October 05, 2007

We have the right to know when the government lies - NYT's Torture Memo Investigation Response

This is really frightening. The press discovers the president's office has lied, again, about its use of torture (see here for a timeline of torture related events and news). They've been found out by the New York Times in a n October, 3, 2007 article which notes they continued to authorize certain extreme "interrogation" measures.

"It's troubling," Tony Fratto said Friday. "I've had the awful responsibility to have to work with The New York Times and other news organizations on stories that involve the release of classified information. And I can tell you that every time I've dealt with any of these stories, I have felt that we have chipped away at the safety and security of America with the publication of this kind of information."

What should be even more bothersome to people here is Fratto's response to "Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations" By SCOTT SHANE, DAVID JOHNSTON and JAMES RISEN. This is the stuff of fascist control of the press. The "war on terror" over and over again has had the same effect as the "war on drugs" - it doesn't work. We're no more safe and in fact the government's own reports have show us to be less safe.

The only "chipping away" going on here is on the rights and freedoms of the U.S.'s own citizens. They need to wake up and remove these bozos.

September 19, 2007

Democractizing Barry Bonds Questionnable Legacy

Today I came across this:



What can I say. I think it's a stroke of genius. Barry Bond's home run record reeks of baseball's debacle involving cheating using steroids. And he knows it. His response to Marc Ecko is telling. He calls him "stupid" and "an idiot" for spending a quarter of a million dollars and then letting fans decide three choices for the fate of the questionable No. 756 ball: 1) whether or not it belongs in the realm of true heroes (just send it to Cooperstown); 2) treat it a la The Scarlett Letter - forever branding it (nice permanent touch I might add) with a hot ironed-in "*" (asterisk) to denote the truly needed and neglected footnote to his supposed record, or 3) should we just be done with it (and him) and shoot the thing into space. I voted for the second option - no more garbage in space and the reminder should be here on earth that we can't seem to bring ourselves to hold Bonds, and so many others, accountable for cheating.

OK, sure, innocent until proven guilty. And Mark McGuire, and Floyd Landis in cycling doping, and, and, and... Ecko spent his money to turn a moral spotlight on Bond's cheating. And Bonds don't like that because all the doping in the world can't improve a body's sullied soul. And better still that fans will decide since clearly the sports press (standing right behind Michael Vick and his dogfighting for four years until he himself confessed - disgusting...) aren't about to turn on their darlings - for without their cheating they'd all be out of jobs too. Marc Ecko's done a daring, possibly even noble, social act. It's always ugly when someone calls you on it though.

September 18, 2007

Maryland Court Cherry-Picks Griswold v. Connecticut to Strike Down Deane and Polyak v. Conaway Challenge for Right to Marry in Maryland for LGBTs

Today another black eye to the LGBT community as Maryland's Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex couples don't have the right to marry in the state (read the entire published opinion here). The judges seem "infected" by the right-wing rhetoric of late that says that courts shouldn't be "activist judges" (and here is another piece which explores both the right and left politics of judicial activism, vs. restraint, found in the CSM), that these decisions are best off left to legislatures. This is of course bullshit. The courts are there to refine and interpret the darkened corners and idiosyncrasies of law as made BY legislatures. Their purpose is not to put on a show and then hand it back to legislators - in ANY democracy the legislature represents but a handful of those in the population. Courts are there to protect the invisible, the oppressed and the ignored.

But it is the cherry-picking of case law here that is also disturbing. The interpretation of Constitutional statutes is purposefully spineless on the court's part. The Court took a record period of time working on (delaying?) their decision and yet in the end their defense seems pitiful. This is from their decision:

"Looking beyond the fact that any inquiry into the ability or willingness of a couple actually to bear a child during marriage would violate the fundamental right to marital privacy recognized in Griswold, 381 U.S. at 484-86, 493, 85 S. Ct. at 1681, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation."

