy’s typewriter. So says Gravy, who says Salvador Dali stopped by and “made a salad.”
Is it any wonder that documentarian Michelle Esrick is on the Gravy train? Her film, “Saint Misbehavin’: The Life and Time of Wavy Gravy,” is due in 2007. Good luck. Editing his life into feature-film length won’t be easy….

I’ve had many opportunities to hang out with Wavy over the years - I’ve played festivals where he emceed, for example - and I’ve produced radio announcements for his various events over the years. I refer to him as a “regional saint,” for some reason. He’s a great character, and he’s done a hell of a lot of good in the world.

Happy birthday, other boss. I hope you have a great party tonight.

Posted by gans at 10:09 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 14, 2006

Pombo Must Go!

This is from my friend and colleague Paul Stubblebine:

Please join

pianist Pete Sears (Hot Tuna, Starship, Flying Other Brothers, etc.)

singer Spencer Day (Decca recording artist)

Paul Stubblebine (Coast Recorders)

for an opportunity to meet and mingle with Steve Thomas, candidate for Congress in the 11th Congressional District.

This district is important to all of us, whether we live and vote in that district or not. It is currently represented by Richard Pombo, who is (in my opinion) the posterboy for corruption in Congress, and the leader of the charge to remove all environmental regulation, among other troglodyte positions.

Friends, we have an opportunity to replace Pombo with someone we’ll actually enjoy supporting. No need to settle for a Hold-Your-Nose-and-Vote-For-A-Democratic nominee, no need to settle for a Demopublican nominee… there’s a genuine, progressive, back-to-the-future New Deal Democrat running.

Check Steve Thomas’ website to get a taste of what he’s about. Then come on down to Coast Recorders, San Francisco’s historic recording studio, on Saturday May 20th and meet him! Drop by any time between 4 and 7 PM. We’ll have the welcome mat out, and Steve will be happy to talk to you about his vision for a better future. Bring your checkbook - you just may want to help his campaign after you hear him speak. And at the very least, you’ll be able to say, “I knew Steve Thomas before he was co-opted.”

Coast Recorders
1340 Mission Street, between 9th and 10th, San Francisco
415-863-6009
Plenty of parking, either on the street or in the lot behind our building, accessible from either 9th or 10th Street.

Posted by gans at 12:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 9, 2006

Godsmack frontman smacked by Arthur

Check out this transcript of a phone interview between Godsmack frontman Sully Erna and Arthur magazine editor Jay Babcock!

I don’t know anything about Godsmack, but I gather they sell a ton of records and they seem to have licensed a couple of their songs to the US Army for recruiting commercials.

Babcock used a routine phone interview to confront Erna with some uncomfortable truths about the world, and Erna seemed unhappy about being called to account.

An excerpt:

JAY: …I have a quote from you here: “We’ve always been supportive of our country and our president, whereas a lot of people I thought” — and you said this in 2003, to MTV News, you said — “a lot of people I thought lashed out pretty quickly at what we did and I thought the government did everything pretty cleanly and publicly as possible.”
SULLY: Yeah…?
JAY: Well, what are you talking about?
SULLY: That was my opinion at the time. The whole war thing, and trying to keep us up to date like… If you remember, back in other wars, we didn’t have the opportunity to follow it through the media, and CNN, and the news—live updates and that kind of thing. And I thought that for the most part you know we were allowed to follow it as best we could through the media sources that were feeding us information.
JAY: [incredulous] You didn’t think the media was being controlled by the military?
SULLY: Well, it could be. I don’t know.
JAY: You didn’t look into it?
SULLY: Listen. Are you a fucking government expert?
JAY: I’m not telling people to go join the military and then not knowing what the military is doing.
SULLY: I don’t tell people to go join the military!!
JAY: You don’t think using your songs — the POWER of your music, which you were talking about — has an effect on the people that hear it when it goes with the visuals that the best P.R. people in the world use?
SULLY: Oh man, are you like one of those guys that agrees with some kid that fuckin’ tied a noose around his neck because Judas Priest lyrics told him to?
JAY: You were telling me how powerful your music was, and what age the people are that listen to it, and you must have thought, “Well the Navy sure thought it was useful,” so you tell me.
SULLY: Hey, listen. The Navy thought…. It’s the same reason why wrestlers work out to the music, and extreme motorcross riders listen to the music and do what they do. It’s ENERGETIC music. It’s very ATHLETIC. People feel that they get an adrenaline rush out of it or whatever, so, it goes with whatever’s an extreme situation. But I doubt very seriously that a kid is going to join the Marines or the US Navy because he heard Godsmack as the underlying bed music in the commercial. They’re gonna go and join the Navy because they want to jump out of helicopters and fuckin’ shoot people! Or protect the country or whatever it is, and look at the cool infra-red goggles.
JAY: You said to MTV, “We’re not a very political band but we’re supportive of the U.S. military and how they approach things.”

In his endnote, Babcock supplies footnotes to support the things he says to Erna in the interview - Erna’s own words and other facts. Babcock concludes:

I suppose to a degree it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but… lives are on the line. People need to be held accountable. I’ve been trying to interview this band since 2003. I finally got my chance. It’s stimulated a ton of discussion — check out blabbermouth.net’s various threads, or the number of blogs and rock news sites that are now picking this up, or the comments below, or the endless barrage of juvenile hatemail we’ve been receiving — and it’s embarassed the band into silence on the issue, which is better than the jingoism they’d been spouting previously.
Finally: Please keep in mind that Sully is a MILLIONAIRE living in a comfortable life. His band is using their music to help recruit poor, under-educated, foolish, impressionable kids into the military at a time of worthless, pointless war, the consequences of which we — all of us — will be feeling for the rest of our lives. If he doesn’t care to discuss this — all of this — he shouldn’t do interviews… especially with anti-war publications.

The whole transcript and supprting documentation are well worth a read. Thanks to Barry Smolin at KPFK for directing my attention to this story.

Posted by gans at 8:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The Projection Party, again

Letter I sent to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Editor -

Regarding this letter in the 5/8 edition:

Special privilege?
Editor — Congress must immediately conduct a full investigation regarding Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s 2:30 a.m. automobile accident in the Capitol Thursday morning (“Rep. Kennedy denies he was drinking before crash,” May 5)! His driver’s license should be permanently revoked and he must pay fines and do community service. Lastly, he must step down immediately!
Oh wait, he’s not a Republican. Never mind.
LISA COHEN
Menlo Park

I gather Lisa Cohen is a member in good standing of the Projection Party. How else to explain her remark?

