What kind of people are we?
Our heavily subsidized puppet ally in the Middle East makes war on civilians, commits piracy on the high seas and murders humanitarians bent on delivering aid to suffering people.
And we "regret" the loss of life.
Enormously rich corporations buy public office for their whores, corrupt the agencies that supposedly regulate them under watered-down laws and rape the environment in which we live.
Life on this planet began in the sea. Now the unregulated extraction industry is killing the place where life was born.
And we impose a "moratorium" on oil drilling in the sea.
The highest court in the land has decreed that corporations may use their enormous financial resources to buy control of our government at every level.
And we paste little flags on our trucks with slogans about our national greatness.
We elect a black man to our highest office -- and condemn even his modest efforts to reform a broken country. We heap unprecedented vitriol upon him, even upon his little children, and call ourselves "patriots."
Unsurpassed greed in the highest offices of the nation's greatest financial institutions drive millions of Americans out of their homes and into poverty, shrink lifelong savings of other millions into pittances and precipitate a global economic crisis.
And we say "tsk, tsk" and Congress passes new "regulations" that will ensure that the big banks continue the same practices that wrought disaster.
What kind of people are we?
Politically rotten and ethically dead.
Surrounding ourselves now with a dead sea.
"Don't tell Momma I'm a journalist; say I play the piano in a whorehouse."
Monday, May 31, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
A Bad Notion and a Bad Nominee
Many of us who voted for him expected more from the one-time teacher of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
But Barack Obama, expert on the Constitution, is the back story. President Obama is the here and now. For all of his expertise, his positions on important Constitutional matters are indistinguishable from those of the addle-pated fool who held the office before him.
Some Constitutional scholars, such as Glenn Greenwald, say he's even worse than Bush II. The conjunction of two recent events tends to support the Greenwald view.
Sunday, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, outlined the administration's view that the Miranda law should be loosened to allow more time for authorities to, er, question a terrorism suspect before the Miranda rights are read to him or her.
Today, the President disclosed that his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice John Paul Stevens's retirement is Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
Holder's view is one only John Ashbrook -- or Torquemada -- could applaud. The Kagan nomination is more analogous to Bush II's nomination of Harriet Miers than to, say, Dwight Eisenhower's of Earl Warren.
Administration apologists have spent the two days preceding the Kagan announcement assuring the American public that her opposition "on the left" --it's made to sound like a foreign country -- is 100 per cent wrong.
Never mind the transcripts of her arguments as Solicitor General before the Supreme Court, particularly in the infamous Citizens United case, which depicted an inept lawyer who merited only scorn from the questioning Justices.
Never mind her support for the Obama administration's attempts to further broaden the unconstitutional arrogations of power to the presidency that the Bush crowd asserted.
Never mind her lack of a written record of strong views on the Constitution, other than that, well, it's there.
As for Holder's attack on Miranda, it's just another step in the process begun with the passage of the despicable U.S.A. Patriot Act, a process of dismantling the Bill of Rights. Miranda simply spelled out the procedures law enforcement must follow to assure that all citizens, even those accused of the most serious crimes, will have the protection of the rights enshrined in the first ten Amendments. To weaken the procedures is to weaken the amendments.
The Obamans have already enshrined as legal precedent the Bush crowd's unconstitutional stance that a "terrorist" is anyone the President calls one. Now they want to put the Bill of Rights off limits to anyone subjected to such a whim.
Little by little, the rule of law in America is fading away. Soon all that will be left of the Bill of Rights will be a Cheshire cat's smile.
* * *
With this post, your Pianist shambles off into the wings to meet the surgeon who will replace what's left of his natural hip with a fine piece of titanium hardware. He will return to the bench when he is able to play again. He has been practicing the final movement to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, and hopes to be able to play it again some day.
But Barack Obama, expert on the Constitution, is the back story. President Obama is the here and now. For all of his expertise, his positions on important Constitutional matters are indistinguishable from those of the addle-pated fool who held the office before him.
Some Constitutional scholars, such as Glenn Greenwald, say he's even worse than Bush II. The conjunction of two recent events tends to support the Greenwald view.