But then one ought look at the case then of Griswold v. Connecticut

I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, but this is "interesting", and if you read the Equality Maryland FAQs on the Deane and Polyak v. Conaway decision I have to agree that the court used the weakest and least demanding interpretation from this decision. Basically "Yeah the constitution says marriage is a right and marital privacy particularly, for sure, BUT it doesn’t say anywhere in it that it’s guaranteed to same sex people... So you're screwed." When, in court cases interpreting the constitutional veracity of an amendment, was it necessary to explicitly state all those who should be covered?

Then there is the actual opinions document of the judges on that case (Griswold v. Connecticut) that bears review.

The overall gist/point of the Griswold v. CT case is that CT had a law that out-lawed the use of contraceptives. The Court ruled it was unconstitutional since it violated the privacy of a married couple’s life – But what it is “cherry picked” here is that this was a case where married couples were choosing NOT to pro-create.

Wombs and Penises Need Only Apply

So back to Maryland in 2007 - 42 years after Griswold I might add - ...Given the Judge Harrell comment that benefits should be based on the “possibility” of procreation that the ruling finds that the state has an "interest in promoting procreation" - then what they are saying is that when people are getting married we need to be sure that they are man +plus+ woman in order to play out the the odds that he'll poke her (or in equal power footing she'll wrap her vagina around his penis, etc.) and that they might just get pregnant because it solidifies the state (supposedly) by encouraging the chance more people are born.

From a pure demographics point of view one could run with this... for a very short distance. So many other things are really in play here that makes this logic patently absurd (so shouldn't heterosexuals not be allowed to get divorced then? Isn't that a threat to the 'state'? And then the logic stands too that some ought be denied to heterosexual marriages when and given the possibility exists (and remember procreation possibility is the crux upon which this ruling stands) they will, or could, choose to enforceably ensure procreation could not happen by choosing to use contraceptives, for example.

Of course, this is absurd - and exactly the reason Griswold v. CT struck down the CT law in the first place. No one can control "procreation" possibilities in the bedroom, least of all the state intervening in the "bedroom" as such. And so what if LGBT get married... what threat is that to "procreating heteros" in the first place?! And given science etc. of the day gay and lesbian couples can procreate without marriage anyhow, as can straight couples - the whole point it moot. This is NOT an issue of sanctity of marriage. It is NOT an issue of promoting procreation (I can't even believe I'm wasting letters typing such an idiotic defense). This is an issue of CIVIL access to equal rights. Not one church can marry a person in the State of Maryland without a license from the State first. And no one would make them. The whole "sanctity" of heterosexual procreation possibility protection is ridiculous beyond the fray.


So no matter which way you cut it the Maryland Appeals Court decision is reprehensible. It cedes responsibility instead of forcing action (and do not mistake the court's comparison to be like that of other states - there is NO mandate that the legislature take this case up and develop non-discriminatory laws to redress the injustices LGBT persons face at every turn. Another red-herring sadly.) In the end LGBT couples are not only denied marriage, and this is important to point out, but also the most practical access to things like legal recourse in death of a partner (for example guaranteeing their will is administered as they and their partner agreed), hospital and health issues (benefits and rights of survivorship, decision making etc.) and so much more.

If the Court's decision was about making civil society persist then the rights to liberty must be extended to all. Not just those who might have a child one day. Inserting "Tab A" into "Slot B" does not civility make. To interpret it as such is to suggest biology rules the social world. Are we not eons away from such a medieval view. Clearly on the Maryland judicial bench the answer is "no".

July 17, 2007

NYT's David Brooks' Remarkablistickierest President Ever!!!



In David Brook's New York Times most recent op-ed delusion of reality he titles Heroes and History he claims that President Bush’s self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency.

Here's my take on Bush's most remarkable features, a top ten, if you will from most remarkable to least... and basically since David Brooks seems to feel Bush is some kind of hero for lying about a war, acquitting a guilty man, sneaking around Americans and spying on them, surrounding himself with thieves, liars and the like then perhaps most of these apply to him as well...

