Ms. Lesley Gore Has Always Been My Favorite Governor of New Jersey

It’s Still My Party
by Ms. Christine Todd Whitman
An Op-Ed from the April 29, 2009 New York Times

. . . And I’ll cry if I want to. You’d cry too, if it happened to you!
Ms. Lesley Gore, 1963

As I approach that day when I stop pushing fifty and start pulling on it, I can’t help but notice I’m just an unhappy cross between Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle and Douglas Adams’s Arthur Dent: I wake up some days, convinced I missed some giant chunk of time, either from a really long nap or getting lost in one of the space-time-probability axises.

As they like to say in the HBO series The Wire: “Ya feel me?” 

Now THAT'S a lot of crying.

There was that time when even the White House had to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, or even programs for or plans of same. So, being the vindictive, petty, small-minded person that I am, I could not WAIT to see who was going to get the assignment to say “D’OH!” Well, not only am I STILL waiting, but I’ve been forced to listen to Karen Hughes, Condoleezza Rice, and Richard “You Don’t Know DICK!” Cheney all step up and DENOUNCE everyone who was saying the reason for the American invasion of Iraq was because of suspected WMD programs. Anyone who claimed such a thing was “re-writing history.” 

Wait a minute--was there a Kurt Vonnegut time quake or a Madeleine L’Engle wrinkle in time, and I just missed it? What was George W. Bush’s address to the United Nations and Colin Powell’s presentation to the Security Council about? Not to mention the endless series of statements FROM Richard “You Don’t Know DICK!” Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Karen Hughes in the run up to the invasion. Come on now! I don’t mind so much that YOU people have the three second memory that goldfish are supposed to have…but why are you assuming **I** am that clueless? As they say where I come from: I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

Ms. Lucille Ball, back when she was Queen
of the Bs. Even before she was Lucy, there
was a lot to love.

But we digress. In the days since Arlen Specter refocused his famed Wall of Opportunism from “Nominal Republican” to “Nominal Democrat,” I kept getting that feeling where I’ve either seen a miracle or been hit over the head with a rubber hammer. First, there’s Olympia Snowe (K. Hepburn impersonator—Me.) writing to New York Times readers, decrying the day the Bush White House lost China--I mean Jim Jeffords. She then invokes the name of GOP nagual don Ron, and calls for a GOP that where “our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty” run supreme. As for everything else: we’ll just all agree to disagree. Thus Spake Snowethustra

Now, Lesley Gore…I mean Christine Todd Whitman dusts off a really dusty civics book, and says “The United States needs two vibrant, competitive parties. With the economic crisis, the war in Iraq and countless other issues facing the nation, the stakes are too high to simply let one ideological segment of the country determine our fate. And a Moron says ‘What?’” Okay, I made up that last part. Nevermind where Ms. Whitman has been, but where on earth does she think I have been for the last eight years?

Ms. Joan Blondell. Arguably not one of the
big beauty queens of the era, but she knew
how to work it.

When was the last time anyone in the GOP even PRETENDED to think two political parties was maybe a good idea, maybe? Talking pluralism AFTER you get your ass handed to you, that don’t count. Was I not supposed to notice (back in the day) all the GOP flacks trashing Ms. Doris Kearns Goodwin’s thesis about President Lincoln? Ms. Goodwin in “Team of Rivals” argues President Lincoln’s success was due, in no small part, to Lincoln’s insistence on including “rivals”--meaning political opponents--in his cabinet, especially during a time of civil war. On The Daily Show with John Stewart, John Bolton appeared, and hotly denied everything Ms. Goodwin argued. A furious Jon Stewart then telephoned Ms. Goodwin, demanding to know why she played The Daily Show.

When the Republicans held majorities in both houses of Congress, the presidency, and President George W. Bush became the third in the number of appointments to the federal judiciary (328, behind only Presidents Clinton’s 379 and Reagan’s 384), did anyone NOT get fired for even suggesting support for a two party system? When Monica Goodling, Harriet Myers, Kyle Sampson, and maybe Alberto Gonzales (he can’t remember) made America nostalgic for the high morals and impeccable ethics of John Mitchell’s Department of Justice, did anyone say “the stakes are too high to simply let one ideological segment of the country determine our fate (and a moron says ‘What?’)”? Maybe Patrick Leahy, but nobody cares what he says.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Bizarro Washington
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

I mean, a member of the GOP says the war in Iraq merits OPEN and HONEST DEBATE between BOTH Parties? Here I thought I was facing hard time in hypocrite hell—but Ms. Whitman…! Dag, I’m back working on my papers, requesting a pardon. I got hope!