Let’s not forget that it was the Republicans in Congress who ground the government to a halt a few years back, bleating about “the rule of law” all the while, to nail Bill Clinton to the wall over private behavior that caused no harm and had nothing whatsoever to do with his performance on the job.

We still have a Republican-controlled Congress, and that Congress can’t be bothered to dig into any of the countless crimes against “the rule of law” and common decency itself. Let’s start with the lies that led us to war in Iraq and work our way down the docket, past domestic spying, “signing statements,” the FEMA/Katrina debacle, and so on. Maybe eventually we’ll work our way down to Duke Cunningham’s hookers.

David Gans
Oakland

UPDATE: The Chronicle published a response from Tom Wood today. An excerpt:

2. Patrick Kennedy recognized there was a problem, admitted his mistakes and took actions to rectify the situation; whereas, Republicans deny problems exists and shirk responsibility up to the moment they’re convicted.

His other points are good, too.

Posted by gans at 11:47 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 6, 2006

Meme of the month

I spotted this in a coffee store here in Oakland, where family values actually have something to do with human values:

MAY THE FETUS YOU SAVE BE GAY

Posted by gans at 10:21 AM | TrackBack

May 4, 2006

"Was it Funny?" is irrelevant

My friend Eric Rawlins, quoted here with his permission:

Although I’m not surprised that the right would claim it was “not funny” — they can hardly argue with Colbert’s suggestions on their merit — whether what he did was funny strikes me as completely irrelevant. It’s as if Welch’s “have you no shame” speech had been followed by an extensive media debate on whether his tie was too loud.

Update: Jon Bell’s screen shots of the crowd reaction.

Posted by gans at 11:44 AM | TrackBack

Even still more on the Colbert Thing

Email I sent to Richard Cohen of the Washington Post just now:

Sorry, man, but you’re full of shit on this one.
The only other time we know of when Bush had a chance to hear dissenting views was when he invited the former secretaries of state etc. for a visit. He gave ‘em the bum’s rush.
You say Colbert is “representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country.” I’d say not often enough.
What have you done lately to try to get us out of the mess we’re in thanks to Bush and the fools who let him come to power?

Posted by gans at 7:59 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 3, 2006

Still more on the Colbert thing

James Poniewozik in Time:

Colbert wasn’t playing to the room, I suspect, but to the wide audience of people who would later watch on the Internet. If anything, he was playing against the room - part of the frisson of his performance was the discomfort he generated in the audience, akin to the cringe humor of The Ali G Show. (Cringe humor, too, is something probably lost on much of the Washington crowd at the dinner, as their pop-culture tastes tend to be on the square side.) To the audience that would watch Colbert on Comedy Central, the pained, uncomfortable, perhaps-a-little-scared-to-laugh reaction shots were not signs of failure. They were the money shots. They were the whole point.

Posted by gans at 2:08 PM | TrackBack

More on the Colbert thing

First of all, Daily Kos has a full transcript of the Stephen Colbert speech.

Dan Froomkin, in the Washington Post, says this:

Now the mainstream media is back with its second reaction: Colbert just wasn’t funny.
Yes, it turns out Colbert has brought the White House and its press corps together at long last, creating a sense of solidarity rooted in something they have in common: Neither of them like being criticized.

And this:

Once upon a time, I imagine, there was great value in throwing a party where journalists and politicians could mingle and shmooze and celebrate the things they have in common.
And indeed, if the press and this particular White House had an even moderately functional professional relationship, then a chance to build personal relationships would be a nice bonus.
But it’s not a functional professional relationship. From the president down to the freshest press office intern, this White House seems to delight in not answering even our most basic questions.
So the last thing in the world we need is a big party where the only appropriate mode of communication is sucking up.

Media Matters takes on the disgusting performance by Chris Matthews (aka “Tweety”) on Hardball:

Matthews praised Bush, Wallace, Snow, while he and Time’s Allen panned Colbert
[…]
Later in the show, Matthews contrasted Colbert’s performance with Bush’s “unbelievable self-deprecating” comedy routine. When Allen asserted that Colbert, who skewered Bush and the White House press corps, “went over about as well as David Letterman at the Oscars,” Matthews asked: “Why do you think he was so bad?” Responding to Allen’s claim that “the standard at these dinners is singe, not burn,” Matthews assented: “The president’s our head of state, not just a politician.”

That Media Matters post has video of the Matthews segment. Vile.

Posted by gans at 8:08 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 1, 2006

Thank you, Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert was the entertainment at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner over the weekend, and he took the opportunity to speak truth to power in a most breathtaking way.

George W. Bush was sitting just a few feet away, and he heard some things that if he’s intelligent enough to understand them should give him pause. But they won’t of course - that dangerously shallow man seems incapable of recognizing the damage he’s done to the countrym the human race, and the planet.

Colbert also took aim at the lapdog press, many of whom must also have done some squirming. And rightly so.

There’s a web site called “Thank You, Stephen Colbert” where you’ll find links to video of the event, plus some news coverage (although most of the mainstream media reports didn’t even mention Colbert!), and a place to sign in and thank Colbert for that he did.

By all means, watch the presentation.

Update: “Colbert Rips the President a New One.” An excerpt:

As he walked from the podium the president and First Lady gave Colbert quick nods, unsmiling, and left. E&P’s Joe Strupp, in the crowd, observed that quite a few felt the material was, perhaps, uncomfortably biting.
Wasn’t it last year at the White House Correspondent’s dinner where the President did a HI-LARIOUS bit with some fake home movies showing him looking for those darned elusive WMD’s? And they weren’t there! It was a laff riot! I was laughing all the way to the 2300 odd military funerals!! Giggling as I donted money to help pay for over 10,000 wounded Americans!! Stop me before I piss myself with glee. But Colbert’s bit, that was OUT OF LINE, mister!!
[…]
The President was upset? Good. I hope the President was sleepless with rage. At least then he’d know how most of us have been spending every night for the last three years.

