MoveOn Petition for Batiste

This is an email sent to me from MoveOn. Everything below is copied from the email.

Dear MoveOn member,

It took CBS two weeks to fire Don Imus for calling a college women's basketball team "nappy headed hos," but it only took them two days to fire respected retired Major General John Batiste for speaking out against the president on the war.

Batiste, a Republican, commanded troops in Iraq in 2004 and 2005. He left the Army so that he could speak out against the president's reckless policy in Iraq, and CBS hired him as a part-time consultant to comment about it.1 Last week, he appeared in a VoteVets.org TV ad speaking out against the president on Iraq. Just two days later, CBS fired him.2

It's censorship, pure and simple. We're aiming to get over 100,000 messages demanding that CBS re-hire Major General John Batiste by the end of the week. Can you take a moment to add your name? Clicking the link below will add your name to the petition.

http://pol.moveon.org/batiste/one_click_sign.pl?id=10331-7913436-sWvh9y&t=3

CBS says they fired Major General Batiste because he engaged in advocacy—but they're holding him to a different standard than their other consultants.

For example, former White House communications director Nicolle Wallace is a consultant to CBS and consistently uses her position to push White House talking points.3 It was even reported that she was advising the McCain campaign, yet CBS did nothing when she appeared as a consultant on their network to promote his candidacy.4

Plus, the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon also appeared on CBS as a consultant while advocating in favor of President Bush's escalation plan.5

CBS is sending a message that you can't be a consultant to their network if you're critical of President Bush and the Iraq war. That's political censorship and CBS needs to hear groundswell of outrage from concerned viewers right away.

Can you sign the petition demanding that CBS re-hire Major General Batiste?

http://pol.moveon.org/batiste/one_click_sign.pl?id=10331-7913436-sWvh9y&t=4

Major General John Batiste is not the first general to speak out against the president on Iraq. Recently a number of generals and military leaders have spoken out against President Bush's failed policy—including Reagan's former NSA director, General William Odom, Vietnam veteran Major General Mel Montano and another former general from Iraq—retired Major General Paul Eaton.6

These generals must be heard, not censored for speaking the truth.

Thanks for all you do,

–Nita, Noah, Karin, Jennifer and the Moveon.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, May 15th, 2007

Sources:

1. "Army Career Behind Him, General Speaks Out on Iraq," New York Times, May 13, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2577&id=10331-7913436-sWvh9y&t=5

2. "CBS fires consultant Gen. Batiste over VoteVets ad; 'We went to war with a fatally flawed strategy'," Raw Story, May 11, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2578&id=10331-7913436-sWvh9y&t=6

3. "CBS Fires Batiste For Anti-Bush Advocacy, Hires Bush Aide To Engage In Pro-Bush Advocacy," ThinkProgress, May 11, 2007
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/11/cbs-fires-batiste/

4. "CBS Has Allowed McCain Campaign Aide To Advocate For McCain On Air." ThinkProgress, May 14, 2007
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/11/wallace-mccain/

5. "CBS Fired Antiwar Batiste—But CBS Consultant O'Hanlon Advocated For Surge," Talking Points Memo, May 11, 2007
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/cbs.php

6. "Generals Express Outrage at Presidential Veto," National Security Network, May 2, 2007
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/144

7. Reid: Senate Will Have Opportunity To Speak On Change Of Course In Iraq, Reid Press Release, Monday, May 14, 2007
http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=274237

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=10331-7913436-sWvh9y&t=7


PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.



Bookmarkz

Now That's Funny

A hilarious take on Obama's threat to America from one of my favorite blogs. Here's a piece:

Still I can't help but be impressed by the case you've laid out against Obama. It's absolutely air tight. As you noted in your Monday column, his middle name is Hussein; his father was Muslim; and he's visited Kenya. Obviously, he's an Islamunistofascist masquerading as a Christian.

This knowledge scares the living hell out of me. I'm not ashamed to admit that. Fear is America's greatest ally. It's served us well since the early days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony when witchofascists sought to destroy everything in which we believe. It continues to be a powerful force for good today by providing us with the will to bomb civilians, deny our citizens habeas corpus, and to commit righteous acts of torture.

But how do we respond to this new information about Obama? Being a Senator, it might be hard to justify detaining and torturing him. I suppose we could bomb the people of Illinois since they elected him, but where would the Cubs play and what about Ditka?

Witchofascists. I don't care how awkward it is, I'm using that word in conversation.


