Who would be proud of what happened today?

MSNBC describes it as the "bill on terror detainee trials" while AP calls it the "detainee interrogation bill" and CNN says it is a bill "to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects."
They've drunk the Koolaid -- they begin by assuming that everyone presently in Guantanamo is guilty, and they don't seem to realize what this bill actually does.
The blogs tell it like it is. They call it the pro-torture bill, the torture bill, the Bush/McCain pro-torture bill, the Republican Torture Ratification bill, and the USA Mengele Act, while the New York Times describes it as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy".
Here is the New York Times' summary of what Bush and the Republicans in Congress have done:

.. . held [accused terrorists] in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them . . .[then wrote a law which gives to the President] the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

So I got thinking about some of the other presidents we have known. What would THEY think about Bush's torture bill and the frightened, pell-mell rush of the Republicans in Congress to endorse Krystalnacht.

Would these two be proud of what Bush and the Republican Congress did today?


I don't think so.
And I'm sure he wouldn't be:


And not him:


Nor even him:


Definitely not him:


And not even him:

who once said "No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience."

Why Conservatives Can't Govern

Via Suburban Guerilla, we find political scientist Alan Wolfe's summary of "Why Conservatives Can't Govern". Here's the gist of it:

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation.
. . . like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.
. . . As a way of governing, conservatism is another name for disaster. And the disasters will continue, year after year, as long as conservatives, whose political tactics are frequently as brilliant as their policy-making is inept, find ways to perpetuate their power.

I'm very much afraid that Canadians will find that this applies just as well to Harper's Conservatives as it does to Bush's Republicans.

Great line of the day

From Tristero at Hullabaloo:

David Ignatius asks, in a genuinely stupid column, "How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? "
Step One: Bush and his entire cabinet leave office.
Step Two: Wait for Step One.
Until then, it is inevitable that Iraq will stay firmly on the path towards becoming a failed state . . . . And, no, it's not that Bush et al were incompetent that [the war in Iraq] failed. That's backward. The Bush administration demonstrated its total incompetence because it took a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq seriously and thought it could succeed.

Still crazy after all these years

So I guess the Star Phoenix thinks that improving working conditions for rural women in Saskatchewan is too 'strident" and "out of the mainstream".
And I guess the Globe and Mail thinks its more seemly and genteel to worry about museums than to worry about Canadian fiscal policy barriers to working women.
Ah, crazy feminists!
Can't we ever just be satisfied with what we've already got?
The Star Phoenix says that Status of Women Canada "too often has come to represent the more strident of the women's movement rather than the diversity or the mainstream" while the Globe says "there is no rule that existing programs must continue forever" and "Surely Status of Women Canada. . . does not need to exist in perpetuity".
Ouch -- strident AND useless.
No wonder the Harper government cut their funding -- for goodness sake, what did we feminists expect?
Well, lets just take a look-see at the crazy, irrelevant things what SOWC has been doing lately. I looked up their planning document for 2006-07, and here's what the harpies are whining about now:

Although the situation for women and girls has improved, inequality persists over time in several key social and economic areas recently measured:
- In 2001, women made up 52 percent of those graduating with a bachelor's or first professional degree.
- In 2004, women accounted for 47 percent of the employed workforce with increased representation in several professional fields and managerial positions.
- In 2004, women contributed $185 billion through wages and self-employment to Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
- Women provide two-thirds of the unpaid work time (care of children, sick and elderly) spent in Canada. Women's unpaid work constituted the equivalent of 12.8 million jobs to the economy in 1992 at a value of about one third to one half of the GDP-equalling as much as $374 billion.
- Overall, women continue to have significantly less income than men.
- Women who are immigrants, disabled, a visible minority or Aboriginal are more likely to live in poverty than men.
- Violence and abuse begin early in life for many women and girls, and the effects can last a lifetime.
Almost every indicator shows that Aboriginal women face severe barriers to equality and inclusion. According to recent Government statistics, the life expectancy of Aboriginal women is more than five years shorter than that of Canadian women in general, and they are more likely to live in poverty-36.4 percent as compared with 17.7 percent. Aboriginal women are also more than three times more likely to be assaulted by their spouses than are Canadian women in general, and they are eight times more likely to be killed by their spouses after a separation. Aboriginal women who have status under the Indian Act, and who are between the ages of 25 and 44, are five times more likely to experience a violent death than are other Canadian women in the same age category.