  1. Arrogance
  2. Ignorance
  3. Self-Importance/righteousness
  4. Stupidity
  5. Carelessness/Recklessness
  6. Communicative Idiocy
  7. Isolatedness
  8. Myopic Imperialism
  9. Criminality
  10. Desire to be all he can be to Daddy, not his country or its citizens.


Oh, and if I had to add an '11' it would be "Most Hated President" in the history of this country.

powered by performancing firefox

July 03, 2007

An open letter to Mayor Sheila Dixon, Baltimore MD - Your Commisioners "surprised" by Community Policing? FIRE THEM!!!

This letter was sent out June 23rd. Only Northern District Police bothered with an answer and sadly it was a "We know you're frustrated. We only do the policy given to us." Sad, ineffectual.

Helllloooooo??? Sheeeeiiillllaaaa???? Any body home? Or at least anybody home that might actually have a plan of action and is willing and gutsy enough to fire Hamm before the election? Or are you all more concerned about getting elected than stopping murders. Well "Girls" in the Mayor's House... congrats. You've proved you are exactly like the men your replaced. I'm disgusted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To:

Ms. Angela Fraser, Mayor's Office of Neighborhoods (and so Mayor Sheila Dixon), Baltimore
Ms. Mary Pat Clarke, District Councilperson, 14th District, Baltimore
Major Michael Pristoop, Northern District Police Command, Baltimore
Officer Douglas Gibson, Northern District Police Community liaison, Baltimore


Can you please provide any more information on the murder of George Wilson at the corner of Ellerslie and Gorsuch Streets June 22? Specifically motive? Criminal element involvement (deliberate or just “wrong place wrong time” - not that that makes **any** life more expendable). Are there any things we can be looking out for (a car, a description of a person etc.)

And what follows is an angry, frustrated citizen diatribe... But someone needs to say it since Hamm and Dixon seem oblivious to action and more concerned about elections....

Finally, and this is directed more perhaps to Major Pristoop, given what continues to be an escalation of events in the city, what is Northern doing in terms of deployment to solve this problem. This is the third murder within 3 blocks of our house in less than 2 years. Add to that multiple shootings and the violent nature of Better Waverly, while hardly rivaling worse off sections of the city, is hardly doing well.

Over and over again we have heard the drum beat of “community policing” and officers walking the “beat”. Not once in TWO YEARS have I EVER seen a police officer WALK down our street. But what’s really frightening is people like Commissioner Hamm’s (at least appearance of) a lack of leadership and putting the foot to the asses of people like detectives who want to be desk jockeys rather than put a face to police in the streets and then comments like those of Deputy Commissioner Fred Bealefeld on the Mark Steiner show last week (WYPR, NPR in Baltimore) . This is particularly disturbing to hear him show surprise that he “learned” so much from walking the beat in a neighborhood. He said, and I quote:

“I learned more... in those eight hours walking that foot post than I have learned in the past five months of all the Comstat processes we have.”

DUH!!!! I mean, oh my God – HOW out of touch can he, Hamm and all the others “at the top” with the reality of the streets that he is actually surprised by this. I wanted to FIRE HIM when he said it. It’s MIND BOGGLING that that could be such a surprise. And especially when residents have been clamoring for more police presence in terms of footpatrols and community policing for YEARS and all of a sudden there’s this “revelation” by the second in command that it’s useful. That’s sad. Very, very sad. And ridiculous. But worse still is the reluctance of people like Commissioner Hamm to see it through in an expedited fashion and to hold ALL of BPD responsible. And the same goes for Mayor Dixon (Ms. Fraser I hope you’ll share this with her – as a resident I’m am so tired of hearing “the communities need to help solve the problem”. NO. We’ve done enough. She needs to LEAD, not put it off onto communities because it’s an election year. So if Comm. Hamm isn’t going to make it happen, and Mayor Dixon won’t make the detectives walk, or permit the filling of vacant positions, then who will?