Bookmarkz

Is This the Discipline of the Disciples?

Gen. JC Christian, Patriot, pokes fun at a crazy lady who advocates "Christian Domestic Discipline" as a godly way to run the household.

He then notes that, unfortunately, it's not that funny.

Here is a condemnation of the practice, with specific attention to the idea that is the proper Christian thing to do. Long comment discussion with "Adult Woman," presumably Leah Kelley.

I'm almost speechless.

But not quite: I should note that while many have been quick to condemn or pity her, I encountered the notion that perhaps this is not just a rationalization of abuse (I cannot remember where, or I would cite the original post). It was suggested that CDD could instead be a way for very religious couples with kinky inclinations to square their desires with church teachings. At times, like with the merchandise and frequent admonitions that "this is not for every couple," that seems quite plausible. Elsewhere, not so much. Ultimately, after reading a bit more of her blog, I find that explanation interesting, but unconvincing (at least in her case). The one thing that's clear is that she is deeply conflicted in her loyalties to church, husband, and self, and I think it's pretty sad.

Update: Leah has responded to the fit of attention she has received recently by shrewdly pointing out that "It's okay, I'm a redneck."
This is indeed the best way to assuage fears of domestic abuse. Well played.


Bookmarkz

Partisan Assholery Goes Virtual

Or did it? This story is pretty old now, and I'm kind of glad I didn't get around to commenting on it soon after it occurred.

I still don't know what to make of Second Life. I have not tried the game and I don't particularly want to, other than out of an intense curiosity about what the fuss is all about. Yet in a way I understand the draw; it's just not the kind of thing that holds any interest for me anymore.

Like many once-exotic subcultures, I suspect its ethos will be assimilated into some other aspect of web culture, and once it is no longer a curio, no one will care too much about it. In short, it's kind of a cultural experiment they will have run its course when the novelty wears off. That or it becomes an integral part of real life. I'm hoping not.

Anyway, it turns out that it wasn't Republicans messing with Edwards. It was just a group of self-styled "e-terrorists," online assholes (griefers) who get their kicks harassing other players. An excellent breakdown of the whole incident, and the motivations of the perpetrators, is here.

I suppose if you must vandalize/ruin other peoples' day/engage in general sociopathy, it's best that you do it in an environment where your victims can literally pull the plug on you when they've had enough. Malcontents of the world, take your disaffection to Second Life.

Anyway, the Wired article has it right:

This is the modern-day equivalent of hippies freaking out the squares. You see countless news stories about this, over and over again: the gray humorless drones of political parties or corporations rushing to establish a presence in Second Life because it's the thing to do, only to find themselves staring directly into the collective Goatse.cx of the Internet's soul.

Would-be hipsters, if you want to inhabit a virtual world, be prepared for what that entails. Like many aspects of web culture, SL's greatest allure is also its most awful flaw. The good: It provides a virtual universe in which people can do things that they couldn't/wouldn't ever do in real life. The bad: That's what people go there to do!

And Goatse.cx? Google it.


Bookmarkz

Link Dump/Hager's Family Values

I read this piece about David Hager a long time ago, when I was first becoming very concerned with politicization of the FDA via appointments of ideologues to scientific positions. Its is deeply disturbing. I came across it again recently, and decided to post it.

Here's a great read. It's a few quick case studies in the appointment of incompetent, but politically loyal, hacks to important positions in the Iraq reconstruction. Here's a peak:

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

Makes you wonder understand why Iraq is in the shitter.


Time for some comic relief: Al Franken vs. Bob Jones University. Hilarious.


Bookmarkz

I Don't Like This Guy

Here's a piece about the $12 million/year Ob/Gyn.

His defense is essentially that "Yall are just haters." But that's not it. It's not his money that I detest, it's his disregard for medical ethics in acquiring his mammon.

One might argue that the very notion of plastic surgery, when performed for purely aesthetic reasons, is not in keeping with the Hippocratic Oath. I won't go there right now, but it's clear that Dr. Matlock's aggressive marketing of his techniques, and worse, his monopolistic control over them, violate these principles:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

Medicine is not meant to be proprietary.


A few related points:
An interesting piece on the peculiar economics of healthcare, and where doctors fit in.

A related tidbit.

Study Cries Foul...on the Refs?

Interesting.


Favorite line: "“Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you’d win a few more games,” Mr. Wolfers said."

