Category Archive

Surprising, I suspect, its distributor and a lot of reviewers in the mainstream media, War, Inc. is opening several more cities today, and apparently expanding to a few new theaters in cities where it was already showing.

There’s been none of the traditional marketing hype surrounding this movie. In fact, aside from an appearance on Countdown by John Cusack (the film’s co-writer, co-producer, and main star), I think all of the promotion of this movie has taken place online, either at the MySpace page set up by Cusack and the War, Inc. team, or in the liberal part of the blogosphere, where a lot of people (myself included) have been raving about it.

I’ve said a lot about War, Inc., here because I think it’s a film more people should see (just like I think more people should read Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine and watch Robert Greenwald’s Iraq for Sale). It focuses its satirical eye on what Klein calls disaster capitalism, a disturbing practice that has exploded and flourished under the current administration’s policies (though it’s been around longer).

Disaster capitalism is what happens when large corporations descend on a country or region in the wake of a disaster (natural or man-made) and start making sweeping changes in the way business (particularly local industry or natural resources) is done and governments are run while the people who live in the region are still in shock from the disaster itself. Of course, these sweeping changes tend to be of a nature that is extremely profitable for said corporations. And often disastrous for the local population.

We’ve seen aspects of it here in America, particularly in the wake of 9/11, when all sorts of appalling legislation that has turned out to be very profitable for certain corporate backers of people in the Bush White House was rushed through Congress. It’s been seen in post-Katrina New Orleans, and it’s probably happening right now in the parts of the Midwest that were affected by the floods a few weeks back, as well. And what some of these corporations (Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR) have done in Iraq is enough to leave one mortified that one shares a common country with the people running them.

It’s a phenomenon I haven’t talked about much in this blog, and which frankly I should probably talk about more. Because once you look at the economic angle, at where the money is actually going, the driving force for a whole lot of otherwise bizarre policies coming out of the White House suddenly becomes very clear. And very disturbing.

But I digress.

The point of this post was supposed to be to alert my you, my dear non-existent readers, to the fact that War, Inc., a movie that satirizes the disaster capitalism process, is opening in a bunch more cities today.

Cities like San Luis Obispo and San Diego in California; Portland, Oregon; Scottsdale, Arizona; Bethesda and Baltimore in Maryland; Philadelphia; Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Plano in Texas; Lexington, Kentucky; Frontenac, Missouri; and Denver, Boulder, and Colorado Springs, in Colorado. (Info about theaters here.)

I have to admit, that last city kind of caught me by surprise. I have family in Colorado Springs, so I’ve spent some time there, and I have to say, it’s a pretty conservative town. It’s the home of Focus on the Family and about a dozen other right-wing evangelical organizations, for one thing, and there are a lot of current and retired military people there. They have the Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force Base, and the Cheyenne Mountain NORAD people there. There may be an army base somewhere around there, as well, now that I think about it. These are the people who voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2000 and 2004. If you’ve ever wondered where the 28 percent of the population that still approves of George Bush is hiding, well, a disproportionate number of them can probably be found in the Springs.

So I was a little surprised to see that War, Inc. would be showing there.

But then I thought, well, there are a lot of soldiers living in Colorado Springs who’ve been in Iraq and seen how things are. They know what’s going on over there. What companies like Halliburton and Blackwater are doing, mostly on taxpayer dollars.

They’ll get it.

Anyway, if you haven’t already seen War, Inc., and you live in or near one of the cities where it’s just opened, you should check it out. Because if you’re the type of person who reads this blog on a regular (or even irregular) basis, I suspect you’ll get it, too.

-jane doe

At any given moment, I am probably part-way through a half dozen books or so. I tend to fill many of the hours that I don’t spend working or writing with reading, and always have.

Lately there is one book that I keep going back to, though. It’s called Defying Hitler. It’s a memoir by Sebastian Haffner, who was a boy in Germany during World War I and the chaos that followed in that country, and who grew to manhood over the time period when Hitler was rising to power.

The book, or at least large portions of it, was actually written during just prior to the start of World War II. It starts with a look back over the Germany of the author’s childhood and young adulthood, focusing on the conditions in German society and the German psyche that ultimately allowed a madman like Hitler to come to the fore. It’s a fascinating read, and I highly recommend it.

It’s been said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Reading through this book and others, one cannot help but be struck by the parallels that exist between our world here today in the United States and pre-World War II Germany. Certainly, some aspects of it are different, but the similarities are there for those who would see them:

• The increasingly authoritarian central executive who keeps stealing away our civil liberties in the name of protecting our “freedom”.

• The demonization of liberals by pundits and in the press.

• The mindless nationalism and bigotry, in which the immigrants who made this country what it is today are shunned as dangerous outsiders, and in which true patriotism and loyalty to the founding principles and laws of our nation are replaced by mindless loyalty to the flag and the president.

I could go on, but it’s late and I’m tired.

The point is, that the parallels are there for those who wish to see them. Oh, they take a slightly different flavor here in America - certainly the positive emphasis on Christianity, particularly of the evangelical variety, rather than the more blatant negative emphasis on hatred of Jews and other minority groups that was seen in Germany, is one example (though one cannot help but infer at times that the fanatic proclamation of one’s love for Jesus is really a thinly - or even not so thinly - veiled expression of disdain for those of other faiths, or of no faith).

All of it has me wondering, as I look at current events, is it fascism yet?

I’m not alone in raising this possibility. In Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here, he famously suggested that, “When fascism came to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.” More recently, Joe Conason’s It Can Happen Here (another book I am halfway through) points out the troubling rise in an authoritarianism that is based in corporate power and and religion. Chris Hedges makes a similar case in American Fasicists: The Christian RIght and the War on America (yet another book on the partially read list). And earlier this year, Keith Olbermann called our alleged president a fascist, subject-verb-object.

Is it fascism yet?

I don’t know the answer to this question. Part of the trouble is coming up with a good working definition of what constitutes fascism, what its defining characteristics are. There seem to be as many definitions as there are authors writing on the subject - witness the laughable Liberal Fascists by Jonah Goldberg if you doubt me on this. Perhaps this is the inevitable result of too many years of labeling one’s opponents as fascists or Nazis in arguments and debates: the terms have lost any real concrete meaning.

Is it fascism yet? Will we recognize it when it is?

Perhaps I will explore the subject a little more fully another day, or at least at a more reasonable hour. For now, I will leave you with this troubling thought:

Regardless of whether we have yet crossed the line into fascism yet, it cannot be doubted that our government, particularly the central executive, has become increasingly authoritarian. We have a president who does not feel bound to enforce or obey the laws passed by Congress or the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court. And we have two candidates who are running to succed him: one who seems determined to continue the current president’s failed policies, and one who has built a grass-roots movement centered around change, hope, and the power of the American people.

There will be a period of nearly two months between election night in November and Inauguration Day in January.

A lot can happen in two months.

Are we certain that, if the voters do not choose McCain to succeed him, Bush will step down on the appointed day? That he will not find some pretext, some emergency, that requires him to stay in control in order to ensure “continuity” in government policy? In the name of protecting us from terrorists, and preserving our ever-dwindling liberties?

And if he does not step down, will we step up and say that this is not our way? Or will we keep our heads down, not make waves, and assume that someone else will put a stop to the madness?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, and, as it is now approaching 4:00 AM here in Redstatesville, I am frankly too tired to delve into the matter at the moment.

But I still think Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached now, rather than taking a chance.

-jane doe

Like many others, I have grown increasingly frustrated with the refusal of the Democratic party leadership to impeach our beloved alleged president and his cronies for their many blatant violations of our constitution, our laws, international law, and the Geneva Conventions.

