Rumsfeld On "Late Show with Stephen Colbert"

[This is a form of a comment first provided here, see also, Shag's thoughts. As to the original subject matter covered there, the Ted Cruz as natural born citizen issue is again debate here, I again not finding Mark Field -- who on the whole is a great progressive type with a deep knowledge of history and law -- convincing. A tell is him being a guest host for a clear weak link on that blog.]

Stephen Colbert, I think, did a good job -- he has repeatedly have had serious guests on and used a combination of his niceness, sense of humor and serious questioning to make it worthwhile television. This includes scientists, politicians, someone from Black Lives Matters and others.  Don't know if this will be as popular as his competition, but hopefully enough will watch to allow him to continue.  Seems there should be niche for it.

In the end, the sit-down with Rumsfeld was yet another in-depth interview that he could never have pulled off as his old Colbert Report character. It took straightforward, genuine persistence, but the real Stephen Colbert got the job done.

Given the nature of his audience, who booed Ted Cruz when he was on, I wonder if they were put on notice beforehand to be nice. The fact Rumsfeld came on to promote an app -- if one that is being used to support military vets (no comment there), a cause Stephen Colbert has supported in the past -- just left me speechless on some level.  Anyway, some don't want Colbert to have guys like him or Trump on, to give them legitimacy, but asked serious questions and reached an audience that NPR or Charlie Rose etc. would not get.  A highlight is Rumsfeld's comment: “If it were a fact, it wouldn’t be called intelligence,” and Colbert clearly making an effort to be fair probably helped.

It seemed to cut into his next guest's time, some basketball star with his own brand of eyewear, but that is okay.  Also, I think Colbert's pre-interview segment was great last night too on Cruz etc. And, the inability of Carlson Palmer to do what QBs have to do -- throw balls to the right team. Well, I needed a laugh at least and he helped get it, mixed with some serious stuff by a nice, funny talented host. Good luck, SC.

What Would Martin Say?

After a good autobiographical first chapter, the author (a lawyer/speechwriter of Martin Luther King Jr., writing in 2008) discusses such issues as affirmative action, antisemitism, black leadership, the war in Afghanistan/Iraq and illegal immigration. He does so all too often with a heavy hand and repeatedly using right wing talk show level discourse. His chapter on the war was pretty bad but some of his language when examining Mexican border issues etc. was downright offensive. Overall, it was a rather disappointing effort.

"The President’s Legal Authority to Order the Use of Military Force against ISIL"

I think a new AUMF should be passed, but find this argument fairly convincing. Even if it isn't, ISIL is not "any terrorist threat," underlining the "anything goes" argument is both overbroad and gives away the store too much along with the sneering cynicism.

"Obama at UN: The only thing ISIS killers understand is force"

See, e.g., here. Let's grant force is appropriate. To be clear, far from sure what is being done is a great idea. Still not a fan of that line -- seems to dehumanize and is too bloodthirsty. The answer long term is at least force +. We deal with "killers" from time to time and realize this. Think Obama does too, but bloodthirsty seems timely.

Plenty of Time When We Get Home

That is, what the man she eventually married said when she said "in country" that she wanted to have a romantic relationship ... and then he got a brain injury. This is a sequel of sorts of this author's first book, dealing with her time adapting to coming home. Both was good though did not get into the first when I tried to re-read it last year. Oh well.

GG is a tool, Iraq War Edition

Since the 10th anniversary of the Republican + 1/2 Senate Dems (Dems in House voted against it) Iraq War is in the news, and gave up on him after respecting his research etc. until his bully boy advocate tone (and 'yes sir' comments) got to me, this is appreciated.

Fair Game Cont.

Both Wilsons were not mere doves on Iraq in 2003 -- like me at the time, they thought Iraq very well might have WMDs, but (1) war was not the best path (2) said war was being oversold.  Meanwhile, the Fair Game epilogue cites a source covered in the film, but there VPW is her handler. The book has it being the concern of another CIA unit.

Joe Wilson

His book is about his diplomatic career and public advocacy against the invasion of Iraq (this part rambles on by the end) with the Plame story (and the 16 words stuff) basically but a part of the Administration's shameful handling of things. You can listen to the Wilsons together on the commentary track of Fair Game.

Reviews

Film: XXY (2007) was a good character study about a father growing to accept the fact his child is intersex as we also see some family drama going on and her (the child is raised as a girl but has some clear masculine tendencies) own relationships. An Argentinian film there also was a beautiful sense of place, it largely taking place in a fishing village. The actor (Ricardo Darín) who played the dad was later in another very good film about a retired Argentina prosecutor struggling with an old case and his attraction to someone involved who later becomes a judge. Good DVD commentary as I recall. The Secret in Their Eyes won an actress for Best Foreign Film and its director [not the same as the one for XXY] has a diverse resume, including American television, both a Law & Order series and a Comedy Central one.

Being a fan of XXY, The Fish Child (2009) by the same director seemed to have potential.  The film is strongest as a human drama, a daughter of a troubled well off family falling in love with a maid, whose troubled past comes out as they deal with the mysterious death of the father.  A bit heavy-handed but well acted with a good sense of place and the dramatic desperation of its characters.  The film is a bit confused, imho, as to the homicide and a bit on government corruption and the DVD box's blurb citing Thelma and Louse is misleading.   [edited for clarity]

Book:  I am about half-way through The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir by "Ambassador Joseph Wilson."  Both books by the Wilsons have a big picture of the authors on the cover, setting the tone -- he is all serious in his suit, she looking sorta sexy (if in a down to earth outfit with well worn looking hands) and smiling. Both books also aren't merely about the controversial events, but only one is filled with redactions. 