So--the Republican Party consists primarily of two-faced hypocrites and partisan incompetents with an agenda—plus Senators Snowe and Collins. Knock me over with a feather.

Ms. Eva Gabor. When your talents are roughly two sisters and an offbeat accent, you better be able to bring it. She could.

Nevertheless, there are two additional points I want to make (my first point, just in case you missed it, was “Republicans are jerks”). First, what with all the GOP calls for a return to their salad days of whatever it was that Republicans were supposed to be for, it might behoove someone in the Grand Old Party to take a peekie at just what issues the LAST Republican legislature focused on. Second, there has been a tremendous sea change in American politics, and I know both the Republican and Democratic Parties also know it, but both Parties are pretending not to notice. 

As to my first point--not to be Captain Alienation or anything, but maybe…just MAYBE… there’s a reason the GOP has lost 51 seats in the house and 13 in the senate in the 2006 and 2008 elections. I know I am a bitter, old crank, but there ARE good reasons why I am still complaining about Bill Frist’s Senate and the House under Denny Hastert. Remember all the good things the 109th Congress accomplished? Me neither. In a December 15, 2006 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, Mr. Daniel Schorr stuck a fork in the GOP run legislature, calling it “the most unproductive session in recent history.” 

Ms. Rita Hayworth. The story is that
back in the day, Ms. Hayworth's
paramours would go to bed with "Gilda,"
only to wake up with "Rita"--and that
was supposed to bad. Yeah, cry me a
river, you bunch of a-holes.

By the numbers, the 109th Congress was in session for only 103 days, in contrast to 110 sessions days of the “do nothing” Congress that was bane of President Truman’s existence. Of eleven departmental appropriations, only two were passed. The rest were addressed by “stopgap” resolutions. No actions were taken on immigration reform, Social Security, or Medicare. Nor was there any progress on ethics reform. 

However, the 109th Congress DID engage in what Mr. Schorr called “spirited debates” over flag burning and gay marriage. The Republicans also managed to shutdown the entire government over what I would argue was the most inappropriate and bullshit issue of the decade: Terry Shiavo. Oh, and Congressman Mark Foley was forced to resign after years of sending inappropriate e-mails to adolescent pages. That was good. Unfortunately, the House Ethics Committee decided that while Congress had been negligent in protecting the pages, no rules were broken. That was bad.

Gee—I can’t figure out why the GOP got half their ass handed to them in November of that year.

Now, for anyone who’s thinking “Oh yeah? What about Harry Reid? Are you trying to tell me Harry Reid doesn’t suck?” I have two responses. First, if you think like that, then why the hell are you reading anything I (of all people) have to say? Don’t get me wrong—I’m flattered and all—but why are you reading childish leftwing name calling, when there is so much childish rightwing name calling to be had? But be that as it may, while I have to breath in a paper bag to keep from fainting while I type this: Harry Reid does not suck….well, suck like Bill Frist anyway (There. Now I feel much better).

Ms. Jinx Falkenburg. I have an mp3 of an
episode of the radio program "Duffy's
Tavern" where she is a guest, playing
herself. She is both very funny and
quite charming.

While no one not batshit or a paid hack on the Democratic National Committee (there may be some overlap between those two groups) would call the Congress under Senator Reid’s stewardship exactly “prolific,” there are important differences between the two Senates. First, while Senator Reid did run a Senate with a Democratic “majority,” that majority was a 51 to 49 split, with the one being Joe Leiberman. Who is Joe Leiberman? Let me tell you: one of the least anticipated books in memory is New York Times columnist Gail Collins’s “How Joe Lieberman Ruins Everything.” Okay—so technically, the book is “Ruined” (not “Ruins”) and is ostensively limited to Joe Lieberman’s role in the 2000 Florida election debacle; but you have to admit Joe Leiberman does, in fact, ruin everything. FOR EXAMPLE: prior to the 2008 elections (when the GOP got the other half of their ass handed to them), whenever anything vaguely connected to Iraq or the Department of Wildly Out of Control Boondoggles and Fatherla- WHOOPS! Homeland Security was at issue, Leiberman flipped to the Republicans, causing a 50-50 tie, which required Richard “You Don’t Know DICK!” Cheney to break. Hmmm. I wonder how Cheney’s going to vote? 

