Great post of the day

John at Americablog asks a startling and relevant question -- Would UCLA have tasered Rosa Parks?
Here is his complete post, which I copied in full because I'll likely want to quote from it again someday:

After all, Rosa Parks was black, committed a premeditated crime, and loudly and rudely disrupted the commute of a lot of nice white people who simply wanted to get home after a hard day's work. Bitch.
Then there's Ernesto Miranda - another colored guy. Hell, Miranda wasn't even American - he was one of those Mexicans that Lou Dobbs is always talking about. And Miranda was even worse than Parks. Miranda got arrested, and convicted, of kidnapping and rape. Yeah, real nice guy. According to the court, he was a "seriously disturbed individual with pronounced sexual fantasies." Freak.
Or how about Roy Allen Stewart - robber, murderer, sentenced to death. He was an indigent black guy who dropped out of school in the sixth grade. Loser.
The list goes on. Michael Vignera, robber. Charles Townsend, 19-year-old heroin addict and "near mental defective" accused of murder, and found guilty.
So there you have it:
Uppity black chick.
Illegal Mexican.
Poor grade-school drop-out.
Retarded heroin addict.
American heroes? Hardly. None of these people have anything in common with you or me. Some of them asked for it, others had it coming. These aren't the kind of people our laws are meant to protect.
I'm glad the police repeatedly tasered that student at UCLA, while handcuffed and seated and offering no resistance, for simply not having his ID in a university library. That student was an asshole. And in America, civil rights aren't for assholes, or niggers, or spics, or burn-outs. They're only for people like you and me.
PS In case a few of you haven't figured it out, the names above are all of famous US civil rights cases. Each of those nasty individuals is responsible for you having some of your most important rights as American citizens. Think about that. You have YOUR rights because the courts recognized THEIR rights. That's why cases like this, where the victim is an "asshole," matter. Those assholes are responsible for most of the rights you now take for granted.)

Teaching torture

Once the President and the Secretary of Defense have said its OK to torture "bad" people, where do police draw the line? Here's today's story from UCLA in Los Angeles:

. . . Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack. When an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, the witnesses said, Tabatabainejad told the officer to let go, yelling "Get off me" several times. "Tabatabainejad encouraged library patrons to join his resistance," police said. "The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser."
Officers stunned Tabatabainejad, causing him to fall to the floor . . . "It was beyond grotesque," said UCLA graduate David Remesnitsky of Los Angeles, who witnessed the incident. "By the end they took him over the stairs, lifted him up and Tasered him on his rear end. It seemed like it was inappropriately placed. The Tasering was so unnecessary and they just kept doing it."

And there are other incidents in LA also being investigated:

One video showed a Los Angeles Police Department officer dousing a handcuffed suspect in the face with pepper spray as the suspect sat in a patrol car.

Emphasis mine -- the point being that, in both these incidents, the police were in no danger whatsoever but inflicted pain anyway. Digby writes:

. . . police are not supposed to be in the business of meting out punishment nor are they supposed to use excruciating (even if shortlived) pain to make suspects comply with their orders unless they have absolutely no other choice . . . It's the coldest application of pain I've ever seen.

Well, when it comes to "cold", I think the UCLA incident does have some competition:

Afghanistan's growth industry

Well, at least one sector of Afghanistan's economy seems to be improving -- dare I say, even flourishing -- according to the US GAO (h/t Cursor):

Opium Production in Afghanistan, 2002 through 2006:
Net opium poppy cultivation (hectares);
2002: 74,000;
2003: 80,000;
2004: 131,000;
2005: 104,000;
2006: 165,000.
Potential opium production (metric tons);
2002: 3,400;
2003: 3,600;
2004: 4,200;
2005: 4,100;
2006: 6,100.