Subtle. You should really think about running for political office, by which I mean, not talking to reporters any more without your handler manning the electric shock collar that helps keep your foot out of your mouth.

Give Me Back My Country

No comment is necessary, and none could be sufficient. Congressman Rohrabacher, what you say is un-American, pure and simple. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, and company would tear you limb from limb and spit on your grave. You are a threat to America, more than violence could ever be. You are a disgrace.


No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
-Edward R. Murrow

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine. And remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to associate, to speak, and to defend the causes that were for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage, and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the results. We proclaim ourselves indeed we are, defenders of freedom where ever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
-Edward R. Murrow


Bookmarkz

Seedy Gonzales

This post is no longer timely, but I will attempt to finish what I began.

From WaPo:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's senior counselor yesterday refused to testify in the Senate about her involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Monica M. Goodling, who has taken an indefinite leave of absence, said in a sworn affidavit to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she will "decline to answer any and all questions" about the firings because she faces "a perilous environment in which to testify."
(snip)

The decision means a senior aide to the nation's top law enforcement official is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear of implicating herself in a crime. Her lawyer portrays the move as strategic and says she has done nothing wrong.
(snip)

But one of Goodling's lawyers, John Dowd, said in a statement yesterday that "the potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real."

About that last bit...

First of all, which is it? Does she have something to hide or not? Well without going into the facts of the investigation(which look real bad), I'm gonna guess: Yes, she does. That's a pretty reasonable conclusion to draw when anyone, especially a lawyer 1) hires multiple lawyers to protect them, and 2) those lawyers tell different stories. That's mighty suspicious in my book.

More importantly, how could her lawyer say that it's just a strategic move? That should be an outrage! If she's taking the fifth under false pretenses, that's an abuse of the justice system, and isn't that what this is all about?

Granted, it would be impossible to prove perjury in such a case, as the only thing more difficult than proving that she did something wrong would be proving that she didn't do anything wrong (it's literally impossible). That is all the more reason to take it seriously when some lawyer goes around bragging that his client is just gaming the system. In fact, it's exactly what this whole mess is about in the first place: accountability by administration officials for the things they do and say, and say they didn't do, and did but don't remember.

I think the judge should take her lawyer at his word and compel Goodling to testify: "Per your lawyer's statement, you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, therefore you are not entitled to Fifth Amendment protection." That's accountability. If you want to claim the fifth, you don't get to claim a PR victory and go around bragging about how you did nothing wrong; you must accept the burden of shame that accompanies a senior aide in the Justice Department having done something potentially incriminating, as well you should.

The whole thing (not just Goodling, but also Gonzales' actual testimony, Bush's "reasonable proposal" that his aides be questioned off the record and not under oath, and the whole three rings of this circus) reminds me of this old lawyer joke, which reminds us that while these people are clearly assholes, they are not idiots.

Prosecutor: Did you kill the victim?
Defendant: No, I did not.
Prosecutor: Do you know what the penalties are for perjury?
Defendant: Yes, I do. And they're a hell of a lot better than the penalty for murder.

As for the actual proceedings of the investigation, I won't bother to comment, since Gonzo has so thoroughly disgraced himself that there is nobody left to argue with me that he's not a fool and/or liar, and that just wouldn't be any fun.

This post, excerpted below, from DailyKos pretty much says it all. It also brings up the point that this whole scandal is somewhat Clintonesque in its relative banality; if the AG had just said, "Yeah, we canned some Dems because the Pres wanted to put party hacks in their places, and by the way, that's his prerogative" this wouldn't have been nearly such a big deal. Not that it would have gone unnoticed, but it almost certainly wouldn't have ended with even Republicans calling for Gonzales' resignation. Like many other "scandals" the hurt lay more in the lies that concealed it than in the act itself. As Francois de La Rochefoucauld observed, "Almost all our faults are more pardonable than the methods we resort to to hide them." With an administration that has been so unrelentingly uncooperative, so intractably opaque, and so pathologically dishonest in trying to cover its cronyistic tracks, the whole country was just raring to nail them for a slip-up. And so we have.

Of course Gonzales is both a bumbling fool and a liar. Today's performance put that debate to rest. It's almost a shame that his downfall was this relatively mundane political scandal (though certainly more egregious malfeasance by the administration is likely to be uncovered as the investigation unfolds) and not a result of his crimes against the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, the Magna Carta, the basic rule of law. But I guess we take what we can get.

