Latest Newpaper Column:
I once saw this movie called Memento. It was a murder mystery with a bizarre twist: The detective who was trying to solve his wife’s killing had suffered a traumatic head injury that left him “unable to create new memories.”
With each new day, he had completely forgotten everything he’d done or said the day before. I think of that movie a lot these days, every time I watch the Bushistas in spin mode. I’ve even started calling them the Memento Republicans.
They’ve had their work cut out for them these days. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had to step down from his leadership position after being indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. Wednesday, the D.A. issued an actual warrant for his arrest.
Senate Majority leader Bill Frist is under investigation for insider trading. And, as of this writing, all of Washington is waiting for the other shoe to drop, with that shoe being the possibility that federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury will be issuing indictments in the scandal that’s been dubbed “Plamegate.”
For those who came in late, “Plamegate” is named for Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who happened to be married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson published an article that disputed the White House’s claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuke-yoo-lar weapons, as Dubbya likes to say. Since the threat of said nuke-yoo-lar weapons was a major rationale for Dubbya’s Wacky Iraqi Adventure, the Bushistas were a little peeved about this.
Lo and behold, not long after Wilson’s article, alleged journalist and notorious Bush administration mouthpiece Robert Novak published a column in which he let drop the juicy little morsel that Wilson’s wife was a CIA agent who dealt with WMD issues.
Problem was, Plame had been working covertly on those issues, under the cover of a CIA front group called Brewster Jennings and Associates. The CIA got their trenchcoats all in a wad over Novak’s revelation and sent what’s called a “criminal referral” to the U.S. attorney’s office, claiming that the “outing” of Plame (and, one supposes, the blown cover of Brewster Jennings) violated a federal law that says revealing the names of our spies in time of war is a Bad Thing.
The allegation was that the White House had retaliated for Wilson’s article by trashing his wife’s undercover status, and thus, her career.
Fitzgerald’s investigation eventually led to the jailing of two journalists, who eventually gave up their sources for the Plame information — sources from inside the White House. There’s talk at this point that Presidential Adviser Karl “Bush’s Brain” Rove and vice-presidential Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby may be facing indictments, either for the revelation of Plame’s identity or for lying to the grand jury about it. The normally staid U.S. News and World Report has even reported on rumors that the scandal may lead to the resignation of Cheney himself.
If you’re a big fan of irony (and I am), the twistings and turnings of Bush’s fan club as they try to spin these stories provide a veritable mother lode — an irony mine, if you will.
Take, for example, this quote from Jacob Weisberg, co-editor of the online journal Slate.com: “[I]n the hands of a relentless and ambitious prosecutor like Fitzgerald, the absence of evidence that you’ve broken a law just becomes an invitation to develop a case based on other possible crimes, especially those committed in the course of defending yourself, like obstruction of justice and making false statements. Call witnesses back enough times and you can usually come up with something.”
Two words, Jacob: Kenneth Starr. Remember how, with Clinton, it was all “about the perjury”? Remember when allegedly lying to a grand jury was an impeachable offense?
Then there’s the extended whine from Bill Kristol of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard. In response to the indictments of DeLay, the investigation of Frist for insider trading, and the Plamegate investigation, Kristol wrote: “It’s a reasonable bet that the fall of 2005 will be remembered as a time when it became clear that a comprehensive strategy of criminalization had been implemented to inflict defeat on conservatives who seek to govern as conservatives.”
So now you’re complaining about a “vast left-wing conspiracy”? Well, cry me a freakin’ river, Bill. Have you forgotten the days when Bill Clinton couldn’t pull his socks up without some Republican demanding congressional hearings?
Plus, it’s going to be a little bit difficult to spin Fitzgerald as a raving liberal out to bring down Republicans. After Republican candidate Jack Ryan self-destructed in the 2004 Illinois Senate campaign, the state party was desperately scrambling to find someone to make a suicide run against immensely popular and charismatic Democrat Barack Obama. One of the names they floated was: Patrick Fitzgerald.
The Right seems to have conveniently forgotten this, the same way they’ve forgotten that the “liberal” Texas D.A. who’s indicted DeLay has indicted more Democrats than Republicans.
Is the Memento Republicans’ memory loss the result of hypocrisy or of mass head trauma? You make the call.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Monday, October 17, 2005
About Damned Time
Unicef bombs the Smurfs in fund-raising campaign for ex-child soldiers.
I never liked those little blue bastards anyway.
I never liked those little blue bastards anyway.
Shiny Happy Column
Latest Newspaper Column
You know, looking back over the past few weeks’ columns, it occurs to me that some might consider me a tad gloomy, even, dare I say it, a bit negative in my outlook. As our snail-eating friends across the pond are fond of saying, “au contraire” (“Nuh-uh!”).