In a word, the Senate was hopelessly gridlocked, especially with an opposing Party in the White House.

Contrast that with Bill Frist’s Senate: with a comfortable majority in both houses, his own Party in the White House, the Republicans had such a clear run on legislation, that President Bush was in office for five years before he vetoed a bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, on July 19 2006 (I have a giant rant on President Bush’s use of “signing statements,” but I will spare you. At least, for now. I’m going to need a ton of photos of 1940s hotties for THAT one…..).

My point is, if the GOP legislature under a GOP President still could not (or would not) perform their basic obligations—preferring instead to grandstand on flag burning and pimp on the tragedy of Terri Shiavo—then by any objective measure, it’s time for them to go.

Another shot of Ms. Blondell. When you
plan on going off on about Ms. Terry
Shiavo, you better bring out the big guns.

My final point (thank god there’s lots of nice pictures of Joan Blondell kicking around the internet) is the proverbial three hundred pound gorilla both Parties are pretending not to notice. As Ms. Whitman notes at the end of her teary tale, now is the time for all good moderates and conservative to come to the aide of the Party, preaching “fiscal restraint, less government interference in our everyday lives, environmental policies that promote a balanced approach between protection and economic interest, and a foreign policy that is engaged with the rest of the world.” I’m just going to let that one slide for now (see “hypocrite hell,” supra), and jump to Ms. Whitman’s implicit plea that if the few folks still willing to call themselves “Republicans” do not hang together, they will surely hang separately (something like that), because “third parties in the United States don’t have a particularly successful history.”

And Ms. Whitman is right, if she is talking about Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace, and Pat Paulsen. But something weird happened in 2008. I can’t find the information right now, and if I am wrong, I’ll slam my hand inside a car door (or apologize to Christine Todd Whitman (my choice)). But if you looked at the various campaign finance reports, you could not help but notice that Mr. Barack Obama as an individual not only raised substantially more money than the GOP, he also raised a boatload more than the entire Democrat Party. Is that unusual? I believe so (see “slamming hand in car door,” supra).

Ms. Veronica Lake. The hell with Jessica
Rabbit.

I would argue that while back in the day it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, we are seeing the dawning of a de facto third party: the Barack Obama Party. What is the Barack Obama Party? At this point, pretty much whatever President Obama wants: he’s got both the money and the street cred that the Democrats and Republicans can only dream of. 

What does it mean that the strongest and most influential political party in America is the Barack Obama Party? For the Democrats, that does not mean when President Obama says jump, they ask “How high?” It does mean they jump first, and THEN ask if that was high enough. And they’re okay with that, because by any objective measure (so far as we know), Barack Obama is a good man. But even if he wasn’t—it’s not like they’re in a position to do anything about it. 

And what does that mean for the Republicans? Well, I’d cry too, if it was happening to me.

What? Phil Spector Changed Parties? When THAT Happen?

We Didn't Have to Lose Arlen Specter 
an OP-ED by Senator Olympia Snowe, April 28, 2009, New York TImes 

Not Senator Olympia Snowe--but don't feel
bad. Many people make that mistake.

Olympia Snowe is a nice person. So is Susan Collins. I am pleased that they both have each other, so that at GOP functions, each will know that they will have at least ONE other person to talk to. Not that life has gotten THAT bad for almost the last two Republicans east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line, but in the last week of April 2009, their GOP dance cards got a little bleaker: Arlen Specter looked deep in his heart, and seeing there was nothing there, decided he might as well become a Democrat. Why not?

So, other than the fact that the two senators from Maine have one less person to hang with at GOP bacchanalias, does this really mean anything else for what's left of the Grand Old Party? Well, yes it does, according to Olympia Snowe (Nice Lady-ME). In an April 28th editorial in the New York Times, titled "We Didn't Have to Lose Arlen Specter," Senator Snowe offers up the Kathryn Hepburn-style Yankee equivalent of "CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?" Now, if I were a Republican (and a nice person from Maine), I would be making much the same arguments that Senator Snowe does. She begins by pointing out that "back in the day"--1988, to be exact--the Republicans had a 55 to 45 majority over the Democrats, and there was no reason to think in 2000 that the GOP would not snag another five seats, giving THEM the 60 seat majority. The 2000 elections came--and the GOP succeeded in doing what no one dreamed they could do: lose five seats, giving the Senate a 50-50 tie. Then with the cry reminiscent of John Paul Jones ("We have not yet begun to lose!"), the 2006 and 2008 elections resulted in net losses of 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate. What is wrong with this picture?