Do what I say, not what I do

Oh yes, our Steve is Mr. Principle when it comes to human rights in China:

Canada will not "sell-out" its position on human rights to cash in on trade and investment with China, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday, firmly putting his government's stamp on relations with the Communist economic powerhouse . . . I don't think Canadians want us to sell out important Canadian values - our belief in democracy, freedom, human rights," Harper said.

But when it comes to Canadian gays and lesbians, Harper will throw their human rights under the bus in the blink of an eye.
When the Conservatives talk about overturning gay marriage, they're actually talking about overturning court decisions and Supreme Court rulings that gay people are deserving of equal rights, including the right to marry. As reported in June, 2005:

. . . if Harper's Tories should get in they would have only one tool to get rid of same-sex marriage most constitutional experts agree: the Charter's notwithstanding clause, a constitutional escape hatch which no federal government has ever used.
``They're going to have to at least be honest with the people,'' said Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. ``They're going to have to acknowledge that they want to override the (Charter of Rights), override constitutional-law decisions in nine jurisdictions in this country, override a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, override the rule of law in this country."

I guess China doesn't have a "notwithstanding" clause.
And you know how Canadian business traditionally supports the supposedly pro-business Tories? Well, I wonder what they're thinking now. With the softwood lumber sell-out and the income trusts debacle, and now the China freeze, business people must be starting to wonder whose side Harper is on.

Lee Marvin never had to worry about no stinking city councils

So last night we watched The Big Red One -- Lee Marvin and his merry men fight their way across French Africa, Sicily, Omaha Beach, Belgium, France and Czechoslovakia, virtually single-handedly winning World War II.
And today I read this (h/t Today in Iraq):

As Commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force during the lead-up to the war, Hagee was in charge of planning for the Marines' original push to Baghdad. So I asked him about one of the enduring mysteries of the invasion — why there was no real plan for running the country once Saddam Hussein fell from power.
Unfortunately, Hagee's comments only deepen the mystery. He says he was deeply concerned about who would take charge of major Iraqi cities, like Najaf, as the Marines pushed through them on their way to Baghdad.
Hagee says he asked his boss again and again who would take charge of those cities. He wanted to know what the plan was for Phase IV — military terminology for the phase that follows the end of major combat operations. Phase IV is, in other words, what comes after "mission accomplished." Hagee says that he sent his questions up the chain of command, as they say in the military — and never heard back.

How could they do such a poor job? Well, here's how.
Its because Lee Marvin never had to worry about setting up a civil authority to run Belgium after they mopped up the Nazis. John Wayne didn't rebuild St Mere Eglise, either, after The Longest Day.
Nope, they all gleefully leveled villages without the least concern about who was going to rebuild anything after they left.
And maybe this is why Rumsfeld and Cheney and all were caught flat-footed -- the war movies never bothered showing any of their war heros setting up city council elections.

"I'll bite your legs off"

Read this Glenn Greenwald column about the Iraq war promoters, and see if it doesn't remind you of something:

Once the U.S. invaded Iraq and realized that (a) the WMDs that "justified" the war didn't actually exist and (b) we were completely unprepared to fight the well-armed and well-planned insurgency, we had ample opportunity to adjust, change course, alter our objectives, or leave.
The reason we didn't is because the country was continuously lied to by the most morally depraved people one can fathom, who were so afraid of admitting error regarding the wisdom of the invasion that they kept insisting to Americans that things were going great and that everything would be fixed very soon . . .

Sounds like The Black Knight, doesn't it?
"I cut your arm off!" "No, you didn't!"
"Come on, you pansy!"
"Had enough, eh?"
"Just a flesh wound"
"I've cut your legs off!" "No, you didn't!"
"Call it a draw."
"You yellow bastard, I'll bite your legs off."