And here are some of those "strident" studies published in 2005 and 2006:

Hidden Actors, Muted Voices: The Employment of Rural Women in Saskatchewan Forestry and Agri-Food Industries (Posted August 24, 2006)
Equality for Women: Beyond the Illusion Final report of the Expert Panel on Accountability Mechanisms for Gender Equality (Posted July 17, 2006)
Farm Women and Canadian Agricultural Policy (Posted July 13, 2006)
Policy Research Fund Publications (1996-2006) - CD ROM(April 2006)
Gender and Trade: A Policy Research Dialogue on Mainstreaming Gender into Trade Policies(March 2006)
Report on Status of Women Canada's On-Line Consultation on Gender Equality(Fall 2005) Human Security and Aboriginal Women in Canada(December 2005)
Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children - A Collection of Policy Research Reports(November 2005)
Women and Employment: Removing Fiscal Barriers to Women's Labour Force Participation(November 2005)
Aboriginal Women: An Issues Backgrounder(August 2005)
Poverty Issues for Canadian Women(August 2005)
Rural Women's Experiences of Maternity Care: Implications for Policy and Practice(July 2005)
Indian Registration: Unrecognized and Unstated Paternity(June 2005)
Public Policy and the Participation of Rural Nova Scotia Women in the New Economy(May 2005)
Increasing Gender Inputs into Canadian International Trade Policy Positions at the WTO(May 2005)
Policy Research Fund Publications (1996-2006) - CD ROM(April 2006)
Retaining Employment Equity Measures in Trade Agreements(February 2005)
Making Family Child Care Work: Strategies for Improving the Working Conditions of Family Childcare Providers (January 2005)

And by the way, Mr. Globe Editorial Writer, those poor, poor museums which can "rarely obtain operational funding from other sources" can at least raise a few bucks on their own by charging admission.
Maybe Status of Women Canada can raise its own money with one of those "naked calendar" stunts -- yeah, and we'll get Belinda Stronach and Tie Domi to pose for it.
Of course, Belinda may complain that this is sexist, but what does she know? Surely sexism doesn't still really exist anymore in Canada . . .

Great lines of the day

Juan Cole:

Bush told Wolf Blitzer he thought Iraq was a comma . . . But Iraq is very clearly an exclamation point. Now you know why the whole policy has been wrong. Bush has been trying to close off a dependent clause, not realizing he was forcefully making a declarative statement.

I love grammar witticisms. Though as Steve Gilliard notes, in another Great Line, the "comma" remark from Bush was actually Fundie-speak, or, as Steve put it, dog whistle:

When Bush said Iraq was a comma, he was speaking in dog whistle to the fundies. It comes from a saying "Never put a period where God puts a comma". Which means things will get better. Which is, of course, insane.

Emphasis mine.
UPDATE: Ian WeltchWelsh explains dog whistle politics. [Thanks for the correction, POGGE]

Shorter Canadian Press

CP thinks this is a news story:

I can't be bothered to examine the actual merits of any arguments against the Tory spending cuts. Its just so much easier to chortle about Tory payback to the people who didn't vote for them. What other 'news' could Canadians possibly need?

I'll stick with coffee, thanks

What a place to find a drowned bat!
Reminds me of a story --
What's worse than finding a worm in an apple?
Finding half a worm in an apple.

Pointy-Haired Boss

Two weeks after 911, Bush reportedly described his job this way:

"I have to manage the bloodlust of the American people."

Well, I guess he managed this just like he managed everything else -- poorly.

Bad idea

Allowing this rally to be held is stupid. What is the point? To make everybody even angrier? Yeah, that will help cool things down and resolve the dispute, won't it.

Beliefs

If your beliefs have turned you into a sanctimonius, judgmental know-it-all jerk, then maybe you need to change your beliefs.

“It’s time to get serious about denying Planned Parenthood funding for birth control or sex education . . . If we believe life begins at the moment of conception, we have to defend it against [this] chemical attack.” Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International

Or you could consider simply NOT believing it, couldn't you?

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

Shorter Eddie Goldenberg:

Is there some way I can continue to screw up the Liberal party? Why yes, yes there is.