It’s not as if these guys have been terribly subtle about all their law-breaking, after all. They’ve flat-out admitted things that are clear violations of one or more of the above, all the while maintaining that the laws somehow do not apply to them, and their arrogance has been exceeded only by the egregiousness of their crimes.

And yet, despite having a clear majority in the House, and a theoretical majority in the Senate, Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have made it clear that impeachment is off the table.

This has outraged many, myself included. Forget about justice, what does their failure to impeach tell future holders of that office? That they can do what they want and get away without real repercussions.

Lately, though, I’ve started thinking about it like a lawyer, instead of like an outraged citizen, and I’ve come up with a plausible explanation that, if true, would excuse their current inaction, or at least explain it.

If true. And only time will tell us that.

If you think about all this like a prosecuting attorney planning out the strategy for taking down a big criminal kingpin, the current inaction makes sense. Better to delay a bit so you can be sure of a conviction – at least, as sure as it is ever possible to be in our justice system – than to tip your hand too soon and blow your chance forever.

Let’s say the House of Representatives does decide to bring impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, and successfully impeaches them both for their various high crimes and misdemeanors. What’s the next step?

Trial in the Senate.

The Senate where the Democrats can only be said to hold a majority because Lieberman is still caucusing with them.

You can impeach a president with a simple majority vote, which could be easily done. But actual conviction and removal from office requires a supermajority of 2/3 of the Senate.

There is no way the Democrats could be assured of getting that kind of support in the Senate. Hell, they’d be lucky if they could get all the Blue Dog Democrats to vote to convict, forget about persuading enough Republicans over to their side of the aisle.

Now let’s say you play the waiting game until Bush is out of office. Then where is the trial held?

I don’t know the answer to this one for certain, because there has never been an un-pardoned president whose crimes were on the scale of current chimp-in-chief. But ordinarily, when you have someone accused of serious violations of the federal laws and/or constitution, you have a trial in a federal district court. (Note: see update at end of post)

Now things suddenly get interesting. Because instead of having to convince enough Senators – many of whom have been bought and paid for by the corporate interests who are really calling the shots right now – you instead only have to convince either one judge or a jury of American citizens that Bush and his buddies have committed all these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

This strategy makes things very dicey, particularly in the case of a bench trial (judge only), because so many current members of the federal judiciary were appointed by Republican presidents.

I think that anyone who was actually appointed to the bench by the current administration would have to recuse himself or herself from the trial to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interests. Most judges don’t want to appear to have a blatant conflict of interest, particularly in high-profile trials (except in Texas, where they don’t seem terribly troubled by such matters). But if a Bush appointee was tapped to be the trial judge and refused to recuse himself or herself, the prosecutor could still seek recusal of the judge from a higher court.

That still leaves a lot of Reagan and George H. W. Bush appointees as potential judges, with a fair number of Clinton judges and a few left over from the Carter administration to balance the odds a bit. But even if the judge was appointed by a Republican, you would probably stand a far better chance of getting a conviction in that judge’s courtroom than in a Senate full of people who are more concerned with getting re-elected than with seeing justice done.

Frankly, most judges have a deep and abiding belief in the rule of law. They may differ in how they interpret things, but most who are good enough to be appointed to the federal bench won’t engage in or tolerate blatant partisanship in their courtrooms, at least not in a criminal trial. And federal judges don’t have to worry about losing their jobs if they make a politically unpopular decision, which gives them a lot more freedom to act according to their conscience and principles of justice than your average Senator enjoys.

There is another advantage to waiting until the bastards have left office before you begin prosecuting them: you would be able to go after all of them, including Cabinet members and high level staffers, without fear of having the convictions overturned by a presidential pardon.

Just think: you could go after Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, and a host of others.

You can’t force them to take the stand in their own trials, but you can at least force them to testify at each others’ trials. And here’s a fun fact: under the fifth amendment, a criminal defendant can just flat-out refuse to testify at his or her own trial. But for anyone else’s trial, the person must sit up in the witness chair, and respond “I refuse to answer that question because the answer may tend to incriminate me,” if he or she wants to hide behind the fifth amendment. Which is as good as an admission of criminal behavior, at least in the public eye.

Of course, this strategy will only work if Obama wins the election in November, because I think it’s a safe assumption that McCain would use the presidential pardoning power to keep any of the key people from even going to trial, just like Gerald Ford did with Nixon.

Still, it is a possibility.

Of course, this assumes that the Democratic leaders in Congress can actually get their acts together enough to come up with a plan like I’ve described here and follow through with it. Their current actions in the face of the alleged president’s demands for a new FISA bill with telecom immunity makes this seem less likely than one would hope.

Still, I can dream, can’t I?

And in case you were wondering, yes, I still think the bastards ought to be impeached.

-jane doe

Update: One big caveat here: the Supreme Court could decide to intervene and conduct the trial(s) themselves, I suppose. It would be to my knowledge unprecedented, but then again, that’s never stopped the current cohort of justices.

Second update: On looking back over this, I think there’s another possible option, which is that some sort of special court or panel could be assembled to hear the charges and cases against various members of this administration, in which case all bets are off. Also, I should note that it’s been a long time since my Federal Courts class in law school, and this was not the sort of thing I ever dealt with as a lawyer, so I could be completely wrong on all this, in which case I do hope some other lawyer with more knowledge in these matters will set me straight.

A storm’s moving in here in Redstatesville. The wind doesn’t seem to know quite which direction it wants to be blowing, and there will be lighting and thunder for certain before I go to bed tonight.

I look at the news - the war in Iraq, the reviving war in Afghanistan, the potential war in Iran (if Dick Cheney gets his way), elections, White House scandals, the economic mess, the cost of oil (both in dollars and in human terms), the insanity of our Middle East policy, religious extremism (Christian as well as Islamic), the environment and global warming, our eroding civil liberties and loss of privacy, and the constant, deafening efforts of right-wing politicians and pundits and priests trying to paint scientists, liberals, artists, academics, and anyone else who objects to all this insanity as anti-American and in league with the terrorists - and it’s hard not to think something similar is going on on a national scale, building toward some serious thunder and lighting, and maybe a bit of destruction before the year is through.

It’s all got me feeling a bit twitchy.

It’s not any one thing in particular that has me so nervous. Rather, it is an aggregation of things. Stories glimpsed briefly, often in the non-mainstream news and the blogosphere, that individually would qualify one for a lifetime membership in the Tinfoil Hat Brigade if one were to make a big deal out of them, but when looked at together, begin to seem more than a little ominous, like storm clouds building.

Like this story in the Denver Post about how “hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and even utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as ‘Terrorism Liaison Officers’ in Colorado and a handful of other states to hunt for ’suspicious activity’ — and are reporting their findings into secret government databases.”

Or this one, from May 2007, about the Bush administration contracting with Halliburton to build “detention camps” within the continental United States for use in the event of a “national emergency.”

Or this presidential directive, also from May 2007, granting the president extensive, extra-constitutional authority over the operations of the government in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.”

Or this story about a plan prepared by the Pentagon for “massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days.”

Twitch, twitch.

It’s like we’re building toward some big, possibly transformational event, and I can’t help feeling that it all comes down to who wins the presidential race in November. The candidate who promises change, or the one who promises only more of the same.

And I’m very much afraid of what may happen if we end up with the latter option.

-jane doe

Okay, I get that it’s an election year, and that a certain amount of pandering to the base is going to happen on both sides of the aisle in Congress, but this is just too funny (h/t to Crooks and Liars):

Seems that in a frantic effort to secure the votes of their evangelical base, a number of Republican senators have once again introduced the “Federal Marriage Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, in order to prevent states like California from legalizing gay marriage. Mercifully, it doesn’t have a hope in hell of passing. (And people, do we really need to be writing bigotry into the organizational documents of our country…um…besides that whole slaves counting as 3/5 of a human being that was originally included by the founders, anyway?)