Update: Salon has an analysis that’s worth reading. An excerpt:

Then he turned to the president of the United States, who sat tight-lipped just a few feet away. “I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound — with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.”
It was Colbert’s crowning moment. His imitation of the quintessential GOP talking head — Bill O’Reilly meets Scott McClellan — uncovered the inner workings of the ever-cheapening discourse that passes for political debate. He reversed and flattened the meaning of the words he spoke. It’s a tactic that the cultural critic Greil Marcus once called the “critical negation that would make it self-evident to everyone that the world is not as it seems.” Colbert’s jokes attacked not just Bush’s policies, but the whole drama and language of American politics, the phony demonstration of strength, unity and vision….”

Media Matters has more.

Posted by gans at 7:55 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 30, 2006

"I Hate Bill O'Reilly": the book

There’s a new book, titled Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O’Reilly, based on the web site of the same name. These paragraphs cribbed from amazon:

From Booklist
The title says it all. There’s definitely no love lost between O’Reilly, host of the FOX Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor, and Amann and Breuer, founders of a Web site for which this book was named. Fashioned as an intervention to prevent O’Reilly from being any more outraged and outrageous than he already is, Amann and Breuer explore the myriad ways that O’Reilly attacks liberals but denies his conservatism, and disregards civil liberties and the simple truth. O’Reilly’s claim of “no-spin” objectivity is the primary target, as the authors cite numerous excerpts from transcripts of O’Reilly’s show to demonstrate his constant spin, contradiction, and misstatement. “The problem with simply calling Bill a liar is that one has to be aware of one’s lies for them to really be considered lies. We’re not sure Bill qualifies.” The charity ends there as the authors take O’Reilly to task for his sexual appetite (he settled a lawsuit by an associate producer who charged him with sexual harassment), his egomania (he makes constant references to his earnings, his ratings, his book sales versus those of his favorite targets, Al Franken and Hillary Clinton), and his outrageous statements (the nation’s poor should take a lesson from Hurricane Katrina and avoid poverty). Fans of O’Reilly will not be amused, but all other readers will find the book hilarious, though some may find the language occasionally offensive. Vanessa Bush Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Book Description
Bill O’Reilly is a man who believes he is a voice of reason. He calls for boycotting Canada, says Adolf Hitler would have been a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and thinks Hurricane Katrina victims seen carrying televisions should be shot on sight. Amann and Breuer – the creators of the hugely popular website www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com — take a close look at O’Reilly’s own assertions and arguments — taken from his TV and radio shows, books and columns — to expose him for what he is: a self-righteous boob and a sham newsman. The ongoing themes explored in Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O’Reilly are that O’Reilly is a bit crazy, not all that sharp and, as the authors put it, about “as self-aware as a legume.” The result is a hilariously funny book, a great read for anyone who enjoys seeing a puffed-up blowhard taken down a notch or two — whether they’re an O’Reilly hater, fan, or something in between.

Posted by gans at 6:35 AM | TrackBack

April 28, 2006

Politicians & the gas crisis

Today’s SF Chronicle has two photos on the front page, with this caption:

House speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., departs in a hydrogen-powered car … after a news conference on gasoline prices in Washington - and then gets out and prepares to climb into a sport utility vehicle powered by gasoline…. Hastert and President Bush have called for an investigation into oil company profits.

The article, by Marc Sandalow, is titled “DRIVE LESS? POLITICIANS WON’T ASK: Republicans and Democrats rail against oil companies for the high price of gasoline — but they don’t dare suggest we change our ways”

Posted by gans at 8:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 14, 2006

"When Fascism comes to America..."

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis

This image is also posted on flickr.com along with a complete collection of Grand Lake Theater marquees.

Posted by gans at 1:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 9, 2006

Stop using Jesus as a political battering ram

Garry Wills in today’s New York Times:

THERE is no such thing as a “Christian politics.” If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: “My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here” (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, “Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him” (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: “When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you” (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.

Posted by gans at 8:55 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 8, 2006

dumpdelay.com

dumpdelay.com is written by Susan DuQuesnay. Most of the pieces were published in The Fort Bend Star, a weekly newspaper in Tom DeLay’s hometown. According to the front page, “Susan DuQuesnay also maintains a website about Fort Bend politics (Tom’s home district) - and some semi-daily comments about Tom DeLay at www.brazosriver.com.”

Here’s a sample entry, from June 1 of last year:

Tom in TeeVee Guide Tom has been fumin’ like a 200,000 mile pickup truck that the writers of the teevee show Law and Order took his name in vain. There’s laws against that. I’m not sure where those laws are written down but you might start checking stone tablets and mountaintops somewhere.
Law and Order had this teevee show where this detective guy was looking for a crook who shot a federal judge. With no clues or suspects, the detective said, “Maybe we should put out an APB for somebody in a Tom DeLay T-Shirt.” Uh huh, it was humorous. Somebody got paid a lot of money for coming up with that line and – rats! – it should have been me.
In reaction, Tom girded-up his loins and, with a straight face, stomped his foot about the “manipulation of my name.” Oh gosh, that’s gotta be awful for Hot Tub Tom, the Hammer. Can you even imagine someone manipulating his name? I’m mortified, mortified I tell you.
He also called it “a great disservice to public discourse.” No, seriously; he said that. A man who once stood on the House floor and made fun of people “with foreign sounding names” said that.
Rumor has it that instead of suing the writers, Tom has proposed that he write and produce the next show - Law & Order: Filibuster Victim’s Unit.
After checking my TeeVee Guide, I have discovered some more shows featuring Tom this week. Oh, give it up – you knew I would.
Desperate Housewives – Tom DeLay drops by to lecture the floozie housewives on their wicked ways and then gets drunk and nakkid in their hot tub.
Bonanza – In a repeat of a little known episode, Tom DeLay plays a snake oil salesman who fights the Indians by stealing all their food, clothes, and money. Hoss gets pissed-off and calls Sheriff Ronnie Earle.
MASH – War. Go boom! Danger! Ooowies! Tom DeLay nowhere to be found.
Everybody Loves Raymond – except Tom. Tom DeLay hates Raymond because Raymond does not go to church enough.
Shell’s Wonderful World of Golf – Jack Abramoff buys Tom DeLay a trip to the Master’s. DeLay still can’t hit a nine iron straight and keeps referring to Tiger Woods as “The Gentleman from the NAACP.”
FOX News – Tom DeLay good. Liberals bad. Rinse. Repeat.
West Wing – Special guest appearance by Congressman Tom DeLay. He says that he IS the Federal Government and C J Craig punches him out. Cold cocks him. Kicks him. Stomps his butt. Grinds her high heel into his foot. Whacks him upside the head for good measure. She wins an Emmy.
Gilligan Island – in this overlooked episode, Tom DeLay comes to the island and tries to set up sweat shops and a rudimentary sex tourism industry.
The Apprentice – Tom DeLay and Donald Trump get into a self-image contest. Neither wins, but the fallout of ego juice and bad hair-dos covers three states.
Will and Grace – Grace lands a job decorating a major hotel chain. Will must try a case against a really hunky opposing counsel. Jack attempts to date the offensive line of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Tom experiences a terrifying lower abdominal tingle.
Judging Amy – and everybody else, the DeLay way! Tom DeLay visits to demonstrate how to slap down a judge. Episode two will be seen on Law and Order.
Hope and Faith – DeLay’s medical care package for America.
The King of Queens – Tom refuses to appear on this type of “activist show”.
Antiques Roadshow – Carlton Pierce III informs Tom that his antiquated political beliefs are worth “not a damn diddle.” His hair, however, is discovered to be a highly sought-after collector’s item.
This week on Star Trek: “I AM THE FEDERATION OF PLANETS!”
Extreme Makeover – Ty’s team gives Tom an extreme makeover by giving him a soul and a heart.
Medium – Tom enlists the help of Patricia Arquette to combat the unholy ghost of LBJ and Barry Bonds.
The Amazing Race – Can Tom outlaw boobies before the Johnson family reach Paris?
The Tony Danza Show – Tom’s appearance is so shocking that I am forbidden to discuss the specifics. I’ll offer three words: Fire, Brimstone, Bacardi
O’Reilly Factor – Loofah, falafel, and hot tubs - tales of latent homosexuality masquerading as insipid male conquests.
Fear Factor – In a moment of primal justice Tom DeLay forced to eat a live bug and a gallon of DDT to keep his House seat.
I just have one thought for the week. Why does Tom make this so easy for me?

Posted by gans at 7:54 AM | TrackBack

April 6, 2006

Al Franken vs. the Thin White Puke

Al Franken’s Midwest Values Pac web site has the transcript of a speech Al gave, sharing the dais with Ann Coulter. An excerpt:

Let me give you an example of Ann lying by omission.
Also in her book Slander, Ann tells her readers that Al Gore had a leg up on George W. Bush when applying to their respective colleges. Harvard and Yale. Ann writes:
“Oddly, it was Bush who was routinely accused of having sailed through life on his father’s name. But the truth was the reverse. The media was manipulating the fact that – many years later – Bush’s father became president. When Bush was admitted to Yale, his father was a little-known congressman on the verge of losing his first Senate race. His father was a Yale alumnus, but so were a lot of other boys’ parents. It was Gore, not Bush, who had a famous father likely to impress college admissions committees.”
What does Ann omit? Well, that Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush was also a Yale alum and had been Senator from Connecticut, the home state of Yale University. That Prescott Bush had been a trustee of Yale. That Prescott Bush had been the first chair of Yale’s Development Board – the folks who raise the money. That Prescott Bush sat on the Yale Corporation for twelve years. That Prescott Bush, like George W. Bush’s father, George H. W, Bush, had been a member of Skull and Bones. That the first Bush to go to Yale was Bush’s great great grandfather James Bush, who graduated in 1844. That in addition to his father, grandfather, and greatgreatgrandfather, Bush was the legacy of no less than twenty-seven other relatives who preceded him at Yale, including five great great uncles. Seven great uncles. Five uncles, and a number of first cousins.
Now why did Ann leave out these somewhat relevant facts? Ann grew up in Connecticut. Ann, did you really not know that Prescott Bush had been your senator when you were born?
Ann, is it possible that when Prescott’s son George H. W. Bush became president, it totally escaped your notice that his father had represented your state in the United States Senate? Did neither of your parents mention it in passing at the dinner table? Did no one at home in Darien make any comments about the new president’s lineage?
Understand. This isn’t sloppiness. This is deliberate. For Ann’s purposes – to claim that the media that was manipulating facts here – Ann herself had to manipulate facts – in such a shameless way. This is what she does.

Read the full transcript here, and post a comment if you’re so inclined.

Posted by gans at 5:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 5, 2006

But I'm not giving in an inch to fear...

Mark Morford has a great rant in today’s San Francisco Chronicle. His point of departure is a new TV ad for home security systems, but Morford (correctly, in my opinion) recognizes it as another entry in the relentless campaign to Keep America Scared. Fear is good business, as the Republicans in particular and the entire world business culture know so very well. I’m fucking sick of it, and so is Mark Morford:

Jogger watches clean-cut yuppie husband disappear down street, stands up and drops his chin and his eyes turn evil and his face turns shadowy and he immediately pulls a black hoodie up over his head and turns toward yuppie couple’s walkway and begins to RUN FULL SPEED straight at yuppie couple’s front door and KICKS IT IN FULL FORCE OH MY GOD NO!
Ah! But yuppie wife remembered to arm fancy new security system! Alarm sounds! Beep beep beep! Intruder-rapist-jogger stops dead in his tracks! He is bewildered by all this crazy beeping and immediately turns around and runs off before he can get anywhere near blond trophy wife to (presumably) attack her with chain saws and eat her eyeballs and steal her pretty Franck Muller watch and laugh maniacally!

…

That yuppie utopian all-white dream house? That’s America, silly. Your overpriced security system? The Patriot Act. The “war on terror.” Wiretapping. Rumsfeld’s black and lethal heart. The trillion-dollar destruction of Iraq, a country that had little to do with angry rapist-joggers but who the hell cares because they’re all dark skinned and hateful and Muslim anyway, right? Of course they are.

…

I am sick, made nauseated, made furious by the relentless plays on phony childish fears. I have had enough of insidious horror movies and schlocky cop dramas and inane TV commercials right along with their ideological brethren in the NRA and the Department of Homeland Security and the sneering GOP, all of whom make hollow attempts to invent more dangers in the world for their own violence-laced agendas. I am done, furthermore, with a villainous Republican-poisoned government whose sole agenda for the past five years has been to force the bitter cement of counterfeit fear into every joint and cranny of fluid and luminous life, all while brutally ignoring all the genuine problems and woes of the planet (global warming, poverty, abstinence programs, Ashlee Simpson, etc.). They are cretins and ideologues and they deserve a deep sense of shame.