. . . it is truly unfathomable that the people who are responsible for this disaster -- not just the ones who advocated it in the beginning, but much worse, the ones who continued to insist that things were going well and that everything was progressing nicely and that reports to the contrary should be dismissed and ignored -- continue to be accorded respect and treated as though they have great credibility. Why is that?
And conversely, why are those who were so right and prescient and wise in their counsel treated as though they are lightweight, laughable morons who can't be "trusted with national security"? Why is it that when one watches news programs, one still encounters all of those smug, all-knowing little sneers whenever there is a reference to Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi and national security, whereas John McCain and Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan and Lawrence Kaplan -- Iraq War lovers all -- are addressed with whispered reverence as we wait for their wise and weighty pronouncements about What We Should Do Next?
It's like watching a patient who has lost limbs and organs due to a surgeon's gross malpractice continue to return to that same surgeon for the next operation, while scoffing at the doctors who warned of the dangers . . .

Bartender Carrie thought of this comparison also.

For a few dollars more

When my daughter was in grade 8, she had to write a report on "buying" a piece of household equipment -- in her case, a stove. She had to compare prices and models, go to several stores to see what was best value, and visit the banks to arrange for a "loan".
Well, when we went to the bank, they told her they didn't lend such small amounts of money, about $500. Instead, they told her that people now used Visa cards for purchases like this.
Well, I wondered, what if you didn't HAVE a Visa card? What if you didn't make enough money to qualify for one? And what if you didn't want to pay 20 per cent interest? Does that mean you're not allowed to buy yourself a stove?
So it was interesting to see that this year's Nobel Peace Prize went to Bangladeshi economist Muhammad Yunus, who invented microcredit.
He describes his innovation thusly: "Whatever banks did, I did the opposite." Words to live by.
And now he is leading the second Global Microcredit Summit in Halifax:

Nine years ago, the Microcredit Summit Campaign set a goal to lend money to 100 million of the world's poorest people - those living on less than US$1 a day - by the end of 2005.
Of the 113 million that received loans by the end of last year, only 82 million were considered the world's poorest, but the campaign expects to reach the 100-million goal this year.
Two new goals are the focus of the Halifax summit . . . to reach another 75 million of the world's poorest by 2015, and to ensure the loans help at least 100 million people live on more than a dollar a day.

For too long, our society has just accepted idea that 'the poor will always be with us' and there was nothing individually that anybody could do about poverty except earn enough money ourselves to give some of it away to relief agencies.
Now here is a man who used the skills and knowledge he had to do create something meaningful and directly helpful to millions of people. Its an inspirational example for us all.

. . . Peter MacKay. . . admitted he was awestruck when he first met Yunus before the summit. "You are immediately struck that you're in the presence of greatness," MacKay told a crowd at the summit's opening ceremonies on Sunday. "This man who is so soft-spoken, such an understated giant of a man, has literally changed the world."

Great line of the day

. . . In the middle of an intersection of roads lies a $100 bill. On the corners stand Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Continuing Sectarian Violence [in Iraq], and Something The U.S. Can Do That Will Save Iraq.
Who wins the race to the money? Continuing Sectarian Violence.
Why? Because the other three are figments of your *@%#ing imagination! . . .

From AJ at AMERICAblog. The whole post is a good one.

Mission accomplished

And a lot more cartoons here on Daily Kos

Great line of the day

Wesley Clark talks to University of Arkansas students:

All wars are eventually about convincing your enemy not to fight.

He had some other interesting things to say too.

The Big Lie

The Big Lie is beginning -- the Lie that the American election was NOT about Iraq.
And the Republican goal is to convince Democrats to wimp out on their promises to the American people.
Karl Rove has already announced that it was corruption that caused people to vote Democratic -- for which, of course, the White House and Bush are completely blameless, innocent as the driven snow and all that.
Now, the Sunday talk shows are promoting part two of the strategy -- that it would be a great idea to increase the number of troops in Iraq, instead of decreasing them. Atrios says today:

Well, reading the tea leaves it's pretty clear what's going on. The Iraq Study Group which Democrats have decided is going to save them is going to recommend either sending in more troops (McCain/Lieberman position this morning) or beginning to bug out. Elite Consensus will tell us to double down one more time, send in another 30,000 troops or so, while condemning the Democrats as defeatists. There won't be enough Democrat support to use what little levers of power they have (not many) to force the administration's hand. So more American soldiers will have their lives disrupted and families torn apart, more of them will die, more Iraqis will die, so that soulless Joe "no one wants out of Iraq more than I do" Lieberman can prop up his feeling of self-importance.
God I hate these people.