This is not what’s funny.

What’s funny is that among the bill’s co-sponsors, you will find the names Larry Craig (R - Idaho) and David Vitter (R - Louisiana).

Yup. That’s right. Good old Senator Wide Stance and Senator Dances With Hookers.

Who needs to write jokes when the Republicans keep doing stuff this funny without any prompting from the rest of us?

-jane doe

Finally got to see War, Inc., last weekend when I was in Chicago. The showing I saw was on Sunday afternoon, and at that hour, unfortunately, the theater was more empty than full. Still, a fine time was had by all, I think.

Looking around on the net, one sees that War, Inc., has gotten rather mixed reviews from mainstream sources, and I can only conclude that those people don’t get it.

Me? I loved it.

War, Inc. is subversive, rebellious, twisted, and, most importantly, funny. The filmmakers made their political and social points without being heavy-handed, and clearly had fun doing so. This is what a good satire should be like.

The film stars John Cusack (who also co-wrote and co-produced it) as hitman Brand Hauser. Hauser is hired by Tamerlane, a US-based corporation run by a former Vice President (Dan Aykroyd) which has just successfully invaded a country called Turaquistan in the first-ever entirely corporate-fought war, to kill a competitor who has the temerity to build an oil pipeline in his own country in competition with Tamerlane.

Whew. That was a lot of info to fit in one sentence.

Tamerlane is a rather deliberate hybrid of Halliburton and Blackwater, and any resemblance between Iraq and Turaqistan (or between Aykroyd’s character and Dick Cheney) is purely intentional, I’m sure.

Hauser’s cover on this assignment is that he has to act as the trade show host for Tamerlane, which is showcasing all the wonderful products the company makes to help rebuild the country…sort of…most of the products seem to be things like inflatable prisons, weapons, security devices, and artificial limbs. Does any of this sound familiar?

While on assignment, Hauser is aided by his super-efficient assistant, Marsha Dillon (played by sister Joan Cusack). The relationship between these two characters seems very reminiscent of the roles the two Cusacks portrayed in Grosse Pointe Blank, but it works in this movie, too.

Hauser also finds himself interacting with lefty reporter Natalie Hegalhuzen (Marisa Tomei), an about-to-be-married 18-year-old Middle East pop star named Yonica Babyyeah (Hilary Duff), her piggish husband-to-be, Ooq-Mi-Fay (I’ll leave it to you to figure out the piglatin translation), their entourage, and the voice of an OnStar-like guidance system (Montel Williams).

Mayhem ensues.

I’ll refrain from detailing the storyline more than I already have, because I don’t want to spoil it for anyone. Suffice it to say, there is sufficient plot excitement to keep the film moving along at a good pace, but probably no huge surprises as the story unfolds.

The performances from all the major actors are great. Cusack is again wonderful in the conflicted hitman/everyman role. Marisa Tomei, Ben Kingsley, and Dan Aykroyd all nailed their parts. And much to my surprise, Hilary Duff was great as Yonica, the Middle East’s Britney Spears. I’m not familiar with her earlier work, and I’d kind of assumed that her acting talent would be about on par with Britney Spears, as well, but she showed a great ability to disappear into the character - I really wouldn’t have recognized her if I hadn’t already known she was playing the role.

There’s a lot going on in this movie at any point in time, beyond the main focus of the scenes. The advertising signs scattered all over the place in Turaquistan were hilarious, and there was a lot of funny stuff that you would miss if you blinked. I’m really looking forward to getting this movie on DVD, so I can figure out some of the things that went by too fast on the screen to be appreciated.

The soundtrack is good, which is no surprise since Cusack has shown a real talent for pulling together nice soundtracks in earlier movies where he’s been involved in the production (e.g., the Grosse Pointe Blank soundtrack, which is awesome). A fitting selection of tunes for the big scenes, plus some original songs written by Paul Hipp for Yonica’s performances in the film, like her trade show number, I Want to Blow You…Up, which, as you might expect from its title, is heavy on the innuendo, hold the subtlety.

My overall recommendation on this movie is this:

If you are a neo-conservative, don’t bother. Either you won’t get it, or it will piss you off. Of course, from the absence of badly-spelled troll-like comments I receive on this blog, I assume not many neocons are reading this, anyway.

For everyone else: If you are sick of the Iraq war, if you are tired of the way the Bush White House is running this country for the benefit of its corporations instead of its citizens, go see this movie.

Make a little noise.

Get rowdy.

And don’t forget to VOTE in November.

-jane doe

This evening, I had originally planned to post a nice review of War, Inc., which I finally got to see when I was in Chicago last weekend. It really is wickedly funny, and all the more topical given yesterday’s announcement about certain American and British oil companies going back to work in Iraq on no-bid contracts (read about that here). I’ll have to write that review tomorrow, though. Sorry.

The simple fact of the matter is, I’m too angry at the moment to write a good review.

The House Democrats sold us out today, folks. There’s no other way to describe it. And in doing so, they’ve pushed us a bit closer to that blurry, indistinct line that separates our democracy from fascism.

That’s assuming we haven’t crossed that line already. I’m really not completely sure, since it’s never been precisely clear to me what the defining characteristics of fascism are. There certainly seems to be a lot of debate about that on the internet. And it’s not like any modern government or political party will announce that it is hoping to institute a fascist form of government anymore, not since World War II. Still, we’ve seen the Bush White House use a lot of tactics that seem to come out of the Hitler playbook. Yes, I know that remark is likely to bring comments about Godwin’s Law — or it would if any of you, my dear non-existent readers, ever left comments, anyway. I don’t care. Sometimes, the Hitler analogy is appropriate from a historical perspective, and it has been increasingly so as this administration’s tenure has progressed.

But I digress.

The Democrats have a controlling majority in the House of Representatives. It’s not like the Senate, where they can only claim to have a majority because Joe Lieberman is still caucusing with them (even if he doesn’t vote with them on anything). So they didn’t have to cave.

They didn’t have to give in on the so-called compromise FISA measure. which grants the president expansive powers to spy on us without warrants — our phone calls, our e-mails, our internet surfing habits.

They certainly didn’t have to give the telecoms immunity. How the fuck does that make us any more secure, I ask you?

Yet this is precisely what they have done today. In doing this, they are giving us government not of the people, by the people, and for the people, but of, by, and for the major corporations. And for Big Brother.

In doing this, they betrayed us. The American people.

And it’s leaving me wondering what to do now?

See, here’s the thing. I used to be this corporate attorney. Big law firm, big business deals, big money. Well, big money for the number of years I was out of law school, anyway — lots of people were making a lot more money than me. I wore designer suits, I ate in nice restaurants, and I had a lovely office in…well, you don’t need to know which city, and I don’t want to make it too easy to identify me, for reasons I’ve already discussed elsewhere in this blog.

At first, the work was real easy to rationalize. Most of the clients I did work for were non-profit corporations performing essential services. So there I was, on the side of the angels, right? But the reality was, they were in competition with for-profit corporations, and in order to continue their operations, they had to engage in some of the same practices that the for-profits did just to remain financially viable.

This was very disturbing to me.

I tried going in-house at an organization that I believed then and still believe now to be very ethically run, but the business aspects were still getting to me. And when I have trouble believing in what I’m doing, I do not perform at my best.

Seven years out of law school, I was completely burnt-out.

I decided to go back to grad school to re-tool for a new career. I figured I would get my PhD, and then I could start working with certain organizations to educate legislators at the state and federal level about what scientific research was telling us about the field, and what the implications of that were for making policy applicable to that field.