Oh, sure, there are plenty of things I see around that I don’t like, and quite a few that make me nuts. But there are plenty of things I do like. Herewith, a few of the things I’ve seen in the media recently that have made me smile:
Favorite recent movie: “Serenity.”
The sci-fi TV series “Firefly” came and went so fast that I never had a chance to see it in primetime. I eventually checked it out on DVD and immediately got hooked. Created by “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” director Joss Wheedon, “Firefly” chronicled the adventures of the crew of the space freighter Serenity, a scruffy bunch of misfits barely eking out a shady and often illegal living on the edges of an oppressive galactic empire called the Alliance.
Along the way, they pick up another pair of fugitives, a formerly well-to-do young doctor named Simon and his spookily pretty younger sister River. River has apparently been put through some Really Bad Stuff by the Alliance, and they want her back, because she has all sorts of freakish talents, including but not limited to psychic abilities.
The show, in typical TV fashion, revealed bits and pieces of River’s big secret, leaving tantalizing hints with each episode. When the show was canceled, all those threads were left hanging, much to the consternation of the show’s small but vocal group of hard-core fans. The feature film version answers all the questions and then some.
Every good adventure needs a good villain, and Serenity’s pursuer, known only as “The Operative,” is one of the scariest. After murdering an entire settlement, including the children, for giving refuge to Serenity, The Operative gravely explains to the crew that he does what he does because he truly believes that the end product will be a better world — a world that will have no place for him, because, he sadly admits, he’s a monster. Few things are scarier than that kind of True Believer.
What really made the show great was the interaction between the show’s characters, who fight, crack wise, and insult one another, but whose affection for each other and for their eternally harried captain comes through when the chips are down, which they are most of the time. I’m happy to say the show’s excellent ensemble cast brings that feeling to the big screen.
Favorite Recent Book(s): Barry Eisler’s John Rain series. John Rain is the James Bond for the new millennium, and Barry Eisler is its Ian Fleming.
Rain, a half-Japanese, half-American assassin living in Tokyo, is a master of killing people and making the death look like the result of natural causes. He has a few inflexible rules: No women or children. He’ll kill only a “principal,” a boss bad guy. And he works alone, with no backup teams, a rule he enforces by simply breaking the neck of anyone he thinks violates it.
Eisler, a former CIA agent himself who holds a Black Belt in Judo from Japan’s prestigious Kodokan, writes great action sequences, but he also gives the deeply conflicted John Rain a lot of soul. Add to the mix Eisler’s encyclopedic knowledge of some of the world’s exotic places and his gift for describing them, and you’ve got a great, fun read.
The books are “Rain Fall,” “Hard Rain,” “Rain Storm,” and the recently released “Killing Rain.” Eisler’s about to break out hugely with these books, and he deserves it.
Favorite TV Show: This one was a tough choice. I considered CBS’ sitcom “Two and a Half Men,” which is a sort of updated “Odd Couple,” as well as HBO’s wonderfully wicked drama series “Rome.” But I’ve still got to go with my old favorite, “The Daily Show.” It just keeps getting better and better.
Some of the best bits are when host Jon Stewart doesn’t even respond to some boneheaded videotaped quote from some politician. He just stares into the camera with this expression that says, “I cannot freaking believe this.” Neither can we, Jon, neither can we.
So there it is, folks, My shiny happy column for the year. Enjoy it while it lasts.
You know, looking back over the past few weeks’ columns, it occurs to me that some might consider me a tad gloomy, even, dare I say it, a bit negative in my outlook. As our snail-eating friends across the pond are fond of saying, “au contraire” (“Nuh-uh!”).
Oh, sure, there are plenty of things I see around that I don’t like, and quite a few that make me nuts. But there are plenty of things I do like. Herewith, a few of the things I’ve seen in the media recently that have made me smile:
Favorite recent movie: “Serenity.”
The sci-fi TV series “Firefly” came and went so fast that I never had a chance to see it in primetime. I eventually checked it out on DVD and immediately got hooked. Created by “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” director Joss Wheedon, “Firefly” chronicled the adventures of the crew of the space freighter Serenity, a scruffy bunch of misfits barely eking out a shady and often illegal living on the edges of an oppressive galactic empire called the Alliance.
Along the way, they pick up another pair of fugitives, a formerly well-to-do young doctor named Simon and his spookily pretty younger sister River. River has apparently been put through some Really Bad Stuff by the Alliance, and they want her back, because she has all sorts of freakish talents, including but not limited to psychic abilities.
The show, in typical TV fashion, revealed bits and pieces of River’s big secret, leaving tantalizing hints with each episode. When the show was canceled, all those threads were left hanging, much to the consternation of the show’s small but vocal group of hard-core fans. The feature film version answers all the questions and then some.