To drive the point home one more sad comment on where we really stand on this whole issue: Bealefeld shared another sad comment – he prefaced his experience of “walking foot post” with the meeting of a woman that he stopped and engaged and she said to him “Do you know who you’re talking to – I’m the mother of the young man who was murdered - I’m the reason you’re here”. I can’t think of policing going more sad than that. Only after the fact do the uppers in command come to understand that community policing is the thing (NOT helicopters and pod cameras, the latter he also admits are a stain on communities – though I believe they can be of interim usefulness myself).

Please let us know what we can do to make your case to the City to get what you need. Dixon’s mantra of “community involvement” is only half the answer – and we’re already doing more than enough – please don’t have to show up in our neighborhood because someone was murdered here, meeting someone who’s the mother or father, sister, brother or uncle of some murdered child. Please help us help you get the pressures on the people that are going to get community policing ACTUALLY happening NOW – not six months from now (it’s already been six months since this steady increase in crime has begun).

Detroit they were saying in the same or earlier show has basically given up. Accepted crime and killing as part of daily life. And I remember when 8 years ago I lived in Ann Arbor, outside Detroit, safely sequestered away, much like those here in Roland Park, Federal Hill, and Baltimore County, that it was horrifying that people could get so blasé about killing. Reactions and inactions like those of Hamm and comments like those from Bealefeld tell me we’re well on the way to exhaustion and acceptance. But the citizens are not ready to accept this yet. Please GET ON THE STREET. I know I’m preaching much to the choir perhaps so let the members in the pews know what the choir needs to raise the volume and drive the devil out.

July 02, 2007

Commuting the last faith remaining in this current White House

The day I heard Libby was going to jail I was driving my car and admittedly let out a whoop. I, like many people, agreed that finally someone was going to receive some justice for the whole "yellow cake" Valerie Plame affair. And recall... the judge stated his deliberation time, though long, had nothing to do with his doubt that Libby was guilty. No, the evidence was incontrovertible.

So the long pause was to determine what would be an appropriate sentence. So a ruminating court, finding someone guilty, lying about their role, perjuring themselves in court, and all about the heart of a cover up of national security debacle, felt a 2 year plus sentence was in order. Enter "The Decider":

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

In one fell swoop Bush basically bitchslapped (not my favorite expression but seems appropriately offensive here and abrasive) the entire justice system, the American Public, Plame and anyone else who dares turn the light of truth onto their fucked up, insular "realities".

To call Bush's move "stunning", as the Press has done, is actually doing more of what the press said it was going to stop doing - uncritically looking at his Presidency and not holding his feet to the fire when necessary. Why are people "stunned". We all knew he would do this - why didn't "you all". Why doesn't the press say what really just happened:

BUSH FUCKS AMERICAN PUBLIC AND JUSTICE SYSTEM ONE MORE TIME - SMILES WHILE DOING IT

and perhaps this byline?

PRESS REPORTS ITSELF AS 'STUNNED' LATER RETRACTS AND SAYS "WE'RE JUST STUNNED" AS IN STUPID, UNABLE TO REPORT TRUTH.

Well maybe the press will be less stunned (I personally doubt it) when they start reporting that the White House is blocking access to Cheney for his subpoenas. We're already there.

The faith in this White House doing anything remotely stinking of telling the truth or serving justice when they've been caught with their pants down: "Oh, look! We do seem to have those emails you asked for on the back up server" (NB - DUH!) "But we're not going to give them to Congress or the Senate - we're not really part of the "Executive Office". Seems Libby was executive enough that Bush sat waiting for the appeals verdict so he could commute Libby's sentence. Hell, the White House didn't give that much attention (and still doesn't) to Katrina Hurricane victims. They are eviscerated and empty souls that sit at Pennsylvania Avenue......

June 28, 2007

Justice Clarence Thomas and the Conservative's 'Colorblind Constitution'

In today's decision the Supreme Court struck down the ability of schools to limit diversity among student ranks on the basis of race. While the issue of diversity and equality is a difficult path to navigate this quote from Justice Clarence Thomas, the bench's only African American judge, is most disturbing:

"What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today," Thomas said. "The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students' race. Because 'our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,' such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional."