Seems like a good fit, right? See, I already speak lawyerspeak, and politicianspeak and bureaucratspeak are both really just dialects of that language. So I thought I could help translate the scientific research (another language of its own) for the people making the policy, so that we don’t end up with policy that is so at odds with what all the research is telling us about certain things. (And yes, I’m dancing around the field I’m studying in, as well as the field I concentrated on in law. I’m trying to remain anonymous, remember.)

But then I watch things like what happened today, with the Democrats caving in to the President and the telecoms, instead of upholding the constitution. And I think about how the Democratic leadership has made it clear that impeachment is off the table. And I look at all the ways that the Democrats could have stood up for us since the 2006 election — on the Iraq war, on the economy, on our civil rights, on health issues, on torture and habeas corpus and corruption and no-bid contracts and the use of the Department of Justice for political ends and… the list just goes on and on and on.

And I wonder, am I fighting the wrong fight?

Should I be working within the system to bring about change?

Or should I be trying to change the fucking system?

I just don’t know anymore.

Any suggestions?

-jane doe

It was an interesting night for candidate speeches, tonight. And probably a bad night to be John McCain.

McCain went first tonight, and I can only infer that he felt obligated to say something because tonight marked the last of the primaries. What he was thinking giving a speech on Obama’s big night, I will never know, but it was an ill-advised decision. Speaking from New Orleans for reasons that aren’t entirely clear to me, he came across like a hopelessly out-of-touch high school principal trying to inspire school spirit at an attendance-mandatory pep rally for a football team facing the last game of a losing season.

McCain tried to paint himself as the candidate of change — a laughable notion at best, given his talk of continuing our current president’s failed policies. He talked up his experience and minimized Obama’s. And he tried to paint himself as an ordinary Joe in touch with the working man and Obama as some sort of privileged elitist, apparently forgetting which candidate married a woman with a fortune estimated in excess of $100 million.

In short, the speech was the standard political fare of a traditionalist, uninspired and uninspiring.

Then came Hillary’s speech in New York.

Her choice of venue was also curious: it was in a basement-level auditorium of a college in New York, a place with no monitors for the crowd to watch news coverage and no reception for people to get updates from their cell phones and Blackberries. Perhaps so they could maintain their denial just a bit longer?

Hillary’s speech was interesting, and was clearly written by a lawyer used to finely parsing words and phrases to allow one to appear to say something meaningful without really doing so. She did not concede the nomination to Barack Obama, though she complimented him on a campaign well fought. Indeed, the opening minutes of her speech sounded more like the words of a candidate who had just secured the nomination, instead of one who could no longer deny that her opponent had secured enough delegates to make him the real winner. She left her path forward ambiguous — as if she is still considering taking the fight all the way to the convention in Denver. To her credit, she did speak of unifying the party, but for the most part, this speech was all about Hillary and her supporters.

Obama wisely saved the best for last.

He was speaking in St. Paul, Minnesota, tonight, at the site where the Republican Party will hold its convention later this summer. Again, a very interesting choice of venue. Because tonight he showed that he could fill that venue to capacity with people who were just there to hear him give a thirty minute speech. Indeed, not only did he fill it to capacity, but at least one report I heard said there were apparently about 15,000 more people outside, just there to celebrate and cheer for Obama.

All this, in the space where the Republicans will be holding their convention in a few months. Don’t think that the pundits won’t have a field day with that during the convention — especially since it seems more likely that the venue will be surrounded by 15,000 protesters, not well-wishers.

Tonight Obama demonstrated once again what an exciting and inspirational speaker he can be. He acknowledged McCain’s service to our country, and he spoke kindly of Hillary. But then he spoke of the hopes and dreams of the American people, and about our ability to achieve the amazing when we all work together. He spoke of being humbled by the people he had met over the last many months as he traveled across the country campaigning. And he spoke of his hopes of helping to unite us all — not Democrats, but Americans — to restore our country to greatness in the eyes of the world.

I was a bit misty-eyed by the end of it.

So there you have it. Three speeches.

McCain spoke about…well, I’m not really sure what McCain spoke about, because frankly it was a snoozefest.

Hillary spoke about Hillary and her supporters.

And Obama spoke about us. All of us. America.

-jane doe

NB: One edit in the third paragraph. Sorry about the multiple posts, RSS readers.

Update: JedReport at Daily Kos has put together a video mash-up of the McCain and Obama speeches, which gives a nice idea of the differences between the two. Worth checking out! He’s also got the full video of Obama’s speech in the same post.

10:51 pm: Well, we are ten minutes away from the polls closing in California. At this point, Clinton and Obama are pretty much in a dead heat as far as the state count goes — how that will translate into convention delegates remains to be seen. On the Republican side, Romney appears to be picking up a few more states (Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota), though those states haven’t been decisively called yet and I don’t know what kind of margins we are looking at in the states. At any rate, it means Romney is still in the game, as are both Huckabee and McCain on the Republican side. And hey, did you know that Ron Paul is still in the race? You sure can’t tell from MSNBC’s coverage, but CNN at least includes him in the results reporting at the bottom of the screen.

Meanwhile, Hillary is currently on TV giving a speech, which I have muted. I may agree with her on a lot of issues, and if she’s the Democratic Party nominee at the end of the day I’ll vote for her, but I still don’t like listening to her give speeches.

11:00 pm: Polls in California and a few other states are now closed. But Hillary is still speaking. On and on.

11:01 pm: The Republican race in California is currently too close to call. Minnesota and Idaho have gone to Obama, and according to Keith Olbermann, I was too quick to assume that Clinton and Obama are currently tied in state counts: apparently, some of the states I was putting in Hillary’s column haven’t actually been called in her favor yet.

11:04 pm: Chris Matthews, whom I find annoying, is interviewing Mike Huckabee, whom I find worrying. But I didn’t unmute the TV soon enough after Hillary’s speech, so I missed whether there is a clear leader in California for the Democratic Party. Therefore, I am suffering through the interview so I don’t miss anything important.

11:10 pm: Unsurprisingly, California is too close to call at this point (addendum: and probably will continue to be too close to call for several hours). I see no reason to subject myself to more of this coverage for now. And according to my blog stats, no one is reading this tonight anyway (not that I have any readers on this blog), so I might as well stop talking to myself and crash for the night.

- jane doe

P.S. And since I haven’t mentioned it in this post, let me just remind my non-existent readers that I really think Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

Well, the snow is bad enough here in Redstateville that my evening classes were canceled, leaving me free to camp out in front of my TV to watch the results of the various primaries across the country. I won’t be live blogging, precisely, but I will be posting occasionally here as the evening progresses. I am watching MSNBC primarily, though I may duck over to CNN at times. Or maybe even Faux News, if I’m in need of a good laugh.

Let the good times roll, my dear non-existent readers!

- jane doe

NB: All times given below are EST.

6:18 pm: Chris Matthews just welcomed southern Africa to the MSNBC audience, which raises an interesting point: the outcome of our presidential election is of interest not just here, but throughout the world. Remember: it’s not just us liberals who are counting down the days until Bush leaves office!

6:25 pm: Why is it that the pundits insist on talking about Clinton in terms of female voters and Obama in terms of African-American voters? Last time I checked, there are still a few white males in the Democratic Party: Clinton and Obama can’t possibly be getting by just on votes by people who are demographically similar to them.

Random thought: Do you think the Bush administration is loving the primaries, since all the news coverage is focusing on the election instead of to the latest misdeeds of the White House?

6:40 pm: Several of the talking heads seem to take it as a foregone conclusion that McCain has sewn up the Republican nomination. I’m not entirely certain whether that’s appropriate at this hour — so far the only state that’s announced its results is West Virginia, which went to Huckabee.