Not that woman who played opposite
Spencer Tracy in all those movies--but if
she did, she'd have been great.....

As Ms. Snowe so graciously puts it: "There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party." Which while undoubtedly true, is not how I would have phrased it. I would have said "There is no plausible scenario which Republicans can grow—and I would mean “grow” as opposed to “die out”--while shrinking our average IQ and continuing to retract into a flock of complete morons." (I’m not a New England person, so even when I am being nice, I’m not all that nice).

Senator Snowe’s solution is to quote from the book of Saint Reagan: “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” His Eminence Ronald the Good continues: “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”

Mr. Ronald Reagan (pictured with Ms. Marilyn Monroe): "Who's the dumb guy now, huh? How 'bout it, Mr. Smart Guy? SUCK IT Weenie Boy!" (Few people realize what a potty mouth Reagan was....)

Well…..if you ask me (and no one ever does)--No. All of those points are losers in the GOP playbook. Every one of them. But I would argue even BEFORE the GOP can consider the Reagan/Snowe Plan, there are three larger millstones around the GOP’s collective neck. Those are the Party line on evolution, gay marriage, and personal attacks on Republican critics for “bias.”

"The Jury Is Still Out on Evolution"

Ms. Ann Southern. This article is so
long, pointless and boring, I'm REALLY
going to have to load up the pictures of
hot babes--all in an attempt to lend the
operation a modicum of class (as we said
back in the day).

What "jury" this is, I have no idea. But inside the scientific community, any and all GOP supposed handwringings over evolutionary biology were answered circa 1860. Honest. See James Burke's "The Day the Universe Changed" or rent the PBS dvds. Moreover, in 1925, high school PE teacher John Scopes was put on trial--and convicted-- for teaching "evolution," contrary to Tennessee law. But the shame of it all was that Mr. Scopes was probably the only science teacher in Tennessee who DIDN'T teach evolution, because every biology textbook that Tennessee authorized schools for purchase had a strong emphasis on “Darwinism.” If you have not seen WGBH's show The Monkey Trial, an episode of "The American Experience." There is also a transcript on line.

But why am I getting bees in my bonnet over evolution, as opposed to abortion and abortion related issues, like stem cells, “morning after” pills, and STD immunizations? Just my personal opinion, I think the social conservative line on abortion is also foolish and immoral, but it is not as politically disastrous as the “evolution” line.

Ms. Ava Gardner. Nobody ever told HER
about cosmology. She also knew how to
kick ass and take names.

Here's why: if you think evolutionary biology is not a “science,” you are ignorant. But that's okay—lots of folks are ignorant, and they are otherwise fine people who live full—if not particularly rich--lives. And if you think the two mutually exclusive creation myths in the Genesis scroll of the Judeo-Christian Bible are the literal, historical truth of how this universe came into being roughly five thousand years, seven days ago (featuring the talking snake), your ignorance of cosmology is matched only by your ignorance of the Bible. But you know what? You are still fine--just keep it to yourself, and be the "unspecified Protestant" WASPs are known for the world over. But even if you just can't hide "it" under the proverbial bushel, you can still be okay: you’ll just be a little eccentric. I call ignorant unspecified Protestants who are eccentric “Legion,” for they are many. HA HA HA! Oh, nevermind.

Here’s the problem. It's not enough for George W. Bush’s Republican party that THEY are all ignorant unspecified Protestants who are eccentric, they insist that EVERYONE ELSE should embrace their brand of idiocy as well. And that’s bad.

When was the last time that during an important GOP debate, some idiot DIDN'T wave a Bible, saying that if the King James version of same was good enough for the Apostle Paul, why shouldn't it be good enough for everyone? Conversely, when was the last time a GOP leader said anything about religion being a private matter between a person and their god, and not a supernatural concept to confuse children in the name of "intelligent design"?

That, pals and gals, is where the GOP rubber fails to hit the intellectual road. Despite the best efforts of people like Senator Snowe and gods like Jehovah, the closer the GOP is tied to what is known as the "fundamentalist" religious tendency, insisting everyone should embrace a cosmology that would embarrass your average Taliban cadre for its religious simplemindedness, the faster the Party will collapse.