A few related clips and links are below.
Here is Gonzales denying that Habeas Corpus is constitutionally protected. The meat of his argument: "There is no expressed grant of Habeas in the Constitution, there's a prohibition against taking it away." Can't beat that logic with a stick! [But you can alligator-clamp a car battery to its gonads.]

Here's Olbermann on the death of Habeas Corpus vis-a-vis the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the good part starts at about 2:47):


Let's get a little lowbrow. Check out #4 on this countdown:



Update:
Here's some more from the Gonzales hearings, and they have forced me to reevaluate my opinion. Here's the scoop:

On the one hand, that testimony actually makes me feel a bit sympathetic towards Gonzo; I can see why you'd want to torture someone when you know he's lying through his teeth. On the other, this is outrageous, but a different way than I had expected.

We expected Gonzales to dissemble and lie. But at this point it is abundantly clear that he is also an idiot. I mean, this is the nation's top-ranking lawyer, and he looks more than stupid, more than untruthful: he looks like he has absolutely no idea what he's doing. Of course he's going to lie to cover up for those who put him in power, but I thought he would be clever enough to dress it up in some slick argument that diverts us away from the point, or at least use some legalese to obfuscate his reaming for the lay audience. Lawyer jokes aside, could this guy possibly know a thing about argumentation? In my only court experience (Class C misdemeanor for jaywalking, if you care), I saw an alcoholic homeless bum mount a more compelling legal defense! I shit you not. Bush himself could have handled those questions better.

And this is the great irony of this case. If they had simply admitted the obvious fact that these firings were exactly what they appear to be, this probably have been a minor scandal, or just one more dirty trick that only historians and policy wonks will remember. But this enormous ordeal has, I believe, shed light on the far more dangerous side of the same issue: politics supplanting meritocracy. It is not unusual that a president should seek to consolidate his ideology within the government by way of "purging" other political appointees. Nor is it unusual that he appoint his own henchmen to those vacant positions. But Bush's administration has time and again shown utter contempt for the notion of expertise, opting instead for candidates who possess a mafia-like loyalty to the hand that feeds them. This has lead to some of the most spectacular bungling, and consequent bungling of the cover-ups, that the executive branch has ever seen. Bush's appointees across the board are people who, when push comes to congressional investigation, will sacrifice every shred of credibility and dignity they have to take the heat for the higher-ups, knowing, or at least believing, all along that they will be rewarded in the end.

Libby had that loyalty, but he was also a pretty clever guy. What terrifies me about Gonzales is that he appears to be a thoroughly incompetent lawyer, lacking even the modicum of qualification that would make him a suitable political hack. Bush is our nation's Happy Gilmore (in so many ways) and Gonzo is his bum caddy. How many more like him fill the ranks of our government, and how great are their responsibilities? What could be the consequences of their gross incompetence? Another Katrina? Iraq?

Cronyism is, in its mild to moderate form, an inevitable but manageable hazard inherent to our system: a pothole of democracy. Taken to the extreme, though, it is a fundamental threat to the function of our government, which relies heavily on the appointed bureaucracy to implement the policies developed by elected officials. Scientists that don't believe in evolution, doctors who prescribe the Bible, FEMA directors who are barely qualified to judge horses, lawyers who have no business in high ranking judicial positions (remember Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination?): these are not mere trifles to be dismissed with a light-hearted "partisans will be partisans" apology. They are perilous in the extreme, and they have already hurt us deeply and often, if sometimes subtly. The great scandal that this congressional investigation revealed is not that a Bush political appointee did some shady political maneuvering, but rather that such a moron could become such a powerful official in the first place.


Update: More shameless lies, and perhaps one of the most disturbing revelations yet, from Ashcroft's former deputy AG, James Comey.

Finally, Goodling gives it up. Check out the video where Steve Cohen (D-TN) rips Goodling about her Christian diploma mill law school. Also, apropos of above comments, Goodling is clearly a moron.


Bookmarkz

Nailed It

I've always bristled at that authoritarian streak (mostly on the right) that likes to tell me the president is my "commander in chief." As a civilian, the president is not only not my commander, he is my elected official; if anything, I am atop his chain of command. If the president were commander in chief of all citizens, that would make him an awful lot like an emperor or a king, and I seem to recall that monarchy is a system of government rather frowned upon by the wise men who framed our constitution.

Gary Wills, professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University, takes this quasi-fascist fantasy back to constitution class, and scratches an itch I've had for quite a while:

The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics.

Bookmarkz