Sunday, his Attorney General, Eric Holder, outlined the administration's view that the Miranda law should be loosened to allow more time for authorities to, er, question a terrorism suspect before the Miranda rights are read to him or her.
Today, the President disclosed that his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice John Paul Stevens's retirement is Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
Holder's view is one only John Ashbrook -- or Torquemada -- could applaud. The Kagan nomination is more analogous to Bush II's nomination of Harriet Miers than to, say, Dwight Eisenhower's of Earl Warren.
Administration apologists have spent the two days preceding the Kagan announcement assuring the American public that her opposition "on the left" --it's made to sound like a foreign country -- is 100 per cent wrong.
Never mind the transcripts of her arguments as Solicitor General before the Supreme Court, particularly in the infamous Citizens United case, which depicted an inept lawyer who merited only scorn from the questioning Justices.
Never mind her support for the Obama administration's attempts to further broaden the unconstitutional arrogations of power to the presidency that the Bush crowd asserted.
Never mind her lack of a written record of strong views on the Constitution, other than that, well, it's there.
As for Holder's attack on Miranda, it's just another step in the process begun with the passage of the despicable U.S.A. Patriot Act, a process of dismantling the Bill of Rights. Miranda simply spelled out the procedures law enforcement must follow to assure that all citizens, even those accused of the most serious crimes, will have the protection of the rights enshrined in the first ten Amendments. To weaken the procedures is to weaken the amendments.
The Obamans have already enshrined as legal precedent the Bush crowd's unconstitutional stance that a "terrorist" is anyone the President calls one. Now they want to put the Bill of Rights off limits to anyone subjected to such a whim.
Little by little, the rule of law in America is fading away. Soon all that will be left of the Bill of Rights will be a Cheshire cat's smile.
* * *
With this post, your Pianist shambles off into the wings to meet the surgeon who will replace what's left of his natural hip with a fine piece of titanium hardware. He will return to the bench when he is able to play again. He has been practicing the final movement to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, and hopes to be able to play it again some day.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Keep an Eye on the Brits, Washington
Maybe if we're lucky we'll get another lesson in government from the Mother Country.
Here's the deal:
No party in England's national election won enough seats in Parliament for a majority, which is required to form a government. David Cameron's Conservative Party won the most seats (and the most popular votes) but not enough to put a Tory in No. 10 Downing Street. The ruling Labour Party of Prime Minister Gordon Brown finished second in number of seats won and, by a narrow margin over the Liberal Democrats, in the popular vote. The Lib Dems were thought to be surging, but actually lost seats, yet nevertheless could emerge as kingmakers.
Their seats plus the Tory seats would be enough to form a coalition government. That, in fact, is what Cameron has proposed to the Liberal Democrats' charismatic leader, Nick Clegg. Cameron said his "big, open and comprehensive offer" would ensure stability for the British government and would include LibDem cabinet seats. Clegg seemed receptive, saying the party with the most seats should govern. (He also refers to Brown as a "squatter" on Downing Street.)
If this coalition happens, it would be somewhat like Mitch McConnell and Dennis Kucinich forming a coalition government here -- if we had more than two parties and a system that allowed for coalition governments.
Wouldn't work, would it?
Don't bet against the Brits. These, after all, are the people who defeated the Luftwaffe using only "blood, sweat , toil and tears." They know how to make things work, even if they suffer doing so.
And if they succeed, will we, too, learn how to make coalitions work for the betterment of the people?
In the U.S., the Democrats control the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress -- and haven't done a damned thing to fix the god-awful mess Dubyuh left behind. Took 'em a year to realize that even lacking 60 votes in the Senate, they could still pass some kind of health care bill. OK, it's a lousy bill. But it's something.
Meanwhile, getting control of the economy; providing jobs for millions who are out of work; restoring confidence in the marketplace; devising an intelligent and workable immigration policy, restoring Constitutional values, rule of law and the Bill of Rights; ending illegal, costly and demeaning wars; all of these and other pressing needs go unsolved, like the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Republicans simply vote "no" on everything and let the country flounder like oil-soaked pelicans in the bayou.