Pining for the fjords

My husband and I realized the other day, while watching a Monty Python episode from 1969, that we have spent our adult lives using Monty Pyton lines as our commentary on the passing scene -- "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" and "Steals from the poor and gives to the rich, stupid bitch, dum dum dum, dum dum dum" and "How to defend yourself when being attacked with a banana" and "I didn't come here for an argument. Yes, you did." and "a delightful mint-flavoured burgundy", not to mention "Someday, son, all this will be yours. Wot, the curtains?"
So the line that illustrates the newest report of Osama's demise is "He's pining. Pining for the fjords!"
Glenn Greenwald notes that Osama bin Laden "has died more times than any human being in history" and, surprisingly, it often seems to happen just when things are looking a little dark for the Boy Wonder.
Here is Greenwald's list:

Jan. 19, 2002 "Pakistan's president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease"
July 7, 2002 "FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson said Wednesday he believes Osama bin Laden is dead "
Oct. 16, 2002 "Osama Bin Laden appears to be dead but his colleagues have decided that Al Qaida and its insurgency campaign against the United States will continue, Israeli intelligence sources said". . .
April 30, 2005 "A new Islamist website is reporting that bin Laden is dead"
Oct. 24, 2005 "The Pakistani newspaper 'Ausaf' which is based in the city of Multan in the Punjab Province is reporting that Osama bin Laden died last June in a village near Kandahar in Afghanistan"
Jan. 9, 2006 "according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December."
Sept. 23, 2006 "Saudi intelligence services have determined that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in August . . . the report comes from an actual secret document. . . "

Then, of course, Bin Laden pops up with another video or audio tape -- just in time for another American election.
Greenwald writes:

Most of our "counter-terrorism" efforts have been like this -- like a Three Stooges routine. The reality is that we have no idea whether bin Laden is dead . . . stumbling around in the dark, dealing only with baseless, fact-free insinuations, and ignoring him (by necessity) except to grasp desperately for him when some domestic political gain can be squeezed out of him. In the hands of Bush followers, terrorism and Al Qaeda are big toys, things to be tossed around aimlessly for fun and diversion . . .

The "model" for the Middle East

Shattered and bloody, brutal and dangerous -- has Iraq already become a "model" in the Middle East?
When the neocons and Bush prattle on about how the American "mission" must succeed in Iraq because it will serve as a model for the whole Middle East, I don't think this was the kind of model they had in mind.
At Hezbollah's Victory Rally in Lebanon on Friday (which Juan Cole says attracted an "enormous crowd" in south Beirut) Hezbollah leader Hasan Nazrallah also talked about Iraq is a model -- of what happens to a country which is not protected as Lebanon was by Hezbollah.
Nazrallah said:

. . . before speaking about Lebanon, we as Lebanese should see Iraq as a model. Had the war in Lebanon succeeded, the Americans would have applied this model in Lebanon. They wanted to apply this model in Lebanon. In the war, we the Lebanese offered martyrs from the Resistance, the army, the security forces, the civil defence, the Red Cross, the news media, the establishments, the different parties, and all our beloved people. But how many were martyrs? Never mind, were they 1,000 or 1,200 martyrs? In Iraq, some 10,000 to 15,000 people are killed every month in a chaotic war that is administered, financed, and incited by the Americans and the Mosad. The resistance in Lebanon protected Lebanon from civil war. [Cheers]
Some say that the resistance in Lebanon pushes for civil war. Never! Had Israel won, Lebanon would have been pushed to civil war, and you would have heard voices calling for federalism, cantons, and division. The Israeli language would have become current anew.
Iraq is a model, which we must always ponder. Our message to our people in Iraq must always be: Patience, calm, unity, wisdom, communication, avoid sedition, and don't wager on the enemy . . .

Sigh

You know, civil rights is just so important, affecting people's healthcare and living conditions and workplaces and incomes and families and even the likelihood of going to jail.
So I wish civil rights commissions could stick to what is important instead of wasting their time on trivialities like whether city councils should start their meetings with a prayer. Why does anyone care?

Great line of the day

Lance Mannion writes about Reagan v. Bush:

. . . Reagan saved the Party by being, often, successful, and by being truly popular. People liked the guy; they didn't need to be told over and over and over and over and over again that not only did they like him, they had to like him or the bad guys will come and kill us.
Reagan also helped himself and the Party by being able to give up on a project or an idea that wasn't working.
Bush's reaction to being wrong is to throw all his energy into being more wrong.
He's the kind of guy who if you tell him he's driving the wrong way down a one way street steps on the gas.
Party loyalists in the back seat are forced to say, No, no, this isn't a one way street, it's just narrow, or if it is one way it's one way this direction and all those other cars coming right at us are going the wrong way but fortunately George is such a skillful driver that they'll all miss us.
We're winning in Iraq. Torture is good. Up is down, down is up, the lark's on the wing, the snail's on the thorn, Bush is in the White House, and all's right with the world.

Emphasis mine.