6:42 pm: On MSNBC, Pat Buchanan’s sister, Bay, who is apparently with the Romney camp, is raging about abortion, illegal immigrants, and whether McCain is really a true conservative. What prompted them to put her on? She’s practically frothing at the mouth. I really hope they’re not going to keep going back to her all night!

6:51 pm: They just reported on a poll of Republican voters which found that 71% of Republicans still support Bush’s handling of the Iraq war. What I missed (if you saw this, please reply in the comments) was whether this was among actual primary voters (which would suggest that these are the hard-core Republican supporters) or among the larger group of people who are registered as Republicans. Is it possible that the Republican voters are that far out of alignment with the rest of the country? Or are these just the die-hard Republicans who won’t admit that Bush has royally screwed things up in the Middle East?

7:00 pm: The polls just closed in Georgia, and within seconds MSNBC called it for Obama. No word on what the margin of victory was — one of the pundits (sorry, can’t remember which one) said if he doesn’t beat Hillary by at least 10%, Obama is toast. Seems a bit excessive, but I suppose the pundits feel like they have to make pronouncements like this…

7:03 pm: Sorry, I really should also be mentioning the Republican results in Georgia…except that they are apparently still too close to call, with Huckabee a strong candidate along with Romney and McCain.

7:15 pm: Okay, apparently they are going to spend this entire hour riffing on Georgia because it’s the only state where the polls have closed. I’m tuning out for a while, and will tune back in when the next batch of polls close.

8:00 pm: More results:

• Obama takes Illinois, and Clinton takes Oklahoma among the Dems
• McCain takes Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticut for the Repubs; Romney is forecast to win Massachusetts

None of these are real surprises. The big surprise seems to be Huckabee bringing in far more votes than anyone expected, due to those infamous conservative “values voters” (a total misnomer: liberals vote their values, too — we just have different values).

8:06 pm: Currently, Huckabee is actually in the lead in Georgia (that’s in terms of actual votes, not poll projections). The Republican candidates are still running very close in Georgia, though, so the leader may change several times over the evening as more results come in.

8:09 pm: Apparently, Romney and Huckabee are having a big old catfight. Romney is pissed because they think Huckabee is taking away more votes from Romney than from McCain.

8:15 pm: MSNBC just called Tennessee for Clinton, by a narrow margin…narrow enough that I would have thought they would hold off forecasting a winner. But what do I know?

Okay, time to check out what the other major news channels are saying:

8:19 pm: Holy crap! Faux News has Karl Rove commenting on the primaries. I don’t know what he’s saying, though, because as soon as I switched to that station, they cut to a commercial break. But it’s Karl Rove, and it’s Faux News, so it’s probably safe to assume that whatever he was saying would annoy me.

8:22 pm: CNN is actually giving results for Ron Paul, unlike MSNBC, which hasn’t mentioned him so far. His results are laughable, but they are actually getting coverage, so I guess that will make his fanatics happy.

8:26 pm: Apparently, Arkansas — unlike every single other state — closes polls on the half hour instead of the hour. Results to be reported shortly.

8:31 pm: Surprising absolutely no one, Clinton and Huckabee are the projected winners for the two parties in Arkansas.

8:36 pm: Interesting polling numbers on Evangelical voters: they are apparently dividing almost evenly among the three major Republican candidates. The other interesting thing: I don’t think anyone is asking the Democratic voters about their religious affiliation. No one is reporting on the religious affiliation of Democratic voters, at least that I’ve seen so far. It seems like they should at least be asking, instead of just assuming that the Democrats don’t get any Evangelical voters. Yeah, I’m sure most of them go to the Republicans, but I can’t help thinking there are at least a few Evangelical Democrats.

8:56 pm: NBC has apparently called Massachusetts for Hillary, by a fairly healthy margin. I was switching between stations, so I don’t know what the Republican result was for that state. Wait, are there any Republicans in Massachusetts?

9:00 pm: New York was just projected for Hillary within seconds of the polls closing. A bunch of other states just had their polls close, too, but Keith is going back over the states they’ve already called again, instead.

9:02 pm: Okay, Keith just rattled off a bunch of Republican results, but he was going too fast for me to keep track. Plus, it’s the Republicans, so I have no emotional investment in any of the candidates. Obama is apparently winning Delaware, though.

9:20 pm: Hillary wins New Jersey, apparently. And apparently McCain is winning everywhere. Except where he’s not.

9:33 pm: How the Tucker has fallen. Didn’t he have his own show on MSNBC for a while there? Does he still? I can’t stand the guy, so I’ve never really paid much attention. But they’ve got him stuck at one of the Republican candidate’s headquarters like a regular reporter/guest pundit type. He’s not looking real happy, either.

9:37 pm: Romney cannot be happy right now. He won Massachusetts, but everywhere else so far is going to either McCain or Huckabee. The Romney people are talking about Colorado, and I would imagine he’ll do pretty well in Utah as well, but he was probably not figuring on falling behind Huckabee in so many states.

10:00 pm: As predicted, Romney won Utah. Yawn.

10:12 pm: Huckabee is on TV at the moment, giving a speech to his minions supporters, but I am done for now. I may check in again after the polls close in California, but I’m sick of listening to pundits and politicians. G’night everyone!

That’s right, my dear non-existent readers, it’s Sooper Dooper Tuesday.

Oh, yeah, and it’s also Mardi Gras…because nothing says “presidential politics” quite like massive numbers of people getting drunk on hurricanes and showing their private parts to anyone willing to throw a few beads in their direction.

And it’s not just New Orleans that is throwing a killer party today. (NB: New Orleans can throw the biggest, rowdiest party ever and it won’t make a lick of difference as far as presidential politics are concerned. Louisiana isn’t having primaries today, so it doesn’t matter if all the voters are drunk enough to seriously consider voting for Ron Paul.) No, New York – which actually is having primaries for both parties today – is apparently having a parade/drunken blowout/riot in honor of some football-related event. So, if any of my non-existent readers live in New York, keep this handy tip in mind: alcohol and defective voting machines don’t mix. Vote first, then party.

I will not be live blogging the election coverage tonight, unless enough snow falls today for evening classes to be canceled (which is a distinct possibility). Or unless class is really dull (also a distinct possibility). Still, I’m very excited about today’s primaries, because by the time they’re over – or by Thursday at the latest – we won’t have to listen to the talking heads natter on about what the impact of Super Tuesday is going to be anymore.

And lest there be any doubt about the matter, I still believe that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

-jane doe

P.S. Once upon a time, it was illegal to sell alcohol on election day before the polls closed. Apparently they were worried about political party hacks influencing voters with alcohol. Does anyone know if this is still the case anywhere (other than Utah, where they’ll seize on any excuse to restrict the sale of alcohol)? I assume it’s now legal in most places, because there is simply no other rational explanation for Bush’s victory in 2004.

Just got done watching Keith Olbermann’s latest Special Comment. (The video is already up on Crooks and Liars, as is the transcript.) Once again, Keith showed what a strong voice he has been against the many outrages of this administration.

This Special Comment was about Bush’s insistence that any extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) include immunity for the major telecom companies “believed to have assisted” the administration in its illegal spying on American citizens (though of course, that’s not how Bush described it).

He raised a number of excellent points in the course of his commentary. Chief among these: if, as Bush claims, the extension of FISA is critical to our national security, then why is the alleged president threatening to veto any such extension that doesn’t include telecom immunity?

Here’s how he opened tonight’s Special Comment (excerpt courtesy of The News Hole):

In a Presidency of hypocrisy, an Administration of exploitation, a labyrinth of leadership, in which every vital fact is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma hidden under a claim of executive privilege supervised by an idiot, this one is surprisingly easy.

President Bush has put protecting the Telecom giants from the laws…ahead of protecting you from the terrorists.

He has demanded an extension of the FISA law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but only an extension that includes retroactive immunity for the Telecoms who helped him spy on you.