If Cameron's coalition comes to be, it will need true cooperation between the left-of-center Lib Dems and the Tory right in order to govern effectively. If our hapless, corporate-owned, sleazy, lying, cheating pols will watch and learn, perhaps we can still muddle our way to becoming a better country.
Then again, we got the very foundation of our legal system from the Brits, and look what a mess we've made of that! We've even given up Habeas Corpus.
What's next, politically? Hogamous, higamous, let's go polygamous. As the Mother Country may yet prove, it's better than what we've got.
Here's the deal:
No party in England's national election won enough seats in Parliament for a majority, which is required to form a government. David Cameron's Conservative Party won the most seats (and the most popular votes) but not enough to put a Tory in No. 10 Downing Street. The ruling Labour Party of Prime Minister Gordon Brown finished second in number of seats won and, by a narrow margin over the Liberal Democrats, in the popular vote. The Lib Dems were thought to be surging, but actually lost seats, yet nevertheless could emerge as kingmakers.
Their seats plus the Tory seats would be enough to form a coalition government. That, in fact, is what Cameron has proposed to the Liberal Democrats' charismatic leader, Nick Clegg. Cameron said his "big, open and comprehensive offer" would ensure stability for the British government and would include LibDem cabinet seats. Clegg seemed receptive, saying the party with the most seats should govern. (He also refers to Brown as a "squatter" on Downing Street.)
If this coalition happens, it would be somewhat like Mitch McConnell and Dennis Kucinich forming a coalition government here -- if we had more than two parties and a system that allowed for coalition governments.
Wouldn't work, would it?
Don't bet against the Brits. These, after all, are the people who defeated the Luftwaffe using only "blood, sweat , toil and tears." They know how to make things work, even if they suffer doing so.
And if they succeed, will we, too, learn how to make coalitions work for the betterment of the people?
In the U.S., the Democrats control the White House and a majority in both houses of Congress -- and haven't done a damned thing to fix the god-awful mess Dubyuh left behind. Took 'em a year to realize that even lacking 60 votes in the Senate, they could still pass some kind of health care bill. OK, it's a lousy bill. But it's something.
Meanwhile, getting control of the economy; providing jobs for millions who are out of work; restoring confidence in the marketplace; devising an intelligent and workable immigration policy, restoring Constitutional values, rule of law and the Bill of Rights; ending illegal, costly and demeaning wars; all of these and other pressing needs go unsolved, like the massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Republicans simply vote "no" on everything and let the country flounder like oil-soaked pelicans in the bayou.
If Cameron's coalition comes to be, it will need true cooperation between the left-of-center Lib Dems and the Tory right in order to govern effectively. If our hapless, corporate-owned, sleazy, lying, cheating pols will watch and learn, perhaps we can still muddle our way to becoming a better country.
Then again, we got the very foundation of our legal system from the Brits, and look what a mess we've made of that! We've even given up Habeas Corpus.
What's next, politically? Hogamous, higamous, let's go polygamous. As the Mother Country may yet prove, it's better than what we've got.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Look Who's Not Coming to Dinner
In an age when newspapers are dying, good journalism is more rare than sightings of Yeti and millions of Americans base their political opinions on misinformation from jugglers and clowns, is it too much to ask for just a gesture of maturity on the part of Washington reporters?
End the high school musical fiasco called the White House Correspondents' Dinner. It could be the first step toward establishing a professional relationship between Washington journalists and Washington politicians. A respectfully adversarial relationship. One that would benefit not just consumers of news, but reporters of it and sources of it.
I don't expect this to happen overnight. The cozy, inside baseball, old school tie climate of Washington journalism has been evolving too long, is too deeply entrenched on both sides for instant reform.
But getting rid of the infantile correspondents' dinner would at least be a signal of better intentions. One of the great benefits of retirement from the newspaper business is not having reason to attend the silly things any more. They're boring, insipid, the food is mediocre and they demean newsmen who allow themselves to be stuffed into white tie and tails just to rub elbows with the highest and mightiest of people they're supposed to cover.