"God Hates Gay People."

Now, I am the last person to claim to speak for any god, but I'd have to say there is more than ample evidence that if god does exist, that god hates opportunists more than god hates...oh, let’s say…FAGS. In fact, it seems to me that whatever god exists, that Spirit genuinely likes and respects gay people, because the gays are beating the hell (no pun intended) out of gods’ (supposedly) own people.

The Reverend Fred Phelps. I was going to
include a YouTube link, showing a 
demonstration where people (using the 
term loosely) insisted that god hates fags.
There are lots of clips--all disturbing.

Here’s what I mean by “opportunism:” Trading long term benefits for short term success, or “Win today; Lose you ass tomorrow.” Just my personal opinion, but gay marriage will be an opportunistic albatross, hanging around the GOP’s neck for a generation. 

One of the hallmarks of the 2004 elections were the plethora of states who enacted "one man-one woman" definitions of "marriage," to preserve "marriage," and to "protect the children" by making sure that only one man and one woman could get married. It worked great: Republican voters poured out to the polls to ban gay marriage--and incidentally re-elect George W. Bush. All well and good for the GOP (gods’ own people). 

But not really. There are good, practical reasons why two people in a committed relationship need the various legal and political protections recognized in the traditional marriage contract. So, legislatures have responded by creating "civil unions," a wholly secular institution separate but equal (cough cough) to the "religious" institution of marriage. And if you are a GOP social conservative, that's bad.

First, if the state recognizes same sex civil unions, isn’t that just "gay marriage" by another name? Of course it is. And that's bad. Why? Because God hates FAGS, that's why! Pay attention! Of course, this is the same god who also REALLY hates weaving two different kinds of thread into one cloth and moving around on the "Sabbath," but has no problem with genocide and slavery. Go figure. Again, the real problem is not that the GOP social conservative loves the god who hates fags. I mean, lots of people who aren’t god hate lots of things, and we do (relatively) okay. No, the real problem is that the GOP insists that EVERYBODY should love the god that hates fags. Oh yeah--and hate fags too. Therefore, far from creating civil unions, same sex cohabitation should be dealt with, just like we did back in the good ‘ol days: with DEATH! Now THERE'S a crowd pleaser among independents, young voters, and people with at least an upper two digit IQ.

Ms. Carole Landis. I am certain, sure she is unaware that anyone is watching her.

Nevertheless, the biggest danger to fag hating social conservatives is not the unbridled vengeance of an angry fag hating god--it's the carefully thought out opinions of state court judges. Here's the rub: as I said earlier, for everyone who does not hate fags, there are good reasons why gay people should have the secular protections that come from being "married"--despite the fact we all run the risk that allowing civil unions will make more people "decide" to be gay, just to take advantage of the law. Uh huh. Sure.

But no sweat: the state creates a separate but equal secular institution called "civil union," that gives anyone (not just the same sex marriage people) all of the protections and guarantees of marriage, only we don't call it “marriage.” Problem solved, right? Not exactly--blame it on the Blacks.

One of the big trouble makers of all time.
Also famous for pants that were extra
fancy.

Back in the day, a bunch of big mouth, trouble making African American outside agitators went all the way to Topeka, and filled Oliver L. Brown's head with the then crazy idea that despite the fact that the segregated schools in Kansas were IN REALITY “equal” (which is exactly why Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund went to Topeka. They knew their onions, believe you me), “separate but equal” schools were still "bad." Don’t let me leave you on the edge of your seats, but in 1954, the Supreme Court agreed with Marshall: “Separate but equal…BAD!” Now, say what you will about the gay community and how much god may hate them, more than a few have a passing knowledge of American legal history. 

So what happens when in, let's just say……IOWA, some fancy pants lawyer (not necessarily gay--all lawyers wear fancy pants) asks Assistant Attorney General Adam Hick of Pumpkin Creek what is the compelling state interest in refusing to allow same sex people to marry? Especially given that all secular benefits of “marriage” are allowed through “civil unions.” Just what exactly is the state interest in preserving a wholly religious institution, without running afoul of the establishment clause of the first amendment and the due process rights under the fourteenth amendment? Is Mr. Hick going to open his King James Bible to Leviticus, and say "See? Right here: God hates fags." Not so much.