Another quote, this one focusing on some equivocating language from Bush’s SOTU speech earlier this week:

If you, sir, are asking Congress and us to join you in this shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of fascism - the merged actions of government and corporations who answer to no government - you still don’t have the guts to even say that the telecom companies did assist you in your efforts? Will you and the equivocators who surround you like a cocoon never go on the record about anything? Even the stuff you claim to believe in?

I could go on and on here, quoting gems from his diatribe, but since the entire text is already posted elsewhere, that seems like unnecessary effort on my part.

On the whole, I would say that this Special Comment was very good, though probably not his best one to date. Nevertheless, it is well worth checking out online if you missed Countdown this evening (or don’t get MSNBC).

And it points up one more reason why Bush and Cheney really ought to be impeached.

- jane doe

I guess the ever-dwindling slate of Republican presidential candidates is having another debate tonight, which is being trumpeted as the “last Republican debate before Super Tuesday.” And if I were a good political blogger, I would be watching it. But frankly, I’m already feeling less than healthy, so I see no reason to subject myself to any upchuck-inducing displays of political…umm…well, not sure what the word I want here is. Acumen? Prowess? Oh, no, I remember, I mean bullshit. Yeah, that’s the term. Plus, I just sat through most of a Republican debate six days ago, and see no reason to repeat the experience. It’s not like any of the Republican candidates has a hope in hell of getting my vote.

Can we please just go ahead and impeach Bush and Cheney? Do we really have to wait until 1/20/09 to get rid of these constitution-destroying, power-hungry, warmongering bastards?

- jane doe

Seriously, how many debates have the political parties had at this point?

At least they’re getting down to a semi-manageable number of participants at this point. Tonight we have Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Ron Paul. The real nutjobs have mostly dropped out of the race, with one or perhaps two exceptions. Which is kind of a shame, because the nutjobs keep the debate entertaining, but whatever.

Anyway, I’m going to watch this for as long as I can stomach. Past experience suggests this will be somewhere around seven and a half minutes. Here in more or less chronological order are my thoughts as I watch this fiasco:

• Ooh, Brian Williams’ tie is certainly purple.
• Romney makes me very nervous, but I can’t pinpoint what it is that makes me think that. Maybe it’s just residual nausea induced by big business types in general.
• On the economy questions McCain only seems to want to talk about the “bridge to nowhere” and making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
• Giuliani looks like he spent a little too much time at Mystic Tan. McCain, on the other hand, looks like he needs to schedule a visit (at least on my TV screen).
• Giuliani is talking about major reductions in spending on the “civilian” side. Translation: social programs will be cut, but the military will still get a blank check.
• McCain also looks like he has too much concealer below his eyes.
• Dammit, Huckabee is actually making sense on the economic issues. He points out that money for the stimulus package is probably going to be borrowed from China, and to the extent that the package puts money back into consumers’ pockets will be spent on products that were made in China. So whose economy is being stimulated by it? (I say dammit about Huckabee, by the way, because he actually kind of scares me on some of the religious issues.)
• Romney is talking about his experience in business, again. Because we’ve done so well with the current president, who ran on a campaign of bringing business expertise to the White House.
• McCain, here’s a clue: the Republicans didn’t lose in 2006 because of a few pork projects. You lost because of Iraq and other Bush administration misdeeds. (It would be nice if a few Democratic politicians remembered that as well.)
• Ron Paul is speaking the Libertarian party line. As usual. (And out come the Ron Paul supporters to leave me nasty comments about how he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. Forget it, guys, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, you aren’t going to change my mind about the man.)
• Giuliani is asked about the big bankers going abroad to get cash to stay afloat, so naturally, he turns the discussion to 9/11.
• Russert just asked a killer question on the economy — pointing out where we were in 2000 as opposed to where we are now, then asking the candidates why the voters should trust the Republicans on economic matters going forward?
• McCain just mentioned the famous “bridge to nowhere” for the second time so far in this debate.
• Romney again touts his expertise in the private sector. Of course, he obviously did pretty well there, since he can apparently afford to run for president largely out of petty cash.
• Romney just claimed that Republicans “ARE the party of fiscal responsibility” (or words to that effect). He also mentions the bridge to nowhere.

Sorry, folks, that’s as much as I can handle for now - though I’ve set a personal record by sitting through nearly 30 minutes of Republican posing. I can’t take anymore, though — McCain is going on about how we are succeeding in Iraq. If I want my television to be in working order tomorrow, I’m going to have to turn it off right now, before I’m forced to throw something through the screen.

Of course, it goes without saying that nothing I saw tonight changes my belief that Bush and Cheney really ought to be impeached.

- jane doe

Actual quote from a White House press briefing about the whole mess in Pakistan (h/t to Jason Linkins at HuffPo):

Reporter: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

Dana Perino: In our opinion, no.

Wow. That’s all I can say. Just, wow. That is some really impressive Doublethink on the part of Ms. Perino, there. Frankly, I’m in awe. To see someone who is an integral part of an administration that has done more to restrict our constitutional freedoms than any other in recent memory state that it is never reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism — the mind boggles. Pardon me while I go pound my head against a brick wall for a few minutes.

Which ultimately just provides one more reason why I really think that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

-jane doe

I tried to watch it, honestly, but I had to stop. I can’t tolerate extended exposure to right wing doublespeak — all my neurons start misfiring and I have to completely reboot my brain. It isn’t pretty.

Having said that, I do have a few quick thoughts arising out of the part of the debate that I did watch:

• Who designed the set for the debate? Do they normally design sets for game shows? Between the flashing lights and the bell that signals when candidates run out of time, I wasn’t sure if I was watching a debate or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Is that show still on? I don’t watch game shows, so I have no idea.)
• Ron Paul is a complete nut who doesn’t answer the questions he’s been asked, choosing to ask and answer completely different questions, instead. I like his position on restoring the civil rights and liberties that have been vitiated by the current administration. But getting rid of the CIA and the FBI? Hey, I want those boys on a tight leash with regards to their surveillance activities and various other intrusions into our privacy, but even I will acknowledge that we need them.
• Mitt Romney looks like my mental image of Bruce Wayne, which leaves me wondering what kind of car he drives and whether he has a costume with a bunch of cool gadgets on the belt.
• Huckabee’s tax plans are insane, but probably no more so than the other Republican candidates’ tax plans.
• Giuliani seems to have gotten a bit too much sun on the Labor Day weekend, and needs to learn about the joys of sunscreen if he is going to survive on the campaign trail. Either that, or he should leave his glasses on when cameras are pointed at him.

And furthermore, I think that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

-jane doe

Hillary Clinton is getting a bum rap in recent days from both sides of the political spectrum at the moment for her remarks to the effect that another terrorist attack like 9/11 in the run-up to the next presidential election would help the Republicans.

It appears that many on the liberal side of the spectrum are accusing her of conceding that the Republicans somehow “own” the terrorism issue, and are the only party that can keep us safe. Meanwhile, at least one conservative goofball — Faux News’ John Gibson — is suggesting that by making these remarks, Hillary is trying to make a deal with the terrorists — essentially, that she is saying, “Hey, Bin Laden — lie low until after November 2008 and you won’t have any of those nasty scary Republicans to deal with. Instead, you’ll have a nice Democrat who will give you a free pass.”

In fact, all Hillary is guilty of doing is recognizing the reality of the situation.

As I have already discussed elsewhere in this blog, research in terror management theory (some of it funded by the Department of Homeland Insecurity) has demonstrated that when people are reminded of death — in psychspeak, when they are placed in a condition of mortality salience — most tend to retreat into more conservative political views and endorse more conservative, charismatic and/or authoritarian candidates.