The title and focus of the back cover is misleading -- you expect the book mainly to be about the Plame Affair and various negative reviews at Amazon have a partisan slant.  But, the first half of the book (minus a prologue of sorts) is in fact a down to earth "diplomat's memoir," a bit over two hundred pages that might not have been as widely read without the other drama, but is well worth reading.  This is the deputy who was the one in charge of the embassy when Iraq invaded Kuwait.  He also had an interesting career in Africa (in various former French colonies) and was political adviser to the C-i-C U.S. Armed Forces, Europe. The fact this public servant called a "hero" by George Bush Sr. was screwed over just underlines how disgusting the whole thing was.

[Update: Half-way through the "16 words" / Valerie Plame stuff (note the book was completed in 2004, years before his wife's account added more up to date details) & one thing that is a bit off is that the infamous words talk about a recent attempt that "sought" nuclear weapons, which can technically mean something pretty trivial -- the implication is that it was a serious effort or that Iraq  actually got something from them.

Wilson's infamous op-ed (linked above) basically refutes the latter, the book technically leaving open some vague possibility someone from Iraq made some sort of request though even that was deemed very unlikely.  An official denial from Niger was present; as to obtaining it, the actual yellow cake would not merely entail stereotypically corrupt locals but also foreign involvement too.  Hard to refute something that vague and again the clear implication was something a tad more solid.

Also, there is some dispute over his wife having "no" involvement in him checking things out but she could have passed his name along upon request or something.  No need to be absolute here -- she did not have the authority to send him and the idea appears to be independent of her to send someone to check it out though it already was checked out in fact. 

Overall, outing a CIA agent for spite, CYA & to send a message to others to not call the government out for mistakes is disgusting and the failure to address it alone imho was enough not to vote for Bush in '04.  The "send a message" part helps explains, along with the inapt timing as seams in the cause were coming out, why such an act of apparent overkill occurred.  Also, we are dealing with some true assholes here.] 

TV:  I did not see the first episode of the new USA miniseries about some Hillary Clinton clone played by Ms. Weaver.  Not watching the Mets get swept by the Braves (after losing two of three vs. the now playing well Cubs before the break, the Mets have to stop things or reaffirm "same old Mets" chants), I did later watch Army Wives and Newsroom, both decent if not overly exciting episodes of series drama mixed with soap opera. 

Fair Game

I recently tried to re-read Kayla William’s Love My Rifle More Than You:, which I liked the first time. Didn't get into the second time -- the 'tude of the author annoyed me this time, but don't really agree with this review either. That is an unfair simplification of her substantive analysis of military life and life during wartime Iraq. The author later commented about a U.S. solider who she knew, one who committed suicide in part probably because of her negative response to exposure to torture.

Torture is just one thing we have to be ashamed of as a country in the last decade. The continual blockage by Republicans (and now a spare Democrat, on specious grounds) to DADT repeal, even though everyone except them (even many of their family members aren't on board -- see McCain's wife and daughter) thinks it is the right and pragmatic thing to do. The President, top military officials, the troops themselves, the House, 57 or so votes in the Senate (more if faux procedural concerns are taken seriously), the American people, justice and basic morality ... well, heck with all that. Maybe, we can blame this on the '10 elections, like they apparently show the people want to extend tax cuts to millionaires. Increasing the debt ... the Tea Party way.

There were blatant moments where I basically stopped taking the President, Republicans and their enablers seriously, one being the proposal to amend the Constitution to block same sex marriage rights. [A nod to those like Eugene Volokh who thought it a serious question, if you know, it was limited to full faith and credit issues ... also, torture? not really something I want to think about. Not my thing. Need to spend more time on gun rights and age of consent laws]. But, the Valerie Plame matter is up there. Someone who was out there actually doing something about WMDs and her husband who back in the day did something about Saddam Hussein without bullshitting the American public into war over it.

Not that the press came off totally well in that affair as with the WMDs issue as a whole. In fact, the first film on the affair (to the displeasure of some) was a fictional one that focused more on a Judith Miller type. Didn't see it. It sounded like it dwelt on serious First Amendment issues though given how things went in real life, the portrayals of the reporter (much softer here than the original, down to the casting of Kate Beckinsale) and agent (the accounts suggest a more bitchy character than the socialite vibes of Plame) would probably be hard for me to put aside.

This one is basically VP's story, one deemed "essentially accurate" by real reporters contra to their paper's op-ed smear job. The reporters note that the film does give her more control than real life apparently warranted, but dramatic license usually does things like that, so singling out any one film on that level is silly. The bit about the Iraqi scientist is unclear though. But, I can't really judge how much blowing her cover meant to the agency. They denied to meant that much, but would they actually fully admit that one way or another? The fact some unnamed source told the reporters so doesn't really convince me one way or the other.

[The movie cites both of the Wilsons' books as source material; I reviewed her own here. Suffice to say there is a lot more than can be said here or in the movie, but the source material does underline this is not just Valerie Plame's story. Joseph Wilson also is a major player, various scenes about him alone.]