Read the whole column.

Posted by gans at 8:57 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 24, 2006

TV everywhere

I walked into the breakfast room at the Holiday In Express. There was one other couple in there, and I asked them if they’d mind if I turned off the TV. It was tuned to the Oxygen chanel, showing a movie, and no one was watching. No problem, said the couple.

As I ate my cereal, a hotel maid walked in, turn on the TV, tuned it to Fox News, and started to walk out of the room. She caught my eye, noted my distress, and - I don’t remember exactly what she said and what I said, but rather than turn it off she switched it to The Weather Channel.

I just wanted to scream, “DO WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO THIS NAZI PROPAGANDA?” She must have seen that on my face anyway.

(I caught a little bit of Fox News Channel in the breakfast room yesterday, too. The anchor-fellator was on w/ Dan Bartlett, and he began his interview by joking that he had asked Helen Thomas to write his hard-hitting questions. Then, of course, he went on to ask Bartlett how these goofy liberals have the nerve to suggest that the president is “dangerously incompetent.”)

It got me to thinking. Is it in thye hotel worker’s job description to turn the fucking TV set on? Does her church or NRA chapter or someone else encourage her to tune the damn TV to Fox News?

Never mind the greater question of why there has to be a fucking TV set on and blaring crap in every public space?

Posted by gans at 5:28 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

March 20, 2006

Family values

Jon Carroll, in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, offers a very angry and personal take on the latest front in the culture wars: “gay adoption.”

According to the Catholic News Service, “Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese announced March 10 that it will stop providing adoption services rather than continue to comply with a state law requiring no discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who seek to adopt…. Prompted by a similar issue arising at Catholic Charities of San Francisco, a top Vatican official has said Catholic agencies should not be involved in adoptions by same-sex couples.”

To which Jon Carroll responded:

Last year the Ford Motor Co. started to buy ads in several publications aimed at gay readers…. Then the company got assaulted by the American Family Association, a creation of the Rev. Donald Wildmon, a clever right-wing agitator with a hate-based agenda. So Ford announced that it would stop advertising in gay publications.
But then, whoops, Ford reversed its reversal and said, never mind, it was going to advertise in gay publications after all. So then a representative of the AFA announced that it was reinstating its boycott. “We cannot, and will not, sit by as Ford supports a social agenda aimed at the destruction of the family.”
What a vile sentence. What a vile sentiment. What overbusy, underbrained worms these people must be. I am not yelling.
My older daughter is a lesbian. She is also the single mother of an adopted child, working to make and sustain a family with jaw-dropping tenacity. I am a member of that family, but she is the head of it. The idea that any part of her social agenda involves the destruction of the family is insulting and stupid. She adopted a child, which means that a child who would not have had a home now has one. It means that a child who would not have rested safely in a mother’s arms now does so. These are real family values, not the poison spouted by these thoughtless, gossip-mongering abominations.
All over this nation there are gay and lesbian families working hard to make a life for themselves and their children. I know a few of them. They could have done it the easy way, stayed in the closet and decided not to endure the hassles of having children, but they didn’t. They wanted a family. They wanted a lover and companion to share their lives with, and they wanted children to love. And for this they get insulted by cretins….
The people who hate America are the members of American Family Association and its ideological fellow travelers. They’re the ones who do not believe that all people are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They’re the ones who believe that this country was founded on hate and fear; they’re the ones who want the hate and fear to continue.
“Where’s Daddy?”
“He’s out picketing a funeral of a gay veteran.”
“Will he be home in time for the flute recital?”
“Your father is very busy, dear.”
I mean, render unto me a break. If your family feels so threatened by my family that you think you have to organize a boycott of a car company, then your family has problems my family can do nothing to solve.

In other news of religious evil, a man is on trial in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity. He faces the death penalty if he doesn’t reconsider.

Trial judge Ansarullah Mawlazezadah told the BBC that Mr Rahman, 41, would be asked to reconsider his conversion, which he made while working for a Christian aid group in Pakistan. “We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him,” the judge told the BBC on Monday. But if he refused to reconvert, then his mental state would be considered first before he was dealt with under Sharia law, the judge added.

Posted by gans at 8:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 17, 2006

A report from outside the USA

A friend pointed me to a story on jambase from Michael Kang (String Cheese Incident) and Chris Berry (Panjea), who are traveling in Africa, and this quote in particular:

I highly suggest all of you leave the Unites States at some time soon to remove yourself from the “psychic net” our government has craftily woven over our psyches. I imagine that I am preaching to the converted, but when you get away to see other parts of the world, it becomes painfully obvious how insane our way of life is in the US. Even though most people will take you at face value when they meet you, it’s obvious that the whole world is watching us in disbelief and amazement at the seeming apathy that has stricken our society. The concept of not voting is pretty foreign to most South Africans. I try to persuade the people I meet that there is a silent revolution happening in the States that is gaining strength, but the more I say it, the more I realize that it’s time for all of us to really stand up for what we believe in and manifest change. I know that many of us are doing exactly that, and I just want to let you all know that I will be here to help in any way I am able.

Posted by gans at 12:09 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 15, 2006

Jamie Raskin gets it right

I love this quote from Jamie Raskin, a candidate for State Senate in Maryland:

“Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn’t place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”
- Jamie Raskin, testifying Wednesday, March 1, 2006 before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in response to a question from Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs about whether marriage discrimination against gay people is required by “God’s Law.”

Thanks to Jennifer Powell for calling it to my attention.

Posted by gans at 9:12 PM | TrackBack

You GO, Molly!

Molly Ivins gets my vote again:

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight….
Every Democrat I talk to is appalled at the sheer gutlessness and spinelessness of the Democratic performance. The party is still cringing at the thought of being called, ooh-ooh, “unpatriotic” by a bunch of rightwingers.
Take “unpatriotic” and shove it. How dare they do this to our country? “Unpatriotic”? These people have ruined the American military! Not to mention the economy, the middle class, and our reputation in the world. Everything they touch turns to dirt, including Medicare prescription drugs and hurricane relief.

