Braganza

Buzzing Off

George Upisdown Bush claims that the torture memos actually prescribe humane treatment. More recently he threw a tantrum because an impudent Irish reporter had the audacity to be persistant and skeptical in her questioning of the boy king.

Dick Bigtime Major League Asshole Cheney blew a gasket under pressure of the Plame investigation, falling poll numbers, and Halliburton criticism. The mature half of the adminstration that was going to change Washington's tone told mean Pat Leahy to attempt autosynthesis.

Ralph Unsafe On Any Ballot Nader advised his opponent, John Kerry, on who his VP should be, and also counseled Michael Moore to lose weight (evidently that huge bite he took out of the Bush administration was mighty fattening). St. Ralph was supported by a Republican group in his effort to make mischief on the Oregon ballot, but was snubbed by the Greens after he snubbed them and poached one their leaders.

Days away from sovereignty July, freedom-hating Iraqi thugs increasingly express their displeasure over being liberated.

So much going on, and yet . . . I have so little to say. Seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 Friday night and being unable to write about it afterward convinced me that my circuits have been overloaded with outrage.

Like the recently departed Brood X cicada horde, I'm all buzzed out. In addition to scattered exoskeletons, the only sign that the Brood X billions were ever here are wounded trees such as this young oak (click to enlarge):

The female cicada cut notches into tender branches to lay their eggs. The notches often cause new growth to snap and die (though rarely enough to doom even a sapling). Once they hatch, the cicada larvae fall to the ground and tunnel under, where they remain for 17 years. I've fallen, and feel the need to tunnel under, but I'm pretty confident I'll be back a lot sooner than 2021. If things go as expected, my own progeny will be arriving on or about August 11th. Perhaps soon thereafter I'll re-emerge.

More Than a Bucket of Warm Spit

Atrios contends that John Kerry's choice for VP doesn't really matter as long as that person increases the chances of ousting Dubya.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that who cares of Kerry picks Zell Miller as his running mate (not that he will)? The VP has little real power, and if the media reports say "Kerry VP choice designed to appeal to moderates," well, then, maybe it'll work. This is an election -- who cares if Kerry is currently trying to appeal to you or whichever block of voters you imagine you're representative of. It doesn't matter. He needs to appeal roughly 50%+ of the country, depending on the geographic vote distribution. We all should be smart enough to realize that what really matters is a) that he gets elected and then b) what he does once he's elected.

While ending the Bush nightmare is clearly the most important objective, it is not the only objective. The end does not justify any and all means. Kerry picking a DINO like Zell or an actual Republican like McCain (assuming the Arizona Senator were to change his mind about accepting that offer) would matter for three reasons:

1. In the event that Kerry is struck down by a terrorist attack, by a right wing assassin, or by the re-occurrence of cancer, the VP is of course next in line. I'm pretty sure Atrios and a large majority of those people who will vote for Kerry would not be happy with a President Zell Miller, or even a President McCain.
2. Cheney has painfully demonstrated how influential a VP can be. Even if the hypothetical conservative VP was largely excluded by Kerry from policy, he or she could still make mischief.
3. Symbols matter. Kerry can appeal to some moderates without alienating his base. Kerry's biggest asset is the Democratic base, strongly motivated and unified (at least by Democratic standards) by the outrageous conduct of the Bush administration. The last thing Kerry should do is to throw water on his fire by picking another Joe Lieberman. By picking Camejo as his VP, Nader has signaled that he's not likely to go quietly and could again play the spoiler role, especially if Kerry tilts too far to the right.

Cheney Blames Lazy Reporters

What staggering chutzpah:

Blaming what he called "lazy" reporters for blurring the distinction, Vice President Dick Cheney said that while "overwhelming" evidence shows a past relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Bush administration never accused Saddam of helping with the Sept. 11 attacks.

Of course, the bitter truth about this statement is that because of media laziness (as well as fear of criticism) Cheney and other hawks were able to blur the distinction between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In the public's eye, Osama bin Laden morphed into Saddam Hussein.

"The press is, with all due respect there are exceptions, often times lazy, often simply reports what someone else in the press says without doing their homework," Cheney said.

Oh, that hurts. Substitute "in the administration" for "else in the press" and the rest of the story is revealed. If I were a Big Media reporter, I would take this personally. Cheney to press: "Fools! I used you like the cheap whores that you are!"

He hardly treats the 9/11 commission much better, selectively using their findings to suggest "overwhelming evidence" and then sticking it to them:

"I don't know what they know," Cheney said of the commission, adding however that he "probably" knows more about Saddam and al-Qaida than the panel.

Shouldn't that beg the question why? Shouldn't the Commission have access to any piece of information that Cheney is aware of that is related to possible ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? If I were a commission member, I'd take this personally. Cheney to 9/11 Commission: "Idiots! You don't have a need to know!"