Dramatic license about such things as if Valerie Wilson really seriously worried about divorce or the like is even less problematic. The "affair" put serious pressures on their marriage. That's the point and it was portrayed well. Below even suggests that "there needs to be a hero and a villain" shouldn't be taken as if the film is simplistic. Rove actually has only a small role here, the original much longer script perhaps more anti-Bush in that respect (Rove is an easy villain; Libby comes off as more complicated, if deep down, maybe he isn't). Joseph Wilson (Sean Penn excellent, down to the body type, which is much different than the more skinny looking Mayor Milk ... another Oscar nomination is quite possible) also comes off as flawed -- letting principle overwhelm discretion at times. Valerie might come off a bit too heroic, though Naomi Watts is quite good. A bit more nuance there might be warranted. As the reporters note, she did eventually take that Vanity Fair interview.

As with other things, the matter is so wrong that even a reduced level of outrage is enough to make it an archetypal symbol of how the Bush Administration operated. Mr. Libby (I will avoid the stupid nickname) is actually portrayed with a somewhat light touch, but the insidious nature of lack of doubt (if there is 1% risk, can we take the chance? of what? killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?) and "changing the story" by releasing classified information (declassified for that purpose) and smearing the Wilsons comes off probably even worse given that. And, the film underlines that WMDs was and continues to be an important issue.

Seriously addressing the problem, as shown in a documentary that Plame herself took part in, is too important to use those doing their part as playthings for power politics. They should not be "fair game" and the fact that saying as much remains a partisan issue is a major problem. I don't agree with Sandy Levinson totally but structure is a problem. As is anything that lets this go on.

[With Wikileaks and all, this discussion by me is relevant on why the Plame affair is a problem. It isn't because any leak is a problem. Thanks to the person who accessed it.

One more thing. "Joe Wilson" had a great point in the film when he asked an audience how many know the "16 words" that helped us go to war -- few -- then, how many knew his wife's name -- many. Again, change the frame, the frame becomes the story, not what is really important or even worth knowing. I might have said this but it's important enough to repeat. And, the clarity of the scene underlines why the film is well worth seeing.]

Film: WMDs and George Hamilton

And Also: Providing one of my duties as a resident, I filled out my census form today. It asked a few questions beyond necessary by express demand in Art. I, but "Who questions the power to do this?"

Green Zone was an imperfect movie but overall has a lot going for it. My problem with it basically was its simplistic plot development -- at some point, including a key moment near the end -- it had a tired standard "good guy vs. everyone else" device. This includes him acting very recklessly (including in ways that were tragic, though the viewer seems to be invited to elide past them) to support what he thinks is right, which at some point starts to get hazy. You might feel good about the film being on the right side ("why we go to war matters!"), but self-satisfaction only takes one so far.

But, the viewer can also see the problem with this approach. This possibility, which in some way might be part of the point, helps save the film from some criticism.* As noted by a news clip at the link, the film also has various real vets serving as extras and military personnel. This suggests that the film is deemed by people (including an advocate who has popped up on Maddow et. al., who has a cameo at a military briefing in the film) that matter as an fairly accurate portrayal of events. No matter that a disclaimer notes that it wasn't based on any one in particular, comparisons to Judith Miller et. al. purely coincidental.

And, it does make some serious points on WMDs and on our role in the Iraq War as a whole. Two Iraqis have key moments in the film, something some critics of The Hurt Locker for lacking such a local voice might find appealing. It does this as part of an exciting thriller, its movie aspects acceptable up to a point as dramatic license in telling a deeper truth. I still think the film got a bit much toward the end, less believable, even if aspects of that part of the film hit home.

Meanwhile, I recently saw another 2009 film (the year still was not great, but did miss a few pretty good films the first time around) on DVD, My One and Only. Narrated by a teen who will become George Hamilton, it concerns an odyssey by a wife played by Renée Zellweger, who takes a cross-country trip with her two teenage sons to try to find a husband to replace the one she just found cheating on her. Finding a husband she feels she deserves repeatedly is hard, though she tries to keep her spirits up and sense of decorum in place. It is a good character piece, one of those smaller films that make watching film enjoyable.

--

* SPOILER: Matt Damon's character breaches orders and recklessly takes a few of his men into danger, leading to others (including a special forces agent we are led to dislike) to their deaths when the meet-up goes bad. But, his justification for going there ultimately comes off as lame when he tries to explain it to an Iraqi who is helping him.

The film does not seem to invite us to be too upset that U.S. military personnel were killed by his reckless actions -- it ends with him leaking the news that there appears to be no WMDs and how the U.S. government selectively took the word of someone who said there was. Really, he should be up for court martial. But, the viewer can also see what happened. How he acted recklessly in pursuit of the truth.

More Maddow

And Also: We had some snow here. It's winter. BFD. At 11:30 A.M., it was largely shoveled in many parts of the city, even more so downtown. OTOH, such snow closes down large parts of the SE. Good, per usual, sidebar on the law over at the NYT, this time regarding use of video. This underlines yet another reason why "new boss, same as old boss" is b.s., at least in many respects. Death penalty edition. More here. OTOH.