The thing should have ended several years ago, when Bush II sank to making a silly skit out of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Rather than walking out, as they should have, the so-called newsmen actually laughed at this. Here was the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, making a joke out of the lie with which he bamboozled Congress and the public into supporting a war that is still going on; that has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Here were the men and women who are supposed to report the truth about our government, chuckling along with good ol' Dubyuh at the bloodiest sick inside joke of all time.
From what I hear, nothing quite as obscene happened at the 2010 White House Correspondents' Association dinner last week. Someone told me Jay Leno was a dud; that Obama dutifully poked lame fun at himself and the opposition; that Biden was the butt of lots of jokes about his talent for putting his foot in his mouth. High school pep-rally humor of the sort that would be cause for instant dismissal of a writer for the Stewart or Colbert shows.
How many examples must we have of supposed "news" reporters allowing themselves to be used as puppets of the politicians in power before some responsible editor or publisher declares, "Enough." He or she could immediately demonstrate bona fides by refusing to allow his or her journalists to participate in the anachronism of the correspondents' dinner.
No more puerile song parodies. No more wink-wink insider jokes. No more stenography. Just serious, hard questioning, slogging, dig for the truth, detached reporting of what our government is up to. It used to be called journalism.
It isn't done by sharing Gratinee de Coquilles St. Jacques and Domaine Gouron Chinon with Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and the rest of Barry's Bosom Buds at a fancy dinner while millions of Americans are still jobless and Washington has not taken a single action in nearly a decade to really fix what's wrong in this country.
The fat cats scarfing canapes last week don't even seem to realize that anything's wrong.
End the high school musical fiasco called the White House Correspondents' Dinner. It could be the first step toward establishing a professional relationship between Washington journalists and Washington politicians. A respectfully adversarial relationship. One that would benefit not just consumers of news, but reporters of it and sources of it.
I don't expect this to happen overnight. The cozy, inside baseball, old school tie climate of Washington journalism has been evolving too long, is too deeply entrenched on both sides for instant reform.
But getting rid of the infantile correspondents' dinner would at least be a signal of better intentions. One of the great benefits of retirement from the newspaper business is not having reason to attend the silly things any more. They're boring, insipid, the food is mediocre and they demean newsmen who allow themselves to be stuffed into white tie and tails just to rub elbows with the highest and mightiest of people they're supposed to cover.
The thing should have ended several years ago, when Bush II sank to making a silly skit out of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Rather than walking out, as they should have, the so-called newsmen actually laughed at this. Here was the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, making a joke out of the lie with which he bamboozled Congress and the public into supporting a war that is still going on; that has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. Here were the men and women who are supposed to report the truth about our government, chuckling along with good ol' Dubyuh at the bloodiest sick inside joke of all time.
From what I hear, nothing quite as obscene happened at the 2010 White House Correspondents' Association dinner last week. Someone told me Jay Leno was a dud; that Obama dutifully poked lame fun at himself and the opposition; that Biden was the butt of lots of jokes about his talent for putting his foot in his mouth. High school pep-rally humor of the sort that would be cause for instant dismissal of a writer for the Stewart or Colbert shows.
How many examples must we have of supposed "news" reporters allowing themselves to be used as puppets of the politicians in power before some responsible editor or publisher declares, "Enough." He or she could immediately demonstrate bona fides by refusing to allow his or her journalists to participate in the anachronism of the correspondents' dinner.
No more puerile song parodies. No more wink-wink insider jokes. No more stenography. Just serious, hard questioning, slogging, dig for the truth, detached reporting of what our government is up to. It used to be called journalism.
It isn't done by sharing Gratinee de Coquilles St. Jacques and Domaine Gouron Chinon with Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and the rest of Barry's Bosom Buds at a fancy dinner while millions of Americans are still jobless and Washington has not taken a single action in nearly a decade to really fix what's wrong in this country.
The fat cats scarfing canapes last week don't even seem to realize that anything's wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)