For Dems only.

[Soxy]

Hope this doesn't make some people too angry I wouldn't want them to think I don't approve of President Bush in the sight of torture or anything. . . from notorious hothead Garrison Keiler. . .

 

Link

 

What to do when the emperor has no clothes

 

Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services

Published March 1, 2006

 

These are troubling times for all of us who love this country, as surely we all do, even the satirists. You may poke fun at your mother, but if she is belittled by others it burns your bacon. A blowhard French journalist writes a book about America that is full of arrogant stupidity, and you want to let the air out of him and mail him home flat. And then you read the paper and realize the country is led by a man who isn't paying attention, and you hope that somebody will poke him. Or put a sign on his desk that says, "Try much harder."

 

Do we need to impeach him to bring some focus to this man's life? The Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker carries an article by Jane Mayer about a loyal conservative Republican and U.S. Navy lawyer, Albert Mora, and his resistance to the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. From within the Pentagon bureaucracy, he did battle against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and John Yoo, who then was at the Justice Department, and shadowy figures taking orders from Vice President Dick "Gunner" Cheney, arguing America had ratified the Geneva Convention that forbids cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners, and so it has the force of law. They seemed to be arguing that President Bush has the right to order prisoners to be tortured.

 

One such prisoner, Mohamed al-Qahtani, was held naked in isolation under bright lights for months, threatened by dogs, subjected to unbearable noise volumes and otherwise abused, so that he begged to be allowed to kill himself. When the Senate approved the Torture Convention in 1994, it defined torture as an act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering."

 

Is the law a law or is it a piece of toast?

 

Wiretap surveillance of Americans without a warrant? Great. Go for it. How about turning over American ports to a country more closely tied to Sept. 11, 2001, than Saddam Hussein was? Fine by me. No problem. And what about the war in Iraq? Hey, you're doing a heck of a job. No need to tweak a thing. And your blue button-down shirt--it's you.

 

But torture is something else. Most people agree with this, and in a democracy that puts the torturers in a delicate position. They must make sure to destroy their e-mails and have subordinates who will take the fall. Because it is impossible to keep torture secret. It goes against the American grain and it eats at the conscience of even the most disciplined, and in the end the truth will come out. It is coming out now.

 

Our adventure in Iraq, at a cost of billions, has brought that country to the verge of civil war while earning us more enemies than ever before. And tax money earmarked for security is being dumped into pork-barrel projects anywhere somebody wants their own SWAT team. Detonation of a nuclear bomb within our borders--pick any big city--is a real possibility, as much so now as five years ago. Meanwhile, many Democrats have conceded the very subject of security and positioned themselves as Guardians of Our Forests and Benefactors of Waifs and Owls, neglecting the most basic job of government, which is to defend this country. The peaceful lagoon that is the White House is designed for the comfort of a vulnerable man. Perfectly understandable, but not what is needed now. The U.S. Constitution provides a simple, ultimate way to hold him to account for war crimes and the failure to attend to the country's defense. Impeach him and let the Senate hear the evidence.

[FlaSoxxJim]

As usual, well reasoned opinions issued from the shores of good old Lake Woebegone.

[Balta1701]

The Associated Press reported today Dobson received a six-paragraph personal note from Alito. In the letter, Alito thanked Dobson for backing his nomination to the Supreme Court.

 

Read the note, “This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.”

 

Alito went on to write, “As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me” and expressed his desire for a personal meeting with Dobson.

That's justice Samuel Alito, writing to James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family.

[Texsox]

That's justice Samuel Alito, writing to James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family.

 

I don't have a problem with that at all. His positions are well known, and they fall in the Focus on the Family beliefs.

[Balta1701]

I don't have a problem with that at all. His positions are well known, and they fall in the Focus on the Family beliefs.

Whether or not it bothers you...it could be a pretty good indication of how he'll vote on a lot of things.

Edited March 1, 2006 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

Whether or not it bothers you...it could be a pretty good indication of how he'll vote on a lot of things.

 

Again, no surprise, he's a religious conservative. Our Constitution allows for the President to nominate and the Legistlative Branch to confirm. As luck would have it, it was an easy path for a conservative. We have checks and balances, and when too much power is centered with one party, voters will swing the pendulum back if they are unhappy.

 

I don't agree with the Judge on many issues, but I'll defend his right to hold them, his confirmation, and our Constitution.

[Rex Kickass]

As usual, well reasoned opinions issued from the shores of good old Lake Woebegone.

 

Except when he writes, its hard to figure out when to "chortle" appropriately.

[Balta1701]

I just couldn't bring myself to post this in the "For GOP Only" thread no matter how wrong Their numbers are or how many times Kap or Yasny have shown up here. So I'm posting how wrong they are here. It seems someone got the "It's more dangerous to be in Washington D.C. than in Iraq" email.

 

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

 

The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000.