I referenced some Rachel Maddow stuff last time that was discussed on the Friday show, the transcript now up. It is a good example of why she is one of the top journalists out there today, taking into considerations the limits of the genre (short segments and opinionated hosts that tend at times to have evident biases). First, the Saddam Hussein issue underlines the importance and ultimate simplicity on telling the whole story, including flagging problems:

OBAMA: I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein‘s regime—and you got the job done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Nobody‘s going to argue that that job was not done, but I‘m a little nudgy about the idea that the mission we tasked our military with in the first place was dumping Saddam Hussein. It‘s just not how I remember it from the time. Do you want to know how I remember it?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) [Bush & weapons of mass destruction] ...

I am reluctant to let that fact disappear down the memory hall, because if as the war ends, or at least starts to end, if at this time, the history of the war is written as us going there to topple the regime of a bad man when that frankly isn‘t why were told that we were going there—and aren‘t we still at risk of making this horrific mistake again? And, aren‘t we letting the people who foisted the WMD idea on us, not many years ago, aren‘t we sort of letting them get away with it?

If single bloggers can do searches and background research, journalists with decent sized staffs of researchers should be able to do so. Second, yes, Rachel Maddow has a p.o.v., but we expect that on the "Rachel Maddow Show," and she more often than not backs it up. Also, she has recently has had more guests (including Nancy Pelosi), not just regular commentators, including those who might disagree with her. To wit:

MADDOW: This "he is a socialist" thread in the conservative weave these days - it means different things to different people. When I hear Obama is a commie, I think you are not a serious person and I don't have to pay very much attention to the rest of the things that you say. That‘s one way to react.

A politically conservative person might hear it and think political epithet, political accusation, "Oh, no these Democrats are going to make our country more like the dreaded Sweden."

But there is a third way that Obama is a commie is heard by a big and poorly understood but powerful group of Americans. In 1995, a book came out called "Left Behind," an novel of the earth‘s last days. [author interviewed]

Important stuff there. BTW, TPM has a point -- interesting how "liberal" alone isn't quite enough to scare people. Given how things are going, many an European Socialist Democratic approach to things is almost inevitable in some fashion? Sen. Sanders, after all, often sounds pretty sane, and he doesn't think the "socialist" label is so horrible. Anyway, Rachel also (on the radio too) finds war coverage (even if we don't like the label in some contexts) quite important. This includes Afghanistan:

NBC‘s Richard Engel is in Afghanistan. He has just returned from several days with the 10th Mountain Division. The company was expected to go to Iraq but instead became part of the first wave of new troop buildup in Afghanistan. They have been setting up defense of a key highway into Kabul preparing for an expected springtime offensive from the Taliban. As Richard reports, the conditions are very, very, very tough and it is very slow-going.

BTW, for some reason, Engel reminds me of a young Michael York -- he definitely has that somewhat European hot on the scene war reporter vibe going. Anyway, this was all on one show, plus other stuff, including a piece on Barry Bonds that put forth an alternative p.o.v. -- not sure if I bought it, but it was worthwhile. This is a well educated nerd sort (how surprising that her interest was AIDS care in prison?) that rose from the bottom at Air America, paid her dues as a guest liberal commentator, and shined as a guest host both for Al Franken (during Katrina) and Keith Olberman.

She earned her props. I repeat myself, but she deserves it.

Can We Start Criticizing It Yet?

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a monstrous tyrant who was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of his people. But most Iraqis say that their life was better under Saddam than under the Americans. In any case, it's not a matter of comparing body counts under Saddam and the U.S. occupation and saying that whoever killed less is better. You can't start a war that kills a large percentage of a nation's population, forces millions more into exile, ignites a savage sectarian conflict whose wounds could exist for generations, destroys entire cities and then declare that what you've done is morally justifiable, let alone that it can be characterized as a "victory."

-- Gary Kamiya

MoveOn, Nothing To See Here

And Also: The Senate, via the filibuster route, rejected a move to give D.C. a voting House member, the proposal supported by Sen. Hatch (R) in part because Utah would get another representative as part of the bargain. I actually think that was the right decision, no matter why the Rs voted that way. The Constitution gives states members of Congress, not territories and federal districts/enclaves. Non-voting, yes. The Northwest Territory had one of those back in the beginning. The 23A alone suggests a voting member is different.

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." ...

- MoveOn Ad

[Update: See also here and here. See also, btw, his remarks before the 2004 elections providing a rosy-eyed view. But, to say he "betrayed" us is reprehensible, I say! Luckily, the people aren't buying the hype. They don't want endless war and occupation ... don't trust P. to carry it out. And, many will say so bluntly. PC-whining aside.]

This link provides added back-up to the allegations made. A search will also provide evidence that overall the people do not trust Petraeus ... in effect, they accept the theme of the ad. But, some are concerned with the name calling. After all, back in the day, people didn't name call or have ads that disrespected our military and leaders! Grant, for instance, wasn't called a "butcher" or whatnot! Thomas Paine also was never blunt ... to speak of someone mentioned recently; nor, those of that era.