But Cheney declined to disagree outright with the report's conclusion that no evidence exists to connect Saddam to Sept. 11 — saying instead that, "I disagree with the way their findings have been portrayed. There has been enormous confusion."

Or at least Cheney hopes that the lazy press and the masses will just throw their hands up in the air in uncertainty, resume having uncritical faith in Dear Leader, and stay the course in November.

Senior members of the commission seemed eager to minimize any disagreement with the White House.

Why? What deal was made?

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the Democratic vice chairman of the panel, said media reports of a conflict between the administration and the commission were “not that apparent to me.”

Hamilton to Cheney: "Oh, yeeeaaaaah, big daddy, make it hurt gooooodddd. Give me more, Dick!" (Or should that last comma be ommited?)

This latest chapter in this sordid story reminds me of the global warming tragedy of the past several years, with the Commission playing the role of the scientific community. The Commission/scientists earnestly report all the facts. Although they tend to point toward likely truths, some of the data seem to conflict and as a whole present a complex picture from which it is hard to draw unassailable conclusions. The adminstration cherry-picks and highlights data that indicate uncertainty or otherwise support their political agenda. One major flaw in this analogy is that while scientists are far from immune from political influence, the Commission's conduct and findings are clearly under much greater political pressure.

Sweet Defeat

Schadenfreude is such a guilty pleasure. Intuitively, I know it's bad karma to take delight in the failure of the Other. But nonetheless it's a vice I've long indulged in when it comes to sports and politics.

I've kept quiet about the Pistons/Lakers series because my basketball soothsaying has been lousy and because I didn't want to jinx Detroit. Plus, prior to the first game, I saw little chance that the Pistons could prevent the loathsome Lakers from winning the championship. I didn't think Detroit's defense would be as effective against the one-two punch of Shaq and Kobe and the occasional three pointer or freak shot from one of the supporting cast as they had been against Eastern Conference teams. I also thought Rip Hamilton would wilt going up against Bryant.

I can't remember the last time it was so good to be wrong. Watching the Pistons Team consistently outplay L.A's two stars, two has-beens, and sundry mediocrities has been delectable, particularly last night's thorough rout.

Of course, on the night of November 2nd I expect to experience much greater shadenfreude, as George W. Bush and his fellow rightwing radicals go down in flames.

Supremes Punt on Pledge

While not surprised, I'm still disappointed that the Supreme Court hid behind a technicality to avoid ruling on the constitionality of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

At least for now, the decision -- which came on Flag Day -- leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.

That's somewhat misleading, since the eight were actually split into two camps -- Rehnquist, with O'Connor and Thomas in concurrence, wrote a separate opinion stating that including "under God" in the Pledge was not unconstitional. (Scalia had recused himself, as I noted in this post.) Stevens wrote the lame majority opinion:

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."

As if the relatioship between Newdow, his daughter and his ex-wife should have any bearing on this issue. Besides, how is the Supreme Court staying "its hand" by overturning the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling in favor of Newdow?

Politically, this ruling was probably what John Kerry and most establishment Democrats wanted, as it deprives the right wing of what certainly would have been a potent piece of demagoguery. However, no matter how much Kerry would like to avoid a religious fight, he can't. The weakness of the wall between church and state is already encouraging the GOP to raise money in churches and for Bush to complain to the Vatican that the Church isn't political enough.

To quote the religious extremist currently occupying the White House: "Bring it on." This is a battle that needs to be fought. Yes, America is more conservative and religious than most of Europe. But America is not as God fearin' as right wingers and their media handmaidens would have us believe. Christianity is the dominant religion in America, but that doesn't mean that America is a "Christian nation." For those who disagree, I must ask, what form? Protestant, because they outnumber Catholics? Baptist, because they outnumber Lutherans? To say any one denomination is more representative of America than the others would be to place a small minority above the majority, while simply to say that America is a "Christian nation" ignores the vast variation among the huge assemblage of belief systems that are considered part of Christianity. Early settlers came to America to escape religious persecution. Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were deists, which is one step away from agnosticism in terms of not practicing religion. Religious freedom is one of the most liberal of beliefs, and it's past time for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party to assert itself and to proudly re-affirm the separation of church and state. As Michael Newdow said during his stiring argument before the Court back in March:

"There's a principle here, and I'm hoping the court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all."

The opportunity was ripe. With Scalia out of the picture, a mere 4-4 split would have enabled the lower court's decision to stand. Despite the likely torrents of bombast from the right wing, that would simply mean that the Pledge of Allegiance would be restored to it's pre-1954 state. Now, Newdow and the rest of America will have to wait for the inevitable follow-up case to make it to the highest level. But by then, it's quite possible that conservatives will have a stronger hold on the Supreme Court.