 

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Of course, these numbers are totally wrong. First of all, they're wrong on the Washington D.C. firearm death rate. In 2004, there were 192 murders in that city. In 2005, there were 185. It's highest ever was 482 murders in 1 year, back in 1991. That is for a population of roughly 550,000, according to the U.S. census bureau. Link

 

So, if you break it down, in the worst year, that gives you a number slightly higher than 80 murders per year per hundred thousand inhabitants in D.C.

 

Of course, in Iraq, there have been 2297 fatalities among U.S. soldiers (the email he got was out of date clearly). That is over roughly 36 months at this point, since the war was launched in March of 03. So that averages out to about 750 fatalities per year, and with 150,000 troops, that translates to about 500 fatalities per year per hundred thousand troops. In other words, in the worst year in D.C.'s murder history, there were basically as many deaths for a population of 550,000 as is currently seen among about 100,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Balta1701

[longshot7]

Again, no surprise, he's a religious conservative. Our Constitution allows for the President to nominate and the Legistlative Branch to confirm. As luck would have it, it was an easy path for a conservative.  We have checks and balances, and when too much power is centered with one party, voters will swing the pendulum back if they are unhappy.

 

I don't agree with the Judge on many issues, but I'll defend his right to hold them, his confirmation, and our Constitution.

 

Except that our Executive Branch doesn't seem to believe in those checks and balances.

[Balta1701]

Things that can get your name on Homeland Security's lists: Making Too High of a payment on your credit cards.

[Balta1701]

WSJ: The deparment of homeland security doesn't have the ability to create mass email lists. (Scroll down the page).

[NorthSideSox72]

Things that can get your name on Homeland Security's lists:  Making Too High of a payment on your credit cards.

Yikes.

 

If this is legitimate (not saying its not, just placing the caveat), then this doesn't belong in the Dems Only thread - it belongs in the Americans Only thread. Or perhaps the Get Your Damn Government Out of My Business Only thread.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yikes.

 

If this is legitimate (not saying its not, just placing the caveat), then this doesn't belong in the Dems Only thread - it belongs in the Americans Only thread.  Or perhaps the Get Your Damn Government Out of My Business Only thread.

You'd think so, but 1/2 of Americans don't care. The bedwetting wingnuts have been hiding under their beds since 9-11, letting the administration operate unchecked and unquestioned in the name of national security, and continue to think nothing of the erosion of our civil liberties.

[kapkomet]

You'd think so, but 1/2 of Americans don't care.  The bedwetting wingnuts have been hiding under their beds since 9-11, letting the administration operate unchecked and unquestioned in the name of national security, and continue to think nothing of the erosion of our civil liberties.

*sigh*

[FlaSoxxJim]

*sigh*

 

Good to see you, fellow Dem. Yep, I know better than to call the bedwetters bedwetters out in the hostile threads. And I'm thankful I can do it here among the like-minded.

 

*sigh*

[NorthSideSox72]

You'd think so, but 1/2 of Americans don't care.  The bedwetting wingnuts have been hiding under their beds since 9-11, letting the administration operate unchecked and unquestioned in the name of national security, and continue to think nothing of the erosion of our civil liberties.

I do agree that many Americans are ignorant of such things, and that does make me sad. And there are some wingers who support this administration without exception.

 

But I think maybe it might be a bit extreme to say half of Americans could care less about civil liberties. I do see some GOP'ers trying to keep the Patriot Act under control, and calling out the Administration and various agencies for their transgressions. I think this is a problem surrounding your first statement - ignorance among the vast majority of the populus regarding the Constitution, the law and the importance of keeping the government's powers in check, even in times of difficulty. This is not a party-specific problem, even though GWB happens to be a Republican. We should all be gravely concerned when such intrusions are allowed to take place.

[FlaSoxxJim]

We should all be gravely concerned when such intrusions are allowed to take place.

 

Yes we all should. But not all of us are.

 

We should also be gravely concerned that the GOP House is working hard on the "oversight" side of the domestic spying program by trying to 'fix FISA' instead of actually looking into the legality of the program as it currently stands. But not all of us are.

 

It's gotten to the point that it's not worth even posting any administration-critical viewpoints outside of the Only thread because it's just seen as piling on the poor maligned president.

 

Off topic but not really. There have been a couple of absolutely alarming global warming revalations in the past two weeks that a year ago I would have been all over, posting them here because I assumed people would want to know what the current findings are. Now I don't even bother, because of course it's not seen as me being a little upset that I've made the mistake of bringing children into a planet doomed by human excess and short-sightedness. No, it would just be seen as piling on and bashing BushCo policy.

 

How urging people to work to forestall the destruction of the only home we have has now come to be construed as a political thing I'll never understand.

[Balta1701]

Fafblog may very well have reached a new level of fafblogginess with this one.