The reason for pretending the election was not about Iraq is to undermine the Democrats -- because if the nation looks around in two years and finds that the US is STILL losing in Iraq, the Republicans can argue that the Democrats don't fulfull their promises so why bother to vote for them again.
And they might be right at that.
The Democrats have to remember to dance with the one that brung them. They can start by electing Murtha as majority leader in the House -- sending a clear signal that they support his strategy.
Because the Americans could send in 30,000 more troops, or 50,000 more, or 100,000 more, doesn't matter -- they're still going to lose in Iraq.



UPDATE: See Swopa over at Needlenose.

Remembering

From the Globe and Mail

New blogs

I've put some New Blogs up -- it was suggested in comments that I link to Rick Mercer's Blog so I did, and here's a great post about the income trust debacle:

. . . when Harper made this promise, I believed him. And so did a lot of seniors, apparently, because they kept investing in the bloody things. And why not? Harper’s entire shtick is that you can believe what he says. The entire raison d’être of the Harper government is: you may not like what we do, but we do what we say. Those Tories give you a promise, you can take it to the bank.
In fact if you go to a Harper rally, you can’t hear yourself think for all the Tories chanting “promise made, promise kept” over and over again like a herd of demented Moonies
. . . Well thank God that’s over. Because the next time Stephen Harper or any of his minions chant “promise made, promise kept,” you might want to step back, because if there is a God, the forecast calls for lightning
. . . yes, I know Harper has all sorts of excuses why he had to break his promise to seniors, but you know what? I don’t really care — because years ago I came to the conclusion that there were only two real reasons why politicians break their promises: You already voted for them and you already voted for them.

Also, I have linked to cartoonist August J. Pollak, a funny writer too, and to Ken Levin, about TV and movies.

Harper 1, Press Gallery 0

Remember the fight between Harper and the Ottawa Press Gallery over who got to ask questions at press conferences? Over at Rabble, Ira Basen reports that Harper won and the press gallery lost.
And actually, it was the public which lost:

. . . how many Canadians are lucid enough to notice what's really happening. The men and women of the Parliamentary Press Gallery are generally not sympathetic characters, and Harper took a low risk gamble when he decided to begin his assault on the press with them. In the end, few Canadians care who gets to ask questions at press conferences, and so long as the dispute continues to be framed that way, Harper's moves will cause him little harm.
But Canadians should care if their Prime Minister's real agenda is to de-certify the press; if, like George Bush, he believes that the national media's role in framing the democratic debate needs to be significantly reduced; if, while denouncing the press “filters,” he is actually advancing the idea that the information functions provided by his office through websites and podcasts have an equal legitimacy; and if by trying to control who gets to ask questions, and relying on sympathetic media and bloggers to get his message out, he actually believes it will “helpful for democracy.”
In the end, Stephen Harper's efforts to rollback the press may be more sophisticated and more subtle than the in-your-face tactics employed by the Bush White House. This is Canada after all! But the consequences are no less disturbing.

Harper may have won the battle, however, and be losing the war. No matter how it is spun, the Canadian public does manage to find out what the Conservatives are doing -- like here and here and here and here and here -- and that's just from today. Unless they start getting out in front of the news, it's not going to be pretty for the Conservatives.

Great line (of two days ago)

Tim at Peace, order and good government, eh?:

This election marks the twilight of neoconservatism as a credible philospohy, so Harper's brain trust in the Calgary School will now have to find a less idiotic guiding philosophy, like say tantric flying.