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” is how the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court phrased it. 

"We'll always have Paris."
"But aren't there fags in Paris?"
"You're right. Well...We'll always have Leviticus......"

I mean, what are you going to say to that? “This was about the opinion of those seven justices and does not at all reflect some sea change"? Well, that's what a Mr. Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center said. How's that working out for you, Brian? 

But just like Mr. Bogart and Ms. Bergman will always have Paris, bigots will always have Leviticus.

“We Hate Smart People.”

This is the one that really gets to me, even more than the five thousand year old talking snake, and the idea of god qua playa hater. 

Back in the day, one of the big slogans of environmentalists, while transitioning from Rachel Carson Cult to Mass Movement, was “Question Authority.” Why question authority? Because at the time, Kerr-McGee, General Electric, and the fine people at Babcock & Wilcox had lots of people with “authority” insisting the nuclear power was completely safe. End of story. “Nobody has ever died ever from a nuclear reactor accident, ever,” the flacks, hacks, and usual gang of idiots with advanced engineering degrees all bragged. On the other side were all those folks with long hair, raggy clothes and sandals. They said, quoting the monster in bad Frankenstein movies: “Nuclear power…BAD!” Which sounds sort of stupid—but how many nuclear engineers did the environmentalists have? None (and they counted them twice). So “QUESTION AUTHORITY” was born, largely because it sounded better than “Nuh Uh!” or “’Fraid Not!” Not much better, granted, but still better. That still didn’t keep me from cringing every time anyone said—okay, yelled “Question Authority!”

Nuclear Safety Engineer, Babcock & Wilcox,
circa 1979.

But then there was the movie “The China Syndrome,” followed closely by the Saturday Night sketch “The Pepsi Syndrome,’ then the partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island facility in 1979, followed by the big 1986 “whoopsie” at the Ukraine’s Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant…and the whole issue of how to respond to “nuclear energy never killed nobody” stopped being such a big deal.

Similarly, we have the Grand Old Party that cut its academic teeth by opposing FDR’s New Deal (with the intellectual equivalent of wearing “Question Authority” buttons), President Ike railing at “intellectuals” (sometimes with good reason), Spiro Agnew reading aloud from Pat Buchannan about “effete intellectual snobs” and their “nattering nabobs of negativism,” followed by the convoluted defenses of Reagan’s “misstatements” every time he jumped the rails, to the George W. Bush hacks denouncing anyone not named Fox News as “biased.” 

Now—I know I’m a little weak on the whole “good-bad” thing, but isn’t bias “bad”? Don’t know, don’t care—because what the GOP calls “bias” is synonymous with four year olds yelling “nuh uh, you dumb guy!” 

Not Sarah Palin, sorry pals and gals. This
is Ms. Linda Darnell. You better believe SHE
knew what she was reading!

Here’s what I mean. In 2008, John McCain selects the sitting Alaska Governor to be his running mate, a heartbeat away from the Presidency, with the potential Presidential heart in the chest of what would have been the oldest elected president, who also had legitimate questions about his health. Various employees of the New York Times begin reporting on Governor Palin, pointing out (among other things) her rather sparse “not a complete moron” credentials. The McCain campaign returns fire, NOT by refuting the substance of the reporting, but by insisting that the New York Times is “in the tank for Obama.” Which means (I guess) that Unrepresentative Eastern Liberal Media Establishment (or the UELME) went all Randolph Hearst over Senator Obama, so would only print stories (ie “make shit up”) that said “Fire…BAD! Palin…WORSE!” Therefore, there was no point in answering these charges.

Well….okay. I mean, the New York Times did endorse Senator Obama over Senator McCain, but was that because the NYT was in the proverbial tank for Obama? Or maybe the endorsement had something to do with Governor Palin’s complete inability to articulate anything about Russia—and yet insisted she knew all about the Russian Federation, because it was GEOGRAPHICALLY close to Alaska. Plus, when “President” (sic) Putin flew to the US, he had to fly OVER Alaska. Considering that most of us learn the difference between physical proximity and intellectual awareness when we’re about…I don’t know…FIVE YEARS OLD—you’d think someone wanting to be vice president would also grasp the concept. At least, the NY Times thought so (for and record and in the interest of full disclosure: I thought so too. But unlike the NY Times, my thoughts featured abundant sprinklings of the “F word”).