 

Q. Why are we in Iraq?

A. Terror! By occupying Iraq we get Iraqis to fight us there so they won’t fight us at home.

Q. We’ve cleverly lured them to where they already were, only in terrorist form!

A. Now you’re catching on!

Q. What if we can’t kill all the terrorists in Iraq?

A. Then we’ll invade somewhere else and trick ‘em into attacking us there – only this time it’ll be someplace really far away where they’ll get stuck, like the ocean or the moon!

Q. I would totally watch Operation: Lunar Justice live on CNN!

A. Wolf Blitzer in a space helmet… it writes itself!

Q. There are more terrorists now than before the war. Is the occupation causing more terror?

A. Well, nobody can say for sure if that’s a man-made terror increase. It may just be a periodic shift in the natural terror cycle.

Q. Tell me more about this “not our fault” theory – I find it oddly compelling.

A. Like weather, terror is affected by seasonal fluctuations. The jet stream carries hijackers from continent to continent; El Niño causes suicide bombers to condense in the upper atmosphere. Is this affected by human activity or just part of a natural warming trend for terror? We just don’t know!

Q. Your ideas are boldly nonconformist, yet conveniently reaffirm my desire to do nothing. I like it!

(More at link)

[FlaSoxxJim]

Fafblog may very well have reached a new level of fafblogginess with this one.

 

  (More at link)

*sigh*

Edited March 3, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes we all should.  But not all of us are.

 

We should also be gravely concerned that the GOP House is working hard on the "oversight" side of the domestic spying program by trying to 'fix FISA' instead of actually looking into the legality of the program as it currently stands.  But not all of us are.

 

It's gotten to the point that it's not worth even posting any administration-critical viewpoints outside of the Only thread because it's just seen as piling on the poor maligned president.

 

Off topic but not really. There have been a couple of absolutely alarming global warming revalations in the past two weeks that a year ago I would have been all over, posting them here because I assumed people would want to know what the current findings are.  Now I don't even bother, because of course it's not seen as me being a little upset that I've made the mistake of bringing children into a planet doomed by human excess and short-sightedness.  No, it would just be seen as piling on and bashing BushCo policy.

 

How urging people to work to forestall the destruction of the only home we have has now come to be construed as a political thing I'll never understand.

 

I do agree that the current GOP administration and Congressional powers are pretty out of hand on many issues, including invasion or privacy. And hey, feel free to point out flaws, man. There are many.

 

If you have links to Global Warming stuff, start a thread. Environmental issues are hot-button for me. I think both parties, though more the GOP, have given the Environment the cold shoulder for a few decades now (ignoring global warning and pollution effects, destroying open space, ignoring alternative fuel sources wholesale). It never ceases to amaze me how much we abuse our planet, and then the poltical powers that be are repeatedly surprised when there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[kapkomet]

*sigh*

And that just makes it alright, doesn't it?

[Mplssoxfan]

Yes we all should.  But not all of us are.

 

We should also be gravely concerned that the GOP House is working hard on the "oversight" side of the domestic spying program by trying to 'fix FISA' instead of actually looking into the legality of the program as it currently stands.  But not all of us are.

 

It's gotten to the point that it's not worth even posting any administration-critical viewpoints outside of the Only thread because it's just seen as piling on the poor maligned president.

 

Off topic but not really. There have been a couple of absolutely alarming global warming revalations in the past two weeks that a year ago I would have been all over, posting them here because I assumed people would want to know what the current findings are.  Now I don't even bother, because of course it's not seen as me being a little upset that I've made the mistake of bringing children into a planet doomed by human excess and short-sightedness.  No, it would just be seen as piling on and bashing BushCo policy.

 

How urging people to work to forestall the destruction of the only home we have has now come to be construed as a political thing I'll never understand.

 

I was looking at an article about the Antarctica data today. You might have to move in 10-12 years, Flaxx.

[Balta1701]

I was looking at an article about the Antarctica data today.  You might have to move in 10-12 years, Flaxx.

So, the press reports on the study have all said that it appears in Science, but I can't for the life of me find the actual bloody paper anywhere in the current issue of Science online. This is driving me nuts. I'd have posted it here, but I can't find it.

[Balta1701]

8 years for the Duke-stir.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And that just makes it alright, doesn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

I've conceded the rest of the Filibuster board to you, accepting that any contrarian opinions posted there are only going to get sniped. It would be great though if it didn't have to happen in the Only threads as well.

 

The sniping - from all sides - can't be helped any more in the Filibuster commons. But it can be avoided in the Only threads. Posts in here are not intended to get any sort of rise out of the other side (or to even be consumed by the other side), the whole rest of the forum can be used for that.

 

Not that I would want any sort of enforcing of an Only Onlys policy, because I absolutely do not. But you have to know what your are going to see in here. Maybe just a whole lot of drivel in your estimation. Take us to task for it when it happens outside of our clubhouse.

 

Don't go to a strip club if you are likely to get offended by what you see. And don't make a scene about how indecent it is if you do decide to go. Right?

 

Same deal in the Onlys. The GOP thread posts would probably have steam coming out of my ears. And they should, that's what the thread is for.