I don’t know what it’s going to take to get the political system back from the moralists and corporatists - well, the answer might be contained in the question: we need to drive a wedge into the unholy alliance between the kleptocrats and the theocrats. All they really hav in common is a desire for power and influence.

If we could get the progressive, humane side of the political ledger to grow some balls, we might get somewhere. But I despair.

Posted by gans at 10:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 9, 2006

Let's vote in South Dakota

Molly Ivins on the South Dakota anti-abortion law:

The state legislature of South Dakota, in all its wisdom and majesty, a legislature comprised of sons and daughters of the soil from Aberdeen to Zell, have usurped the right of the women of that state to decide whether or not to bear the child of an unwanted pregnancy. THEY will decide. Women will do what they decide.
[…]
The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the “life” clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for “convenience,” but he told The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer about how he thinks a “real-life example” of the exception could be invoked:
“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

Jack Mingo, by way of today’s Jon Carroll column, suggests a way we can help:

Cultural ornament Jack Mingo (who was helped in his scheming by Erin Barrett) describes the situation: “Fewer than 400,000 people (in South Dakota) voted in 2004. We can assume that not all of them are boneheads. After all, only about 60 percent — 232,545 — voted for GWB. 149,225 voted for Kerry. A recent senatorial race was lost by the Democrats by only about 500 votes. If we could convince a mere 90,000 of the Californians, New Yorkers and other Blue Staters who have long been grousing about overcrowding and high living costs to move there, we could make a huge impact on national politics.”
[…]
Using facts gathered from Minnesota Public Radio (Minnesota abuts South Dakota on the east and has some interest in the politics there), he outlines his fiendish plan. The quotes are from MPR; the ideas are from his brain:
1. You don’t have to move to South Dakota to register. You just have to vacation there long enough to have a temporary address at a campground, motel or RV park. “In Hanson County, population 3100, more than 800 RV’ers are registered. Most have never stayed in South Dakota for more than a few weeks.”
2. You don’t have to be in the state when the vote takes place. “In South Dakota about 70 percent of the RV’ers registered to vote have requested absentee ballots.”
3. It’s legal. The law was deliberately written to make “RV voters” possible. It’s a law apparently designed to help the Republicans, but we can make it blow up in their faces.
4. The tactic I’m suggesting is already being used on a smaller scale by the Republicans. In Minnehaha County, says County Auditor Sue Roust, “there’s a slight Democratic edge in registration. Whereas with the RV’ers, it’s Republicans 46 percent, Democrats 27 percent.”
[…]
It’d take some work, but think of this: If we were successful, girls in South Dakota would no longer be required to ruin their lives because of one bad decision they made when they were 16. That would be a thing.

Posted by gans at 8:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 3, 2006

My Letter to the SF Chronicle

This letter appeared in today’s San Francisco Chronicle:

A thankless job

Editor — Poor, dear, Mike DeNunzio, chairman of the San Francisco Republican Party (Letters, “Pelosi’s dodge,” March 2). It’s his job to defend the indefensible, and so in Thursday’s paper — as so many times before — Mike issues his canned denunciation of those who fail to denounce those who denounce his failed president.

Get a clue, Mike: We who oppose the vicious, ignorant agent of corporate evil who heads your party are supporting the troops and defending America.

DAVID GANS
Oakland

Posted by gans at 9:15 AM | TrackBack

February 26, 2006

The Big Giant Head: pressure builds

Bill O’Reilly has begun a campaign to get MSNBC to fire Keith Olbermann and reinstate Phil Donahue. redheadedwoman reported it on dailykos, including the text of the petition:

February 22, 2006
Chairman Robert Wright
National Broadcasting Company
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112

Dear Chairman Wright:
We, the undersigned, are becoming increasingly concerned about the well-being of MSNBC and, in particular, note the continuing ratings failure of the program currently airing weeknights on that network at 8:00 PM EST.
It is now apparent to everyone that a grave injustice has been done to the previous host for that time slot, Phil Donahue, whose ratings, at the time of his show’s cancellation three years ago, were demonstrably stronger than those of the current host.
Therefore, in an effort to rescue MSNBC from the ratings basement and to restore the honor and dignity of Mr. Donahue, who was ignobly removed as host three years ago, we ask that you immediately bring Phil Donahue’s show back at 8:00 PM EST before any more damage is done.

This is a transparently self-serving campaign couched entirely in altruistic terms, putatively for the good of his competitor. In other words, the present-day Republican Party in a single sentence.

Olbermann’s response, courtesy of Crooks & Liars, is a delight.

I signed the petition as “Hugh R. Kidding-Wright,” joining a slew of others who signed in something other than dead earnest. A friend grabbed some sample signatures from the site before they changed the code to stop displaying the 100 most recent signatures:

She’s A Witch! .. Burn Her! -1
J Jonah Jamison .. Daily Bugle -1
Keith is great !. Shut Up Bill GA
Republicans_hate_science E. Darwin RI
Only I speak the Truth .. http://www.outfoxed.org/ -1
Rightwing_idiots_love_oil Q. Exxon SD
Keith_is_the_Best !. Shut_Up_Bill AR
joseph_goebbels B. Berlin AS
Bwahahahahaha_Billy_about_to_get_canned! H.
maggots_look_better_than_Bill OH
ima n. fauxnews/pravda TX
Are You Going to Talk About us .. On Your little TV “show”? -1
Fire Bill .. Please Fire Bill -1
Keith_is_Great !. Faloofah MT
Fire Bill .. Please Fire Bill -1
Bwahahaha !. Rotfalafel UT
AndreaMackris R. HasYourCash PW
YOU ARE A .. WORTHLESS HUMAN BEING -1
I_Love_Keith ‘. Fire_O;Lielly WI
blotchyskin o. falafelscrub VI
For the Love of God .. Please Fire Bill -1
OLielly_is_a_Fool i. Shut_Up OR
what_a_little_baby_you_are y. please_kill_yourself OH
ORielly_is_a_Crybaby i. Big_Pussy TN
Look At My R. Ratings Drop! NC

Posted by gans at 9:22 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 23, 2006

South Dakota creates a test case

From morons.org

South Dakota recently passed a bill outlawing most abortions. Now of course such a bill is almost certainly unconstitutional according to court precedent from Roe vs Wade, and the bill is likely to be immediately challenged and prevented from taking effect.
But that’s the idea.
See the same people who whine and complain about black-robe-wearing judicial activist judges who legislate from the bench are the very people who want to get their law in front of a sufficient number of black-robe-wearing judicial activist judges who they hope will legislate from the bench in their favor. Right-wing anti-choice conservatives have picked this fight in South Dakota because they’re hoping that from that district they will find judges who are sympathetic to their cause. What they’re doing is basically judge shopping.
They’ve picked this fight because they’re hoping to get their law challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, where they hope that the now-conservative-slanted court will uphold the law rather than overturn it. Or better still, they’d love to see the Supreme Court uphold their law and reverse the Roe vs Wade decision.