To suggest that the Constitution is "colorblind" is absurd. The refusal of current historians, academicians and others to admit the power of race that was built into this document is folly. A folly that continues to be played out some 130 years later. Archaeological digs at Philadelphia put into perspective the reality of George Washington keeping slaves at the home of the president and continue to call into question his practices of scooting them in an out of the state every six months just so he could stay within the "legality" of keeping them indefinitely (it was long since illegal to keep slaves, unless you removed them from state lines before the six month period had passed). And then there's Jefferson mistress, Sally Hemings. From CNN to others it has been bantered about as to whether or not it is "true" that Jefferson fathered Sally Hemming's children but the Thomas Jefferson Foundation itself reported "that the weight of all known evidence - from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data - indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children". Yet others then mounted challenges against this "disgrace" because, of course the architects of the Constitution too must be color-blind in our eyes.

To have them, the architects of the Constitution, as slave holders, as oppressors of individual freedom of course runs counter to core purposes of the country and its ideals. But the Constitution was written by people who owned slaves, who were not permitted their freedoms - and "on purpose" since it would have financially ruined many, likely. At what point do/will people like Thomas admit this reality, that the Constitution is FLAWED in many respects. It can be revisited and should be re-interpreted with an eye to the reality of the day that casts forward the truth of our reality today. But Clarence has too much to lose... just ask Anita Hill what it's like to live in the world of his blind idiocy. And so the fragile fiction continues - but choose to know the whole story - not what the conservers of power want you to believe. Colorblindness is only a convenience, exercised at once to preserve white power (and I'm a white guy) but the glasses come off when it comes to terrorism, or crime don't you know it....

June 21, 2007

Operating Under the Law? Cheney's Dream Prison of Guantanamo Bay



Today the AP wire runs the story "White House near decision to close Gitmo" by Matthew Lee.

In it the expected tormented White House is progressively (if there was ever an anachronism it has to be "White House" and "progress" in the same sentence) being forced into the reality of accepting this hell hole should be shut down if they country is to retain any semblance of respect by its international neighbors when it comes to issues of international justice.

But lurking in the background is this observation:
  • "Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been dead set against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights."


And while Cheney hasn't said as much lately let's face it, 'Dick' (if there ever was a better double entendre....) hasn't likely changed his tune. Nor has Dubya. Cheney's argument is simple since they're "unlawful" they don't deserve rights. Fine. But you can't extend that argument to your own prosecutorial practices - you don't get to say "Since they're unlawful then we should be about to operate outside our own legal framework to detain them, interrogate and prosecute them." Just because Gitmo's closing maybe doesn't change the hypocrisy of the Office of the Attorney General and the manipulation of the current Justice Department mechanisms to suit a few people on Pennsylvania Avenue.

powered by performancing firefox

May 15, 2007

Baltimore (NON) Opportunity Summit 2007 - Pimping Out Citizens

This past weekend the City of Baltimore and Safe and Sound, a non-profit community organizing group, hosted the Baltimore Opportunity Summit at the city's convention center.

  • "The goal of the Baltimore Opportunity Summit is to empower Baltimoreans with the knowledge that they can revolutionize the way we spend our public money and increase investments in opportunities so all Baltimoreans have a real chance to grow up safe and healthy."
That's all well and fine... but was that what it was all about? Not really.

Let me first say that I applaud the intent - the intent to educate, to inform to even infuriate residents that they are not being treated in a way that any human being should be treated. BUT....

The summit was really the City of Baltimore using its citizens as drum beaters to get State funding approved and maintained. Now is that all bad? No - citizenry should be informed and outraged when Annapolis lets their city rot. But should Mayor Sheila Dixon use the summit and her residents as tools, sticks to beat Annapolis and Governor O'Malley to demand what she, as the elected leader and spokeperson of the people, ought already be saying to them? No. This is politicking plain an simple.