Bluntly speaking, at the present time, in the United States, these candidates seem to be showing up more often on the right side of the political spectrum. Republican candidates are more likely to hammer the themes of traditional values and, at least in recent years in the neo-conservative branch of the party, a very strong central executive.

Bush has been a huge offender in this regard: he has done more to expand executive authority beyond the intent of our country’s founders than any president in recent memory. And Bush has been very savvy in his use of fear for political purposes. I know of at least one study that links his win in the 2004 election to his repeated hammering of the 9/11 drum.* Many of his political maneuvers that have expanded the power of the executive branch or narrowed or destroyed our civil liberties have been directly tied to his asserted need for such powers to protect us from the terrorists, bringing us to the point where it is very difficult for me to say who I fear more: the terrorists, or our own government.

The current Republican candidates are no better: Giuliani is expressly campaigning on a 9/11 platform, and Romney has said he wants to double the size of Guantanamo. Don’t even get me started on Tancredo.

So don’t get on Hillary’s case for recognizing the reality of the situation. A terrorist attack in the run-up to 9/11 the presidential election likely would help the Republicans. Many of the Republican candidates know this — that is why they are emphasizing it so much. The Department of Homeland Security has funded a number of studies in the field of terror management theory in the years since 9/11, and the Republican political leadership is aware of the results of those studies — I know for a fact that some of the university professors doing the research have briefed very highly placed military and civilian officials in the government on the outcomes of those studies.

We need to wake up to the reality that certain politicians are using our fears of terrorist attacks to manipulate us. Hillary gets my thanks for pointing this out in a larger venue than this tiny blog.

-jane doe

* The study is in a proprietary academic database, so I can’t post a link to it here, but if you are interested in obtaining a copy, send me an e-mail and I will be happy to send you its citation, or check the references listed at the end of this post.

Okay, so you know how Fred Thompson — the actor/politician who may or may not be running for the Republican presidential nomination in ‘08 — earned his rep as part of the team that was investigating the Watergate scandal? Turns out, he was a mole for the Nixon White House while that was going on. (h/t Crooks and Liars)

According to the Boston Globe:

Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, “At That Point in Time,” Thompson said he acted with “no authority” in divulging the committee’s knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon’s resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson’s actions.

The Boston Globe article goes into the spin Thompson is putting on this — how he just didn’t want to believe the President could be guilty of everything they were accusing him of — but that doesn’t change the fact that what he did was deeply unethical.

Fred Thompson was and apparently is an attorney - he doesn’t just play one on TV. Probably the number one rule of lawyering is that you don’t go telling your side’s secrets to the opposing party in the middle of a dispute without the okay of whoever is in charge on your side.

Ever.

The American Bar Association (and every single state bar in the country) has rules forbidding this sort of thing. Similarly, there are all sorts of rules governing the operations of grand juries, special prosecutors, and yes, congressional investigating committees, covering the disclosure of information to subjects under investigation.

You just don’t do it. Never. No matter how much you want to believe that the person under investigation is innocent. Not even if you know for a fact that he is innocent of whatever he’s being charged with. You just let the proceedings unfold, and assume that the evidence will reveal the truth of the matter.

You do not tip off the party you are investigating.

Yet Fred Thompson did.

Oopsie.

So we now know that Fred Thompson has engaged in deeply unethical behavior in the past, in connection with presidential politics. Where is the outcry over the fact that this man is apparently contemplating running for the highest office of the land?

If he were thinking of running as a Democrat, this would, of course, sink his chances. But since he will be running as a Republican (assuming he does run), well, not so much. Ain’t America great?

And by the way, I also think that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

-jane doe

As this is the 231st anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the document that started our removal of a tyrant from power over the United States, I thought I would go through that grand old document and catalog which of the crimes of England’s King George have been committed by our own current (in his own mind, anyway) King George. I was only going to include the applicable ones in this post, but since that turned out to be the majority of them, anyway, I just left in all of them. Happy reading!

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The first Iraq financing bill this year, which would have set real benchmarks and started the process of bringing our troops home. Stem cell research. There probably would have been more, but since he had a rubberstamp congress for much of his administration, there have been relatively few vetoes.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

Not really. Though should we consider his “signing statements” a failure to pass laws, in that he is denying the laws should apply to him, the answer to this one could change.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

No, though prior to the current term of Congress, members of the Republican party forced their opposition to hold hearings that were unfavorable to his administration (to the extent they could hold them at all) in a cramped basement room rather than a regular hearing room.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

Not yet. Give him time. For now, he just ignores them.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

See above. Also, consider his use of “temporary” appointments of U.S. Attorneys in the wake of the firings last December, to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation of same. Not strictly on point, but more or less the functional equivalent.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

Well, not exactly, but heaven knows immigration is a mess at the moment.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

No, but he has of course endeavored to stack federal courts, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, with justices favorable to his point of view, and then whined that the Democratic Party was being obstructionist on those few occasions when they attempted to block his less qualified or more appalling nominations.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

No, but change judges to United States Attorneys and you would have something here. Clearly, he has tried to subvert the ability of courts to hear matters within their purview – e.g., by gutting habeas corpus.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Department of Homeland Security, NSA (okay, that’s not really new), TSA, anyone? Also, let us not forget his (often successful) attempts to politicize the ways that various agencies carry out their duties and/or use those agencies to further the election of Republican Party candidates, in blatant violation of the Hatch Act.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

Well, he hasn’t done this here, since obviously we have consented to the maintenance of a standing military, but I imagine people in other parts of the world might have something to say about this one.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

Hello, Military Commissions Act, goodbye, habeas corpus.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

Some might point to the WTO, though that predates Bush. So, no, not really. However, he has repeatedly subverted provisions of our Constitution and our laws, so I think that counts as a practical equivalent.

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

Well, this is more a complaint among the various countries we are occupying…still, he hasn’t done this here.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

Okay, this doesn’t involve troops, and there was a real trial by jury, but I would argue that his commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence is the moral equivalent of this.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

How about destroying our country’s reputation in all parts of the world – does that count?

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Does running up a huge national debt that we will eventually have to pay off through our taxes in order to pay for the war he lied to get us into count? I’d call that one close enough.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

Hello, we have a winner! See the Military Commissions Act, and Guantanamo.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

What do you think happened in the case of most of those people locked up in Guantanamo – it now appears that the vast majority of them didn’t really do anything that would justify locking them up for five years without trial, then creating some sort of mockery of a judicial process to avoid having them tried in U.S. courts where there are procedural safeguards.

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

Um, well, okay, this one he hasn’t done yet. Though he has gone a country with a functioning if oppressive government – a country which we now know and should then have known was not a threat to us – and overthrown that government and introduced a system of chaos, death and destruction. I think that’s probably close enough on the whole scale of moral wrongs.

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

I think the gradual destruction of our civil rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as his expansion of presidential authority outside the bounds of Constitutional authority, his hobbling of congressional oversight capabilities, and his institution of the infamous “signing statements” that purport to excuse him from violations of the laws passed by Congress all qualify under this grievance, don’t you?

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Again, I would say the signing statements amount to a presidential grab of Congressional authority.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

Not quite, but I would argue that his repeated violations of the civil rights of American citizens qualifies as the substantive equivalent to waging a covert war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

Hmm – plundered our seas? Check. Ravaged our coasts? Katrina is close enough – he ravaged New Orleans by inaction (and recent reports suggest he and his buddies are getting set to ravage its ruins for oil). Burnt our towns? No, he did that to the Iraqis. Destroyed the lives of our people? Hmm, how many U.S. Soldiers dead in Iraq as of today? Also, if destroying the livelihoods counts, then consider the whole Valerie Plame fiasco which has happened on his watch.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Ding ding ding! We have another winner! Well, foreign to the Iraqis, anyway. Can you say, Blackwater?