Every good adventure needs a good villain, and Serenity’s pursuer, known only as “The Operative,” is one of the scariest. After murdering an entire settlement, including the children, for giving refuge to Serenity, The Operative gravely explains to the crew that he does what he does because he truly believes that the end product will be a better world — a world that will have no place for him, because, he sadly admits, he’s a monster. Few things are scarier than that kind of True Believer.
What really made the show great was the interaction between the show’s characters, who fight, crack wise, and insult one another, but whose affection for each other and for their eternally harried captain comes through when the chips are down, which they are most of the time. I’m happy to say the show’s excellent ensemble cast brings that feeling to the big screen.
Favorite Recent Book(s): Barry Eisler’s John Rain series. John Rain is the James Bond for the new millennium, and Barry Eisler is its Ian Fleming.
Rain, a half-Japanese, half-American assassin living in Tokyo, is a master of killing people and making the death look like the result of natural causes. He has a few inflexible rules: No women or children. He’ll kill only a “principal,” a boss bad guy. And he works alone, with no backup teams, a rule he enforces by simply breaking the neck of anyone he thinks violates it.
Eisler, a former CIA agent himself who holds a Black Belt in Judo from Japan’s prestigious Kodokan, writes great action sequences, but he also gives the deeply conflicted John Rain a lot of soul. Add to the mix Eisler’s encyclopedic knowledge of some of the world’s exotic places and his gift for describing them, and you’ve got a great, fun read.
The books are “Rain Fall,” “Hard Rain,” “Rain Storm,” and the recently released “Killing Rain.” Eisler’s about to break out hugely with these books, and he deserves it.
Favorite TV Show: This one was a tough choice. I considered CBS’ sitcom “Two and a Half Men,” which is a sort of updated “Odd Couple,” as well as HBO’s wonderfully wicked drama series “Rome.” But I’ve still got to go with my old favorite, “The Daily Show.” It just keeps getting better and better.
Some of the best bits are when host Jon Stewart doesn’t even respond to some boneheaded videotaped quote from some politician. He just stares into the camera with this expression that says, “I cannot freaking believe this.” Neither can we, Jon, neither can we.
So there it is, folks, My shiny happy column for the year. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
James Lincoln Warren Is Right (As Usual )
The Sword & The Quill talks about the importance of the "old stuff."
Monday, October 10, 2005
Harriet Who?
Latest Newspaper Column
Remember a few weeks ago, when I wrote a column saying that the Senate should go ahead and confirm Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, because “we could do worse”?
We just did.
Harriet Miers has never been a judge. She’s never argued a case before the Supreme Court. She’s had exactly two published articles, both of them in the trade publication “Texas Lawyer.” Her major claim to fame is that she’s worked directly for George Dubbya Bush since 1992 (except for a brief stint when then-Gov. Bush appointed her to the Texas Lottery Commission). She’s served as Bush’s staff secretary, as deputy chief of staff for policy (where her duties included promoting and defending Bush talking points on the “Ask the White House” Web site), and as White House counsel. Bush also says she’s a good friend of his. He “knows her soul,” he says. Ohhh-kay.
If some quotes are to be believed, however, Miers’ relationship with Bush the Younger goes beyond friendship into something approaching hero worship. She’s reportedly told people that Dubbya was “the most brilliant man she’d ever met.” Man, that lady really needs to get out more.
So what’s wrong with putting a friend of the president on the nation’s highest court? Shouldn’t the executive branch and the judiciary have a warm, buddy-buddy relationship?
Hell, no. There’s a little thing called “separation of powers.” It serves a greater principle called “checks and balances.” Our entire Constitution is based on this principle. At some time, any one of the three branches of government has the power to bring one or even two of the others to a screeching halt when they try to go too far. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote about just this sort of thing when, in the Federalist Papers, he described the reasons for having the Senate confirm or reject presidential nominations:
“It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. ... He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same state to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.”
In other words, part of the reason we have the Senate do the confirmation is to avoid having the president, any president, pack the court with his home-state buddies.
Obviously, when Hamilton wrote about the president being “ashamed” to bring forth an obvious crony for the nation’s highest court, he never imagined anyone as utterly shameless in his political hackery as Dubbya. But then again, who could?
There’s also the fact that, right now, there’s a criminal investigation going on over who it was in the White House that “outed” CIA agent Valerie Plame as an act of political revenge after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame’s husband, stated publicly that the White House’s story about Saddam buying uranium from Niger was a crock.
After the story ran, someone, or possibly a couple of someones, in the White House let it out to New York Times columnist Bob Novak that Plame was a CIA WMD specialist. This is a crime if the person whose name is revealed is a “covert agent.” (Certainly the CIA thought she was, since it was they who made the referral to the U.S. attorney’s office.)