Banners and information were posted and made glossy and beautiful in a car crash kind of way. Empty buildings, poor folk. Statistics were rampant and pointed. Tragic numbers. Contrasted with smiling children, happy elders and green trees they told the story of what "could be". They and told people how much rehab costs less than incarceration, how education was the tool to empowerment... ad nauseum. And at the end of this "tunnel of oppression" was the gloried solution - a straw vote that asked residents to complete a ballot that asked Annapolis to continue funding somethings and to add additional funding to seed future change.

This is one huge "DUH". And it is made without forethought - indeed even irresponsibly so - without addressing where Annapolis will get those funds from, and it only comes now when we all know full well we're, like the rest of the state, on the financial chopping block. In Mayor Dixon's recent anti-gun brouhaha, "tables of guns" were paraded about to show just how many guns there are in Baltimore (another DUH - Mark Steiner mentioned the other day that guns are ambient in Baltimore like air - we already know they're here what are you doing to do about them) and in this case the same thing was done with Citizens. The caring citizens were used, and paraded about as pawns for the City's case for maintained and increased funding. Why because, in an election year Dixon doesn't want to come across too pushy. And let's face it Baltimore's management of everything from public works to schools to rehabilitation services has been less then stellar. So since they won't believe City Hall maybe they'll listen to desperate citizens?

The reality is that Dixon, and she's taken on O'Malley's mantle of problems, have deputized and pimped out their own citizens to do the work a city ought already be doing. Baltimore no doubt has some of the most engaged citizenry in the nation - from community action groups, child welfare, poverty, housing and health interventions, arts enhancements you name it. But these are wrongly identified only as strengths while ignoring they are also responses to a failed public services administration - one which fails to serve its citizens in the most basic ways at times. So much so that citizens have had to take on those responsibilities or flounder in their own despair.

I put the call out then to Baltimore City Hall, particularly Mayor Dixon, to Stop asking citizens to do more. Instead city officials should stand up and do that which they are paid and elected to do: to lead. Stop deputizing citizens and cease the incessant drum beat asking for "more community involvement" to solve problem your offices are already supposed to be working on but, frankly, don't. And It's time City Hall took the heat when they take the stand on an issue Stop using citizens as your front line response team, your political buffer. Whether against mini-bikes, assassinations (calling them murders is a misnomer if there ever was one), drugs, filth and trash, greening (as tree "stewards" again citizens are pimped out) and so much more you need to take a stand. Support the police, the courts (with and under due diligence, not some carte blanche fascism either).

Stop putting it back on "us" to do your job... Last time I checked I put in many hours for the City, my neighborhood, the trees, the kids, I picked up trash, called in stolen autos - all after I got home from my "other" job. But no paycheck appeared in my mail box for this work. Perhaps if we're going to be doing even more Sheila won't have a problem sharing her check with us. In the meantime summits are only political peaks scaled by the citizens doing all the work but the mountains being named after the politicians.



powered by performancing firefox

The Wolf(owitz) Guarding the Chickens? Farmer Condi Rice doesn't think so...




How are we honestly supposed to believe anything that comes out of the White House when comments like "It seems to me that what happened there, as he said, he made some mistakes but it doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that you would want to see the dismissal of a World Bank president over," come out of Condelezza Rice's mouth in support of the beneficial, and found unethical, treatment of Wolfowitz' girlfriend. So what is the "kind of thing" one gets fired for? Firing attorneys without reason but political gain? Uh, no. Lying about WMDs so you can go to war? Uh, no. Lying to make sure Dick doesn't go to jail? - Oh, actually that one will get you in trouble.

This kind of Alice in Wonderland appraisal of Wolfowitz' actions tells one just how far the current Bush administration is willing to go in order to live in their own little world - a world where reality, never mind simple logic - never intrudes or when it does it's poo-pooed away.