I'm being sarcastic, of course. Not only do we have people (see last link) who simply despise Bush write hand wringing entries, the U.S. Senate ... in which the Webb Amendment supportive of the troops failed to "pass" because of a filibuster (it got a majority ... btw articles not only do not use the 'f' word, but also fail to mention among the claims that it is too complicated or would actually hurt the troops that Webb was a top military man plus has a son directly affected ... sorta seems relevant) ... passed this piece of ----:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

72-25. Obama didn't vote, though he did vote for [failed] an alternative by Sen. Boxer critical of all ads that disrespect military sorts. What the heck are they proposing these things anyway? Why are they SELECTIVELY passing resolutions critical of criticism? We really have a bunch who simply do not ... a few days after Constitution Day ... know the meaning of the document and ideals they swore to uphold.

Our leaders, who can't manage to actually seriously debate legislation since it might delay their vacations, Democrats included, spit on the First Amendment today. Toss it with habeas and due process of law. See also, Glenn Greenwald's recent piece on their serious consideration of retroactive immunity of telecommunication companies ... the rule of law be damned. GG noted the absurdity.

Of course, we can also note that the resolution furthered the President's attempt to use P. as a beard and cover, a bigger threat to his honor and integrity than some ad, even though the Dems know full well he does not deserve "full" support ... which would imply totally going along with what he proposed we do! I don't think he supports the Democratic proposals to end the occupation with timetables etc. Also, what is this "Multi-National Force" b.s? TPM ridiculed the "36 nation" or whatever b.s. that included the likes of one person from Iceland.

BTW, I'm with Josh Marshall on the leader of Iran wanting to go to Ground Zero:

A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss.

Go as a normal tourist. That's the best way, probably, anyhow. And, talking heads and Dems in Congress? Get your heads out of your ass.

---

* I saw a bit of the remarks from the two chosen to look into properly caring for our injured service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bob Dole looks well.

We Still Are Taking Bushies Seriously ... Why?

Bush's Occupation [Rachel Maddow calls it a war ... dubious RM] is b.s., but hey, nothing we can do to stop it until 2009. Such is the accepted wisdom, the difference is some are just a bit sadder and resigned to the fact. Oh, btw, no need to impeach Bush ... putting aside all the rest, he's powerless you see. [Expletive deleted.] So, let's just talk some, at times pretending to be ready to doing something (e.g., subpoenas), but not really (when ignored, do nothing, etc.). Pathetic. The fact that I have to read editorial comment in my newspaper ... I really should just skip to the Pearls to Swine comics ... about how we should give the asshole in chief some time, to "trust" him etc. is tres sad. The NY Daily News op-ed department has truly gone to the dogs. Other parts pretty good though.

In the 1990s, I overall felt content about things, though realized various problems. These days, the utter poisonous nature of even the "good guys" is utterly depressing at times. Take impeachment. Pragmatically, I can accept that it is problematic. But, taken too far it is a poisonous matter. Hey, says one, it's better this way. Republicans are suffering. etc. It's all partisan, after all, huh? After all, Bush is powerless, and letting people off the hook (I study history ... this "leave him to history" business doesn't really work for me) is okay, since the next batch will be better. Did I say that I don't want ... DON'T WANT ... Clinton to be the nominees? But, says progressive talk show host Thom Hartman, it in effect doesn't matter who the nominee is. This is b.s. Thom. It does matter. The fact they are better than the crappy field of Republicans doesn't change that.

It appears Obama/Edwards split the anti-Clinton vote in various polls. Blogs have noted the AP have provided a misleading take on Obama's apparent defeatist take on change of Bush's policy. The honest person notes said policy is enabled by Democrats, though politically, it is deemed bad pool to say as much. This includes among bloggers and such ... denying it or focusing on the worse offenders do not make it less so. Anyway, a problem here is not controlling the message properly. Thus, Dems say the "surge is sorta working kinda" but ... you are hiding the lede there. It's stupid. And, you cannot just blame the media for not joining the politicians' framing, being careful to highlight and put front and center what the Dems themselves are supposed to. Is this really just "journalistic malpractice?"

[I use "just" advisedly. But, the same blogs who speak of such things also becry the Dems not framing things right, being defeatist, not doing enough, etc. Simply put, enabling the criticized media frame. Given we are supposed to know nuance, the presence of both problems shouldn't be TOO confusing, but sometimes it seems it is for some people.]

The broader remarks, wah wah MSM wah wah, simply do not take Obama off the hook. We still have this core: "it doesn't look like were going to get that many votes, but I think it's important for everybody here to put pressure on Republican congressmen and Senators." As with his "cutting funds for the troops line," the frame here is 67 votes. He doesn't think we are going to get it, but hey, put pressure on them. Sure. I will speak my piece, sounding quite rational [and verbose] and all, but deep down will sadly feel that it's just a valid effort. I won't focus on what MUST be done. Or, that Congress needs to affirmatively give the President funds and other things to allow things to go on. He wants to be "honest" ... front and center. Defeatist. Hopeful though. Audaciously so, right? Snark.

Oh, what the President is doing is totally wrong. Sure. Nice words. But, whatcha going do about it? Make symbolic votes like the May funding negative, done after there was a majority? Take Sen. Dodd, who we dealt with in the past after a nice sounding Glenn Greenwald interview. His dad was involved at Nuremberg [Dodd's promoting a book growing out of letters of his experiences ... having read a book with a first person view of things of N., that does sound promising] ... Dodd's a big believer in civil liberties and limits on presidential power. The stripping of habeas corpus was outrageous. You know, if he had his druthers and all ... It's like when Rachel Maddow asked him about Lieberman today. Friend of his, sadly wrong on one issue. Guy is a major enabler of the Republican Party and President. Unfortunate, you know?