Ms. Jean Harlow, who doesn't even vaguely
get the attention she deserves. Of course,
I've always been in the tank for Ms. Harlow
(an expression that sounds dirty, but isn't
really).

Here’s another one: Governor Palin does a pleasant walk and talk with Katie Couric. Katie asks “So Governor, what do you read to keep you in the know?” (or words to the effect). The Governor says “oh…… ummmm…. Whatever they [unspecified] put in front of me.” When pushed to be more specific, Governor Palin cannot name a single publication, and tells La Belle Couric “I’ll have to get back to you on that…” 

Now, if you don’t think the fact a sitting Governor planning on being Vice President can’t even blurt out a lie like “Oh, I read Newsweek/Time/US News & World Report/National Review/Anchorage Daily News/Lake Wobegone Herald Star/Highlights Magazine for Children every chance I get!” raises a red flag—then according to the GOP, you must be in somebody’s tank. That’s why the GOP spinners make like whirling dervishes, denouncing Katie Couric and CBS News for “gotcha” journalism.

One of my favorites: About ten days after the GOP convention, and after the Katie Couric debacle, a GOP flack is on the Fox News morning show, hosted by Joe Scarborough. Mr. Scarborough is there with four or five other “journalists,” all representing the various views of the radical right. But the Scarborough people ARE television folks after all, and they want to know from the GOP flack why Governor Palin is being shielded from interviews—because that’s how TV people make their eating money. The GOP flack whips out the “bias” card, and starts complaining about the “sexism” of the “media,” making stuff up about how Governor Palin won’t be interviewed, when if you look at the time period after Joe Biden was named Obama’s VP, Biden hardly gave any interviews at all.

This is supposedly a picture of Ms. Deborah
Kerr wearing a "bikini." Is that really a
bikini? What the hell do I care? It really is
Deborah Kerr!

Scarborough and Friends fall out of their chairs, screaming with laughter. Sure, blood is thicker than water, and we’re all trying real hard for ya honey…but Joe Biden NOT on television? Please—it’s only by the grace of a loving god and an eternally vigilant FCC that we don’t have “The Joe Biden Channel: All Joe Biden, All the Time!”

But the “we don’t have to respond, because you are biased” card became truly heinous in the run up to the Iraq War, and the immediate aftermath following the shocked SHOCKED discovery that Iraq had no WMDs, no nuclear program, and no ties with terrorist organizations period—let alone al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks.

My point is, though, the GOP will continue to shrink as long as its spokespeople say something stupid, followed by a refusal to justify the stupidity, because anyone with the bad manners to point out the stupidity is “biased.”



So no, Senator Snowe (Senator Voted Most Like Tracy Lords Character, ”The Philadelphia Story”--Me.), the Republicans returning to those kindler, gentler days of paying lip service to restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty ain’t gonna cut the muster—at least not until your Party stops embracing a theory of evolutionary biology featuring a talking snake, insists on following a god who is a true playa hater when it comes to the gay and lesbian community, and is content to dismiss any criticism of mistakes and incompetence as the product of “liberal bias.”

Until they clean up those three things, the Republicans are going to be having much bigger fish to fry, than worry over losing a vacuous sleazeball like Arlen Specter.

NOT the newest Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania. Apparently, I am am the only one to have made this mistake.

It Takes an Idiot to Make a Village

Me and Mr. Lenin, discussing our respective Idiots.

Back in the day (around 1905 to 1917), when everyone who was anyone was trying to dump Tsar Nicholas II of the Russian Empire as was, there was a general consensus that the best way to do so was to target the Tsar himself. The contrarian view, as frequently was his wont, came from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who dismissed the Tsar as wholly unimportant to seizing power. In fact, when compelled to actually talk about the Tsar, Lenin referred to him as "Idiot Romanov" (as opposed to the Royal cousins "Moron," "Stooge," and "Noodlebrain" Romanov I guess). I have always enjoyed that whatever is the opposite of a term of endearment, and have made liberal use of that slur, especially in regards to virtually the entire Bush Administration.

But now, the chief idiot, Idiot Bush, has come forward in a CNN interview, rending his garments is a series of mea culpas. Maestro, cue the line "Regrets--I've had a few..." from the Sid Vicious version of "My Way."