It is, contrary to White House spokesman Tony Snow's fractured reality view that it is not "firing offense" it is. When other CEOs give perks to employees based on nepotism especially when acting as the de facto figurehead of that organization they are more than likely to be fired. It's paramount as part of the ability to trust that organization. Lower folk who commit stupid acts, sure. Slap them on the wrist. Do they affect our ability to trust that organization as much? Surely not. Do those at the top realize that they must act above reproach in all dealings - a helluva a lot more than the plebes at the water cooler every morning. And let's say for the moment Wolfie didn't know better... Well Wolfowitz is hardly immune from understanding public policy gaffes and image management following his Iraq foreign policy garbage. Fire him.

powered by performancing firefox

Immoral Majority is Less "Major" Today...That's a good thing


There are I think very rare times in my life when the passing of some one from this planet brings me relief. But with the death of Jerry Falwell today I can only say "good riddance". There have been few bigoted persons that can compare with Falwell. I challenge any "Christian" to show me how he adhered to the word and spirit of God - any god of spiritual following for that matter - in a way that's meaningful, empathetic and in keeping with the ideals of love, forgiveness and brother/sisterhood. If there's a hell he's on the way to it in a basket... Assuming "someone" didn't give him an express ticket...

powered by performancing firefox

April 18, 2007

The Court Jesters - Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abotion Ban

Looking beyond what you consider to be the morality of the question of abortion for a moment, since it is the white hot center that often burns the recognition of the fact of the matter at stake here is how we do law in this country, not "what's right", then what does today's Supreme Court decision upholding "partial birth abortion" (a bullshit propagandistic misnomer if there ever was one) say about the country we want to live in?

What does it say when what really what happened was Sandra Day O’Connor steps down from the court and the White House chooses/delivers two clearly anti-abortion judges to that court, a White House pushs a moralsided version of the question into the Supreme Court (and pushed is more than kind rendition of what happened), and then in their decision they more or less toss aside 30 years of legal precedent (not moral, legal). Is the argument Bader-Ginsburg is making “legitimate”? I think yes.

It's a sad sad day for LAW in this country. Not just women's rights. But this is keeping with a White House that tramples law, disregards it, makes up where and when need be, filter, choosing, ignoring, manipulating it. Secretizes it. Gonzales. Wolfowitz ( "Bush has full confidence in Wolfowitz") . Rumsfeld. Rove. Cheney. Libby. I mean crap... these are jsut what come to mind off the top of my head... Oh yeah, that whole "habeus corpus" thing too. Oh... and "rendition". I've not seen such a morally corrupt, yet more morally self-righteous clan of hooligans in my life.

And PLEASE, try to step away from a “knee-jerk reaction” of “It’s a woman’s right” or “Fetuses are people too” - these issues are embedded in this decision yes, but by having the lasers of our opposing and bifurcated ideas on the issue focused on annihilating one another it obscures the issue of how the code of law of precedent was supposed to shape their decision on this matter. This is White House bait and switch in classic style.

And it makes you want to crawl into the outwardly collected and almost debonair stylings of Robert's or Alito's perhaps less savvy self and ask "How the fuck did you reconcile this little "detail" about precedence in your decision making?". For the women in my world and the world in general (since the U.S. insists on foisting its morality through everything including foreign policy, health and development dollars through some idealistic moral morass of sexual politicking as "help") I wear black tomorrow. I mourn the loss of their rights. I mourn the loss of the publics' control of their courts.

Look far enough down their throats of those new justices and you'll see the hands of one man shoved so far up their political hemmoroidic assholes as they are used like puppets. And this one man only - speaking from his moral high horse - is not the moral savior of this country, nor is he being a representative of the people but rather being his own perceptions and righteous indignation in selfish action. This remember is the same person that applauds this decision remember but does nothing about the sanctity of life lost at Blacksburg, VA at Virginia Tech. What's wrong with this picture? Welcome to your puppet democracy. Pinnochio had more freedom....The Tin Man more heart, the lion more courage - and without a doubt the scarecrow, more brains.