Simply can't take the guy seriously. Another Arlen Specter sort ... speaks a good game, but doesn't really risk anything when it is put up or shut up time. If you can't do anything, which I deny but apparently is the conventional wisdom (making presidential season more tired so very early as it is ... doesn't help that there is basically nothing locally to care about), at least have some consistent strum und drang, right? Instead, there appears to be a desire to be reasonable about it all, hoping that Republicans will slowly see the sanity of changing the course.

This has already took over six months of precious time, which translates into hundreds of Americans dead (is it possible that two of them are among the seven of the famous NYC editorial? is probability not fair now?), thousands injured mentally and physically, and loads of Iraqis dead ... including people recently praised by the the asshole? To what effect? The temptation to truly look like losers?

We now have media sources ... they should be ridiculed across the board ... with ledes that Bush will bring some home ... IOW, those scheduled to be home anyway, leading to a likely result that more will be there than were before the Surge (moronic name). We still are supposed to take him seriously. The insanity continues.

[I was re-reading a little book about veganism by Victoria Moran, suggesting that it is not about eating certain things, but about an overall "compassionate ethic." I'm not there yet, but this is true for any number of movements ... who is really a pure Christian, etc.? Anyway, it does suggest the depth that is needed here. An overall change of heart and mind, an everlasting pursuit. The long haul. Just seems we are too often digging a hole with a spoon, that's all. Oh well.]

Inventing Human Rights

And Also: General P. is full of b.s. (see also Glenn Greenwald) ... but, hey, those who actually make policy actually take him seriously. So, apparently, we have to as well. Meanwhile, NY football started badly ... the NY Giants' pathetic defense sadly only part of the problem. But, the Mets are cruising ... that Philly meltdown was good news in hindsight. Sure, I knew it all the time.

I am an avid reader, and also find some interest in television and film, the former not just as a lazy exercise. Though not really a big fiction reader, I do consume enough real life narrative fare that overall I have read my fair share of narrative over the years. And, when I do, I visualize what is going on in my head. At times, it seems rather real, tangible. It is almost forgotten that these are often not real people, or if they are, I really have no reason to feel attached to them. But, I do. There is a certain connection there, involuntary in a way. It is a special thing. It is comparable to how I feel when reading nonfictional accounts of human stories. I relate with the "characters." Likewise, I try to get into the head of the "characters" who put forth different points of view. Related?

Inventing Human Rights: A History by Lynn Hunt touches upon this reality ... among other things, Hunt suggests that epistolary novels (in the form of letters) of the 18th Century was an important part in the development of such rights. Human rights generally had there qualities -- natural (inherent in human beings), equal (same for all) and universal (applicable everywhere). To have bite, they must also be accepted by political society, not just some ideal "state of nature" or religious concept. And, novels provides a means to do this -- it created a sort of "empathy" ("sympathy" or "sensibility" to those at the time) for others. Classics were favored as a means to learn morality, including fictional ones. The "modern" novel provided a more direct and shall we say up to date (the characters were often familiar ones) emotional experience.

At its core, the Constitution protects "persons." We take that word for granted, but "persons" originated from the masks worn in Greek plays. The masks were a sort of "persona" taken on by those who wore them. And, "human rights" requires that too -- to have such rights, society has to accept a sort of artificial self, an "other" in which even when thinking about ourselves we can in a fashion look at from afar. In effect, we have to formulate a sort of "character" that has a separate existence and rights. This also allows us to honor rights of those outside of our own intimate circle. We can understand things in abstract. And, feel an intimate connection as well.

Human rights after all ultimately come from within. The French philosopher Diderot noted this "interior feeling," Adam Smith spoke of "reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct." Why after all are certain truths "self-evident?" The conceit was that we as humans can use our reason to determine the law, but the early confusion of "natural law" and "natural right" (the French term could be translated either way) suggested the is/ought problem here. One influential natural law philosopher noted: "In order for a law to regulate human actions, it must absolutely accord with the nature and constitution of man and it must relate in the end to his happiness, which is what reason necessarily makes him seek out."

Jean Jacques Burlamaqui's use of "must" is in some fashion a legal fiction unless it is understood to mean what must be followed to provide our happiness. The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) spoke of the dangers of forgetting human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was written by those who knew all too well said danger. Thus, the existence of such rights were assumed via "whereas" clauses, statements of what is already "resolved" and accepted. The existence was accepted to be necessary already, not created by the declaration [the word btw suggests sovereignty, originally kings and such "declared" things] itself.

But, this does not belie the premise. The fact such "law" is inexact and in some fashion vague and arbitrary does not either. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" was good enough in 1776, and it still holds true today. There are various things that grow from reason, or rather experience, and in a fashion, all law is but commentary. And, this is often an internal thing ... the Scottish philosophers that influenced our Jeffersons spoke of an internal moral sense, a conscience. Some here, including many Federalists, were wary about that, Jefferson was more optimistic. But, all accepted it in some fashion. If not, written law can be somewhat meaningless. Haiti aside, and that only by armed conflict, the French Revolution did not do away with slavery in the French colonies.