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

Um, give me a few minutes, I’m sure I can think of something here…okay, maybe not.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

No, all the insurrections he has incited against him are foreign in nature…so far. Though of course the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat against us beyond what it was at the time of 9/11, so we’ll call this one a “yes”, too, shall we? And let’s also not forget his party’s tactic of accusing anyone who disagrees with Bush of treason, whipping up hatred against Democrats and liberals.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Ding ding ding! We have another winner!

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

Replace “British” with “White House” and you have another winner, see the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the parade of civil rights violations at the White House’s direction, and various other high crimes and misdemeanors.

For all these reasons, and for others perhaps not stated herein, I really think that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone! Do something really patriotic: go out and protest this administration’s actions!

-jane doe

Last night’s Special Comment by Keith Olbermann, prompted by our alleged president’s commutation of an unrepentant Scooter Libby’s prison sentence before all the appeals had even run their course, but also recapping Bush’s (and Cheney’s) other many crimes against this country, our Constitution, and the laws of man, was in it’s own way as powerful and moving as the words of Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence, adopted 231 years ago today.

Crooks and Liars had the video clip posted within hours of the broadcast last night (and possibly within minutes of the west coast broadcast, which is where I think Nicole Belle is based), and Salon.com posted the full transcript (with permission from Olbermann and MSNBC) today — as always, if you’re not a subscriber, you have to watch a short ad, but it is worth it.

A little later today, I will be posting a piece where I will go through the original Declaration of Independence and pull out all of the original King George’s offenses that could be said to apply equally to our current self-styled King George, but in the meantime, go watch or read Olbermann’s speech at one of the links posted above. He has done a far better job cataloging this administration’s crimes and articulating his condemnation thereof than I ever could.

Happy Fourth of July, everybody! And lest there be any doubt about it, I want to emphasize that I really think that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

-jane doe

…yet somehow not at all surprising. Our alleged president has decided that Scooter Libby’s sentence — which was in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines for the crime he was convicted of — was “excessive”, and has therefore commuted his prison sentence. Libby will still have to pay a fine, but he got a Get Out of Jail Almost Free card today.

Was Bush within his rights as president to exercise his power in this manner? Absolutely. Was it an appropriate exercise of his power? Not on your life.

But I suppose at this point he feels he has nothing left to lose. He’s already lost the support of most of the electorate, as well as the respect of most of the people who are still backing him, I would imagine.

Is the commutation of Libby’s sentence grounds for impeachment? Sadly, no. However, that does not change my belief that Bush and Cheney should be impeached.

-jane doe

P.S. Keith Olbermann announced that he will be doing one of his “Special Comments” on the commutation of Libby’s sentence tomorrow night on Countdown, so be sure to set your TiVo.

In my previous post, I outlined some of the principles of terror management theory, and described the theory’s implications for American politics. But despite the length of my post, I left out one very important point that I really wanted to emphasize.

You see, I am aware of anecdotal evidence that awareness of terror management theory can actually change individuals’ reactions to those lovely death primes the research relies on. Certainly, I have found that my own awareness of the theory has changed the way I watch the news, and in particular it has changed the weight I give to various political assertions by members of the current administration.

But I am not drawing solely on my own experience in making this assertion, even though I am unaware of any published study that would support it. Rather, I am relying in part on unpublished whisperings among the graduate students at one of the academic institutions where much of the research into terror management theory has been conducted.

First, you must understand that much of the research in this field (as is the case with nearly all psychological research) is performed on undergraduate college students, usually those enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses. There is a very good reason for this, of course: undergraduates are a convenient research population, and they will usually participate without pay in exchange for a few extra credit points in their psych classes.

On at least one of the campuses where much of the research into terror management theory takes place, the graduate students who collected the data complained that they had gotten reputations among the current crop undergraduate psychology majors for always working on terror management studies, and the students participating in the studies would be looking for the death primes as soon as they saw the graduate students conducting the research. Suddenly, the researchers had trouble getting statistically significant results, even in cases where all previous research suggested that the present study should produce such results. In other words, awareness of terror management theory at least partially nullified the effect of the death prime. As a result of this, the grad students had to start going to other college campuses in the area to seek research participants.

It is for this reason that I have devoted so much time researching and writing my post on the politics of terror management. (Though the post ostensibly responds to Olbermann’s recent piece on the nexus of politics and terror, I have actually been working on it for some time and only made the changes that address his piece in the last two days.) I hope that my post on the subject, and a few others I have planned, will spark a discussion of terror management theory in the blogosphere, and that that discussion will eventually reach the mainstream media. It is my hope that, by increasing voter awareness of terror management theory and its implications, the ability of politicians to manipulate those voters with fear will be reduced.

Please note that I am not claiming there is no reason for us to be concerned about future terrorist attacks. The events of 9/11 made it plain that we are vulnerable to attacks on American soil, and it is appropriate for our government to devote significant resources to preventing future attacks. My point (and hope) is that voters should be able to make their decisions about which candidate(s) would be best to lead our country into a post-Bush future and undo the damage he has done to our country and our standing in the world arena free of the sort of emotional manipulation that we have been subject to in the recent past. Knowledge is power, and in the present instant, knowledge of terror management theory confers the power to resist manipulation by those who hope to use the theory to manipulate us with fear tactics.

And furthermore, I believe that Bush and Cheney ought to be impeached.

-jane doe

Monday night, Keith Olbermann updated a report he did in August 2006 about the nexus of politics and terror to incorporate recent events. He and his staff went through the news archives and found thirteen instances where the current administration either raised the terror threat level or announced the threat or foiling of a “terrorist attack” at times that could best be described as politically convenient. More specifically, these instances all took place at times when the White House was facing a variety of political difficulties (e.g., the absence of WMDs in Iraq, political scandals, the 2004 Democratic Convention, and so forth). Crooks and Liars has posted the clip and I suggest you go watch it here before continuing with this post.

Olbermann points out that, of course, the fact that these events happened close in time does not mean that they are related. It could, in fact, be a coincidence that the White House has just happened to raise the threat of terrorism whenever it is taking a particularly bad beating in the press over its various misdeeds.

And pigs might one day evolve wings and learn to fly.

I do not believe for one moment that it is mere coincidence that the Bush administration just happens to uncover some plot or threat of attack whenever the administration is facing political troubles. Rather, I believe that we are seeing is an administration deliberately using terror management theory to deflect attention from scandals and manipulate public opinion to expand White House power in our increasingly, distressingly authoritarian society.

What is terror management theory? If you are like the vast majority of people, you have never heard of terror management theory. In all the books I have read recently by various political commentators, I have seen plenty of talk about the White House’s use of fear and 9/11, but no mention of terror management theory. It has received surprisingly little attention from the mainstream media. Nobody talks about it outside of certain academic circles, mostly within the field of social psychology, and presumably certain government officials at the Department of Homeland Security and the White House, whose discussions I am not privy to.

The DHS and White House officials are among those who know about terror management theory because they’re the ones paying for at least some of the research in this field. DHS and military officials have received briefings from some researchers in the field, and have presumably reported on those briefings to their superiors in the White House. Other research has been funded by grants from the National Science Foundation and similar organizations.

All this silence on the subject of terror management theory is striking, because the theory so thoroughly explains much of the Bush administration’s interactions with the press and the public that understanding the theory can change the way you interpret the news.

Several times, I have seen Keith Olbermann ask Countdown guests if they knew why the Bush administration kept raising 9/11 for purely political reasons or in seemingly inappropriate contexts, and I have found myself saying to the television at these times, “Well, it’s basic terror management theory, Keith.” And I have foolishly assumed that, because I know about terror management theory, lots of other people wh