The question of “who dunnit” has reached all the way to the president’s chief of staff, Karl Rove, as well as the VP’s chief of staff, “Scooter” Libby. If a federal criminal case is filed against White House staffers, some issues, such as issues regarding executive privilege, will almost certainly end up in front of the Supremes. It is totally inappropriate for anyone who’s worked as long in the White House as Miers, including serving as the White House lawyer, to hear any part of that case.
There’s also this: House Speaker Tom DeLay was recently indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges. DeLay also has recently faced numerous complaints in the House of ethics violations. So DeLay set himself up a legal defense fund. Unfortunately, that fund got DeLay in further trouble for accepting illegal contributions from lobbyists and law firms registered as lobbyists. Among those illegal contributions was $2,500 from Locke Liddell & Sapp, the Texas law firm formerly headed by — Harriet Miers. So what happens if DeLay’s case goes to the Supremes?
Judicial inexperience is worrisome, but it’s not an insurmountable problem. Cronyism, conflicts of interest, and ties to corrupt officials should be. Plus, we already have a Congress where so-called “legislators” on both sides of the aisle are far too ready to skip out on their role as a co-equal branch of government and rubber-stamp any madness of bumbling King George.
We don’t need another “obsequious instrument of his pleasure” on the Supreme Court.
Remember a few weeks ago, when I wrote a column saying that the Senate should go ahead and confirm Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, because “we could do worse”?
We just did.
Harriet Miers has never been a judge. She’s never argued a case before the Supreme Court. She’s had exactly two published articles, both of them in the trade publication “Texas Lawyer.” Her major claim to fame is that she’s worked directly for George Dubbya Bush since 1992 (except for a brief stint when then-Gov. Bush appointed her to the Texas Lottery Commission). She’s served as Bush’s staff secretary, as deputy chief of staff for policy (where her duties included promoting and defending Bush talking points on the “Ask the White House” Web site), and as White House counsel. Bush also says she’s a good friend of his. He “knows her soul,” he says. Ohhh-kay.
If some quotes are to be believed, however, Miers’ relationship with Bush the Younger goes beyond friendship into something approaching hero worship. She’s reportedly told people that Dubbya was “the most brilliant man she’d ever met.” Man, that lady really needs to get out more.
So what’s wrong with putting a friend of the president on the nation’s highest court? Shouldn’t the executive branch and the judiciary have a warm, buddy-buddy relationship?
Hell, no. There’s a little thing called “separation of powers.” It serves a greater principle called “checks and balances.” Our entire Constitution is based on this principle. At some time, any one of the three branches of government has the power to bring one or even two of the others to a screeching halt when they try to go too far. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote about just this sort of thing when, in the Federalist Papers, he described the reasons for having the Senate confirm or reject presidential nominations:
“It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from state prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. ... He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same state to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.”
In other words, part of the reason we have the Senate do the confirmation is to avoid having the president, any president, pack the court with his home-state buddies.
Obviously, when Hamilton wrote about the president being “ashamed” to bring forth an obvious crony for the nation’s highest court, he never imagined anyone as utterly shameless in his political hackery as Dubbya. But then again, who could?
There’s also the fact that, right now, there’s a criminal investigation going on over who it was in the White House that “outed” CIA agent Valerie Plame as an act of political revenge after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame’s husband, stated publicly that the White House’s story about Saddam buying uranium from Niger was a crock.
After the story ran, someone, or possibly a couple of someones, in the White House let it out to New York Times columnist Bob Novak that Plame was a CIA WMD specialist. This is a crime if the person whose name is revealed is a “covert agent.” (Certainly the CIA thought she was, since it was they who made the referral to the U.S. attorney’s office.)
The question of “who dunnit” has reached all the way to the president’s chief of staff, Karl Rove, as well as the VP’s chief of staff, “Scooter” Libby. If a federal criminal case is filed against White House staffers, some issues, such as issues regarding executive privilege, will almost certainly end up in front of the Supremes. It is totally inappropriate for anyone who’s worked as long in the White House as Miers, including serving as the White House lawyer, to hear any part of that case.
There’s also this: House Speaker Tom DeLay was recently indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges. DeLay also has recently faced numerous complaints in the House of ethics violations. So DeLay set himself up a legal defense fund. Unfortunately, that fund got DeLay in further trouble for accepting illegal contributions from lobbyists and law firms registered as lobbyists. Among those illegal contributions was $2,500 from Locke Liddell & Sapp, the Texas law firm formerly headed by — Harriet Miers. So what happens if DeLay’s case goes to the Supremes?
Judicial inexperience is worrisome, but it’s not an insurmountable problem. Cronyism, conflicts of interest, and ties to corrupt officials should be. Plus, we already have a Congress where so-called “legislators” on both sides of the aisle are far too ready to skip out on their role as a co-equal branch of government and rubber-stamp any madness of bumbling King George.
We don’t need another “obsequious instrument of his pleasure” on the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)