The book also discusses the move against torture, a widely accepted matter in England and France, in the latter up to the 1780s ... though Voltaire and others had by then pointed to how it was a grave violation of human rights for decades by that point. Torture was problematic on various grounds. For one, the use of the accused/convicted person (it was used both before and after conviction, in part to try to find collaborators ... apropos to Dershowitz, there also was in effect a "torture warrant") in this fashion made him/her a means, not an individual in their own right. Second, there was a growing respect of the privacy of the person and the sanctity of the body (the growth of the personal portrait was an example of the trend). The use of torture against certain dissident religious groups also brought freedom of religion to the table.

And, the secrecy also was deemed problematic, surely open to abuse. But one connection to the modern age. Overall, good book, with some interesting connections made. A suggestion that history and law is a complex thing. A reason why I like reading about them.

[BTW, Christopher Hitchens might be a jerk in some respects, but his book on Thomas Paine, part of a series that provides quick takes on various like characters, is a good read ... at least, so far.]

Civil War ... American Style

In the bargain bin at Borders, I picked up a book about a person who loses his memory, and uses old books, records and so forth to try to regain some sort of memory.

He notes that fascist media stories from the WWII era turn out to be quite useful at telling the truth as a relative discovered. You just have to read in between the lines ... the Italians are brave one place, but "won" other places ... well, that means they lost that other place. And, the BBC apparently confirmed it for his uncle or whomever. This is a useful technique generally, including when you are reading a source that leans a certain way, or has incomplete information. See also, lawyers who cannot lie in court, but can re-arrange the truth in creative ways. This sort of thing helps me out since I'm not a big fan of reading sources that I totally disagree with.

Talking about past wars, I think the Civil War Era provides a useful history lesson. Take the Reconstruction. Many do not have fond memories of the rather small numbers of Union troops that staid on after the Civil War, often in later years sticking pretty close to their bases. We passed a law, weakened of late, specifically barring the use of the military in domestic affairs to guard against this sort of thing ... the thing that calls to mind the reason we have a Second and Third Amendment, in particular to the latter. But, we do not find it problematic ... well, not enough so ... when we send a lot more troops -- much more lethal ones at that ... into domestic areas in foreign countries. KKK attacks or not, we didn't keep the troops down South. And, said removal is not really the reason why blacks had it so hard afterwards.

Then, there is the general deal. Our liar in chief insists that he trusts the generals, sending General Petraeus out to promote "the Surge" (sound stupid, doesn't it?), various sorts telling us we should wait to September for months now to give him a chance to give his report. Such b.s., since we know what he will say, and basically knew it from the beginning. The spin of the "benchmarks" is only the most blatant example of the exercise. Simply put, there is a single forest problem here -- you can focus on the small, and show success, while missing the forest of failure.

[Let's compromise! As Elizabeth Edwards said on Rachel Maddow today, you can always refuse funding until the other side compromises. Oh, then that they will say you don't want to fund the troops. Darn Republican talking points ... oh wait, didn't Obama bring that up? Of course, her husband voted the wrong way 10/02. Still, things like that make me uneasy.]

This forest includes policy. It is the civilian side really, which is how things work here. But, who says we care about how things should work in our system? Anyway, Civil War generals had policy too. We didn't trust the war to McClellan, though. And, the historian James McPherson in a recent essay collection noted that Lee's official report almost made Gettysburg look like a victory for the rebels ... spin, you know.

Guarantee we will have a lot of armchair warriors showing how we could have done a better job in this conflict too. Heck, Bush is already out there saying we should have ended Vietnam differently. Ah, must be interesting to have no shame.

Quickies

Whoopi noted what a book I'm reading about the ROTC at USC did as well ... illegal dog fighting is prevelant in the area Vick grew up. This fact should be dealt with more, since it is not just about him. But, obviously, it doesn't justify things. It just explains them some -- the importance of the latter is sometimes confused with the former.

BTW, saw a NYT piece on how the Dems are willing to "compromise" on Iraq. WTF? When did they truly stand up? Why don't the side that was WRONG "compromise?" Finally, Seattle really fell apart ... especially since they only needed to win two out of twelve to stay one back from the Yanks. They couldn't do it.

Enough is Enough and other Rants

Some things seem simple to me. Simply put, it is so very wrong that the President perverted history to promote his war and occupation. It is wrong that we, including top Dems, are getting involved in Iraqi politics to the degree of virtual coup d'etat. It is wrong, so very wrong, to blame the victim -- Iraq is a mess because we made it that way. Democrats who join this business about them having to "step up" deserve our scorn. Finally, TPM and MY are right -- this defeatism has to stop. Reminds me of Grant telling his generals to stop worrying about how Lee is going to beat them, and focus on beating Lee. All seriously wrong in different degrees, scream out loud wrong.

We still take the President seriously. Or, rather, enough to be too much. There is a sort of belief in some that the President is sorta like one of those less than savory popes or kings, who we cannot oppose too much since it will defame the office and threaten the system as a whole. In actuality, such support perverts the system more than the alternative. Ah the irony. I felt this way in 2004, but it's ever more true now ... support of this threat to republican values is anti-American as that term should be defined. The President and his ilk spread ignorance, hate, selfish bluster, and all the other dark sides of our being, and the fact some in his party feel unable to really call him on it because the office needs to be salvaged or something is ultimately pathetic. As is those who continually deem such criticism some childish notion of "liking" the President or something. Grow the f. up.