Posted by gans at 6:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 20, 2006

Getting cranky about Cheney

zorca:

… the bottom line is that cheney’s behaviors during quailgate only serve to exemplify his much greater sins of greed, callousness, power-mongering, and secrecy. if these larger sins aren’t what is at the heart of media discussions about the event, if there is no attempt to shine a light on the larger discrepancies, then all this blather about whether or not he sat by a bed or valentine-fucked some woman other than his wife will serve as nothing but a cheap little side show.

It’s a great rant. Read it all.

And here’s Josh Marshall:

Even if Dick Cheney is blameless in this matter in any deep moral sense, let’s not forget that his immediate reaction was to send out his surrogates to publicly blame what happened on the victim.
Actually, that may afford him too much credit since it wasn’t actually his ‘immediate’ reaction. It was his considered reaction after the 24 hour cooling off period he gave himself between the shooting and when he chose to make it public.
By my count, he continued to have his public surrogates blame Whittington for fully three days. He only relented and took responsibility himself when the public and no doubt private political clamor became too much to sustain.

Posted by gans at 9:39 PM | TrackBack

January 27, 2006

The Thin White Puke is at it again

From the New York Times:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court’s most liberal members.
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. ”That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”

Posted by gans at 11:40 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 26, 2006

Image of the month

Front page of the Charleston SC Post and Courier, January 13, 2006

Posted by gans at 12:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 25, 2006

Grand Lake Theater marquee 1/25/06

January 25, 2006, originally uploaded by Grand Lake.

Posted by gans at 3:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Gore Vidal on "President Jonah"

Gore Vidal has a piece on Robert Scheer’s new web site, TruthDig:

An excerpt:

Not since the glory days of Watergate and Nixon’s Luciferian fall has there been so much written about the dogged deceits and creative criminalities of our rulers. We have also come to a point in this dark age where there is not only no hero in view but no alternative road unblocked. We are trapped terribly in a now that few foresaw and even fewer can define despite a swarm of books and pamphlets like the vast cloud of locusts which dined on China in that ’30s movie “The Good Earth.”
I have read many of these descriptions of our fallen estate, looking for one that best describes in plain English how we got to this now and where we appear to be headed once our good Earth has been consumed and only Rapture is left to whisk aloft the Faithful. Meanwhile, the rest of us can learn quite a lot from “Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire” by Morris Berman, a professor of sociology at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

There’s also a nice photo of the dipshit-in-chief and Vice President Evil.

Posted by gans at 9:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Boxer v. Alito

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER’S STATEMENT ON THE NOMINATION OF SAMUEL L. ALITO TO BE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Today, I am announcing my opposition to the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.

According to Article II of the Constitution, justices of the Supreme Court may not be appointed by the president without the advice and consent of the United States Senate. So it is our solemn duty to consider each nomination carefully, keeping in mind the interests of the American people.

And this nomination is particularly crucial because the stakes have rarely been so high.

First, consider the context in which this nomination comes before us. The seat that Judge Alito has been nominated for is now held by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who came to the Court in 1981.

For years, Justice O’Connor has provided the tie-breaking vote and a commonsense voice of reason in some of the most important cases to come before the Court, including a woman’s right to choose, civil rights, and freedom of religion.

Second, consider the tumultuous political climate in our nation. President Bush understood that in 2000 when he promised to govern from the center, and be “a uniter, not a divider.” Sadly, this nomination shows that he has forgotten that promise because it is not from the center and it is not uniting the nation.

The right thing to do would have been to give us a justice in the mold of Justice O’Connor, and that is what the president should have done.

Let me be clear: I do not deny Judge Alito’s judicial qualifications. He has been a government lawyer and judge for more than 20 years and the American Bar Association rated him well qualified. He is an intelligent and capable person. His family should be proud of him and all Americans should be proud that the American dream was there for the Alito family.

But after reviewing the hearing record and the record of his statements, writings and rulings over the past 24 years, I am convinced that Judge Alito is the wrong person for this job.

I am deeply concerned about how Justice Alito will impact the ability of other families to live the American dream — to be assured of privacy in their homes and their personal lives, to be secure in their neighborhoods, to have fair treatment in the workplace, and to have confidence that the power of the executive branch will be checked.

As I reviewed Judge Alito’s record, I asked whether he will vote to preserve fundamental American liberties and values —

Will Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress’ constitutional power to pass laws to protect Americans’ health, safety, and welfare? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In the 1996 Rybar case, Judge Alito voted to strike down the federal ban on the transfer or possession of machine guns because he believed it exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. His 3rd Circuit colleagues sharply criticized his dissent and said that it ran counter to “a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.” And Judge Alito’s extremist view has been rejected by six other circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Judge Alito stood alone and failed to protect our families.

In a case concerning worker protection, Judge Alito was again in the minority when he said that federal mine health and safety standards did not apply to a coal processing site. He tried to explain it as just a “technical issue of interpretation.” I fear for the safety of our workers if Judge Alito’s narrow, technical reading of the law should ever prevail.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially a woman’s reproductive freedom? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

We have all heard about Judge Alito’s 1985 job application, in which he wrote that the constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. He was given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings — and he refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused.

He had the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion because it would affect only a small number of women, but he refused to back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, found the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O’Connor, co-writing for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, saying that “the analysis does not end with the one percent of women” affected … “it begins there.”