While I'm ranting, some more things that annoy me. First, this typical business about anti-abortion legislators and such only worrying about "children" (fertilized eggs are human "life" to some degree ... if not in the complete sense of the word ... but they are not "children" in my eyes) until they are born. This is bogus. The fact that a majority might be very dubious about many social welfare programs is true enough and worthy of our opposition. But, this does not mean they don't care about them at all. In fact, hard as it is for some to understand, many actually think the government hurts their overall welfare. Again, in various ways, they are wrong to trust the private sector alone to such a large degree. Doesn't mean they do not "care" though. This hyperbole causes problems and generally is wrong.

Second, Thom Hartmann has this "corporations aren't persons" fetish. I use the word advisedly. I actually remember him saying once that corporations are in some senses of the word "persons," such as for tax purposes. When you tax or regulate something, "personhood" might be involved in some contexts. And, this is exactly how corporations became persons in limited sense. For sake of jurisdiction, courts started to treat them as persons of the state where they were incorporated or did business (etc.). They NEVER had the same bunch of rights as you and me. Likewise, they can be regulated, especially when being incorporated, in ways you and I cannot be. You and I cannot be told that we can only do one sort of business. Finally, "property" is protected by the Due Process Clause. Various protections that annoy people would fall under that provision too.

So, there will be limits to how we can attack corporations, but quite a few ways that than can be attacked. And, the "personhood" business is in no way as ridiculous as some think. BTW, I am still not sure if Thom thinks cases like NYT v. Sullivan were illegitimate. A press corporation as a person!!! Likewise, sorry Thom, the press is not the only "business" covered by the Constitution. It might not be nice to view it that way, but religion is a big business in this country too (they get paid, right?). Likewise, associations are secured by the First Amendment too, including lobbyists btw, and they too very often are businesses.

Finally, he wants us to show some tough love to our members of Congress. Do right by us, and we will stick by you. Sorry, I do not think that will work. Some of these people have to go. When a Sen. Levin joins in complimenting the surge and saying leaders of other sovereign nations have to go, some line is being crossed. Changing Congress is a multi-step process. 2006 started the ball rolling. Many Republicans are calling it quits this year. Some Dems need to go too ... the 1995-2007 period left something to be desired.

It seems to be time for a real cleaning out of the stables. Surely, more muck cleaning than we had thus far.

Overnight Stunt

And Also: The relevant Senate committee has approved a bill that would allow the FCC to fine even "fleeting" obscenities and indecent language on television, after an appellate court noted such application was an unreasonable application of current law. Don't they have anything better to do than b.s. like this?

Some have referenced the Democratic filibuster of a few appellate judicial nominees as a precedent to the Republicans blocking a vote on the occupation. On some level, yes, it is -- such delays have been long standing methods to further the function of the Senate as collegial branch that respects the rights of the minority. It is not absolute ... currently, it can be overridden by sixty votes. Thus, the desire of some to declare a "nuclear option" to do away with the whole thing is dubious ... and, a bit ironic, since I doubt that many wanted it to be done when the Democrats were in the minority.

All the same, there are differences. First off, judicial confirmations are a purely Senate function. The occupation and related issues are congressional in nature, and it is notable that the House has already voted on a few particular issues (filibusters are also being used on non-Iraq matters) being blocked. Second, the last election suggests the people's will is being violated -- they have "spoken" on the issue, and it is unclear how a similar statement can be said to have been made on judicial nominations. Finally, on the merits, the issue is more fundamental* and the negative just not defensible.

Some want to wait so that Gen. Petraeus can testify, though not only do we now have reports (e.g., NYT today) that generals are telling us that nothing remarable one way or the other can be said now, it is unclear if he himself is such a grand judge of the situation at hand. Or, that it suddenly will change Republican votes to any real degree, even being sympathetic to the man's bona fides personally. BTW, the National Intelligence Estimate suggests we have been giving on the job training for those who might attack the U.S. I had to laugh at the irony of it all.

Anyway, ultimately, one has to agree that the night long session (overall, Congress seems to have some late hours of late, especially the House ... though the latter often to have face time) is on a basic level a stunt. After all, what is a stunt but a one time deal that is mostly for show? The true path to change is hard and continual action. I reference here (both the post and the Monfort reply) as a clear statement of my basic belief. The same applies to sympathetic souls like Sen. Sanders (I-VT) who assures us he is real upset, but doesn't seem to really want to firmly DO anything but hope something will change now that the Congress is blatantly actively furthering Bushie b.s.

After all, there aren't the votes, and we shouldn't give the other side ammo. But, if simple legislation like card checks for unions are blocked, we apparently don't have the votes for much of note. Likewise, as the last link suggests, what is offered quite arguably HELPS the administration in various cases. If the leadership backs something and backs in consistently, come back to me when it fails. The mind-set seems to be not to even try. This defeatist b.s. is obscenity, and not fleeting at that.

---

* The issue of control of the courts is fundamental as well, but in practice, a few nominees were held up. The net effect was trivial in many ways as compared to the death and destruction in Iraq. This is underlined by the fact that the most controversial nominees turned out to be confirmed anyway. The issue continues to be of concern.