To my mind, Judge Alito’s ominous statements and narrow minded reasoning clearly signal a hostility to women’s rights, and portend a move back toward the dark days when abortion was illegal in many states, and many women died as a result. In the 21st century, it is astounding that a Supreme Court nominee would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law when its fundamental principle — a woman’s right to choose — has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided.

Will Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from unconstitutional searches? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In Doe v. Groody in 2004, he said a police strip search of a 10-year-old girl was lawful, even though their search warrant didn’t name her. Judge Alito said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of the girl, “a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so… ” This casual attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional guarantees — the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches — is almost shocking. As Judge Alito’s own 3rd Circuit Court said regarding warrants, “a particular description is the touchstone of the 4th Amendment.” We certainly do not need Supreme Court justices who do not understand this fundamental constitutional protection.

Will Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from polluting their communities? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In the Magnesium Elektron case, Judge Alito voted to make it harder for citizens to sue for toxic emissions that violate the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several years later, the Supreme Court rejected the 3rd Circuit and Alito’s narrow reading of the law. Judge Alito doesn’t seem to care about a landmark environmental law.

Will Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

In 1997, in the Bray case, Judge Alito was the only judge on the 3rd circuit to say that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her case to a jury.

In the Sheridan case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a vote of 10 to 1, the 3rd Circuit found for the plaintiff. Guess who was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show that discrimination was the “determinative cause” of the employer’s action. Using his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming discrimination in the workplace to get to trial.

Finally, will Justice Alito be independent from the executive branch that appointed him, and be a vote against power grabs by the president? Judge Alito’s record says NO.

As a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, he authored a memo suggesting a new way for the president to encroach on Congress’ lawmaking powers. He said that when the president signs a law, he should make a statement about the law, giving it his own interpretation, whether it was consistent with what Congress had written or not. He wrote that this would “get in the last word on questions of interpretation” of the law. In the hearings, Judge Alito refused to back away from this memo.

When asked whether he believed the president could invade another country, in the absence of an imminent threat, without first getting the approval of the American people, of Congress, Judge Alito refused to rule it out.

When asked if the president had the power to authorize someone to engage in torture, Alito refused to answer.

The administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on American citizens without seeking warrants — in clear violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — violating international treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture. We need justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito’s record and his answers at the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a strong check on an “imperial president.”

In addition to these substantive matters, I remain concerned about Judge Alito’s answers regarding his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case, which he had promised to do.

During the hearings, we all felt great compassion for Mrs. Alito when she became emotional in reaction to the tough questions her husband faced in the Judiciary Committee. Everyone in politics knows how hard it is for families when a loved one is asked tough questions. It is part of a difficult process, and whoever said politics is not for the faint of heart was right.

Emotions have run high during this process. That’s understandable. But I wish the press had focused more on the tears of those who will be affected if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito and his out-of-the mainstream views prevail.

I worry about the tears of a worker who, having failed to get a promotion because of discrimination, is denied the opportunity to pursue her claim in court.

I worry about the tears of a mentally ill woman who is forced by law to tell her husband that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is afraid that he will leave her or stop supporting her.

I worry about the tears of a young girl who is strip searched in her own home by police who have no valid warrant.

I worry about the tears of a mentally retarded man, who has been brutally assaulted in his workplace, when his claim of workplace harassment is dismissed by the court simply because his lawyer failed to file a well written brief on his behalf.

These are real cases in which Judge Alito has spoken. Fortunately, he did not prevail in these cases. But if he goes to the Supreme Court, he will have a much more powerful voice — a radical voice that will replace a voice of moderation and balance.

Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he expects to be the same kind of justice on the Supreme Court as he has been a judge on the Circuit Court.

That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no concern for the human consequences of his reasoning.

Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man convicted of murder by an all white jury in a courtroom where the prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous murder trials as well.

Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that lefthanders have won five of the last six presidential elections. When asked about this analogy during the hearings, he said it “went to the issue of statistics… (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them…”

That response would have been appropriate for a college math professor, but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court justice.

As the great jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1881, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience… The law embodies the story of a nation’s development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics.”

What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of the people they affect.

It is with deep regret that I conclude that Judge Alito’s judicial philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity and moderation. He is simply too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe we need in our Supreme Court justices, particularly at this crucial time in our nation’s history.

That is why I will oppose this nomination.

Posted by gans at 8:01 AM | TrackBack

January 17, 2006

Felicity Huffman kicks ass

This is great. Salon posts a clip from a 60 Minutes interview of Felicity Huffman by Lesley Stahl, in which Huffman jumps the Hollywood-banality track and tells the shocking truth.

Posted by gans at 1:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 26, 2005

Dems wise up for 2006

SusanG on dailykos cites this Boston Globe piece:

Democrats to woo voters on wage issue
Frozen minimum pay seen as spur
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | December 25, 2005
WASHINGTON — New Year’s Day will bring the ninth straight year in which the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $5.15 an hour, marking the second-longest period that the nation has had a stagnant minimum wage since the standard was established in 1938.
Against that backdrop, Democrats are preparing ballot initiatives in states across the country to boost turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in 2006. Labor, religious, and community groups have launched efforts to place minimum-wage initiatives on ballots in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana next fall.
Democrats say the minimum wage could be for them what the gay-marriage referendums were in key states for Republicans last year — an easily understood issue that galvanizes their supporters to show up on Election Day.

SusanG adds:

This seems to me to be a winner on all fronts. Besides being the right thing to do, it’s an opportunity to tie in bloated CEO salaries, benefit cuts, corporate tax breaks and other oligarchical schemes so dear to the (barely beating) GOP heart.
Additionally, it will have the backing of John Edwards - who, with his theme of the two Americas - is the perfect (and popular) spokesperson for the issue.

And, later:

My only concern stems from the fact that although the minimum wage initiatives won “overwhelmingly,” they didn’t seem to have the intensity of the coattail effect the GOP claimed for the gay marriage initiatives last year, sweeping candidates in with them. Of course, this could be from conservatives over-attributing turnout to the “values” crowd; it’s hard to see how citizens could really care more about what’s going on in their neighbor’s bedroom than how much cash is in their wallets each pay period.

The Democrats are starting to wise up. The right has gotten very good at putting their “values” items, aka wedge issues, on the ballot to motivate their base. About fucking time our side got on that ball.

Posted by gans at 11:20 AM | TrackBack

Playback

An American blog, by David Gans