What does Idiot I mean President (no I don't) Bush regret? He regrets when he got all dressed up like GI Joe, sat in the back of an aeroplane (sic) that someone else flew, landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 and declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over. No wait--my bad. He doesn't regret any of that. He feels bad that behind him, while he was mouthing that horse hockey, there was a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." "To some, it said, well, 'Bush thinks the was in Iraq is over,' when I didn't think that. It conveyed the wrong message," thus spake the Idiot.

Well . . . I guess. But I was one of the other "some" who said "Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over," when Bush said that major combat operations in Iraq were over, regardless of what banner was hanging behind him. Call me crazy.

The First Idiot, dressed up like GI Joe. I know this picture is a repeat, but it is too appropriate not to include.

Which is one of my largest sources of rage and frustration with this administration: the almost pathological denial of any sense of accountability or even history of its own actions. Apparently, President Bush is troubled by the fact that some banner behind his head may have give people the wrong impression ie that he meant what he was saying. Fine. But what was left unsaid among Bush's regrets was the series of lies his Press Secretary and assorted White House flacks spun about that banner, denying any connection between the banner and the White House--even claiming that the banner was the work of the sailors (I guess) of the Abraham Lincoln. I could respect Bush (yes, even Idiot Bush) had he said someone like "Yes, that whole photo opportunity, speech, and banner was a mistake--and an even bigger mistake was denying that I had anything to do with that banner. The American people would have to be morons to believe that the White House had nothing to do with that banner, and I am embarrassed to have been part of campaign that assumed the American people were morons."

But that note is just not on President Bush's trumpet.

But there's always hope. In the interview, President Bush did say that after he leaves the White House, he will return to Texas and write a book. "I want people to know what it was like to make some of the decisions I had to make. I've had one of those presidencies where I've had to make some tough calls, and I want people to know the truth about what it was like sitting in the Oval Office," he said.

Ms. Sophia Loren. Unfortunately, she has nothing to do with this note.

Uh huh. Well, President idiot, if you need some ideas about what you need to tell the truth about, I'd certainly love to help out. Just off the top of my head:

1. What about the 2000 South Carolina primary, where the Bush campaign told every GOP voter that Senator McCain had fathered a child with a black prostitute and that Cindy McCain was a junkie? Does that ever bother you?

2. How about the whole Joseph Bloom and Valerie Palme saga? Everything you said at every step of the way was a lie, from denying that you sent Ambassador Bloom to Niger, to the Ambassador's correct conclusion that Iraq had not been trying to import uranium, you still stuck to your assumption about Iraq's nuclear program--knowing it was wrong, and your administration engaged in a campaign to destroy Mr. Bloom and Ms. Palme by leaking Ms. Plame's status as a CIA agent--and then to this day your are still denying it.

3. Speaking of WMD and Iraq, how about the fact that prior to the invasion, Sadam Hussein's chief of intelligence had flipped as a CIA source, and given you good intelligence that Iraq was not engaged in WMD, did not have a nuclear nor biological weapons programs, and was not supporting terrorist organizations? And do you have any regrets, as Mr. Ron Suskind documents in his book "The Way of the World," your administration after the fact forged a letter from this Iraqi, falsely stating that Iraq was involved in a nuclear program and connected with al Qaida?

4. Or how about after your people finally admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq, Condeleeza Rice, Karen Hughes, and the usual gang of idiots were all over the media, claiming that your critics were trying to "re-write history" by claiming that the purpose of the Iraq invasion was BECAUSE of Iraq had been illegally producing WMDs? Do you regret that lie?

Ms. Marlene Dietrich. She does not appear in this note, but she has much more characterand deserves more respect than Karen Hughes.

5. Speaking of the truth, what about when Tony Snow said that the media had inflated the number of times you said "stay the course" regarding the absence of a coherent strategy in Iraq? Mr. Snow acknowledged you said it maybe seven or eight times--he was off about sixty times, I believe.

6.. Or how about prior to the 2004 election, all the times that VP "Darth" Cheney insisted that Iraq had engaged in a nuclear program, supported al Qaida, and had WMDs--and this was AFTER the 9/11 Commission had released their report, stating none of those assertions were true?

7. What about Condeleeza Rice trying to justify the pending Iraq invasion by saying "We don't want to have the smoking gun from Iraq come in the form of a mushroom cloud"?

8. And don't forget that chapter about what you did to the Department of Justice: The unprecedented firing of the US Attorneys for blatant political reasons; Monica Goodling illegally insisting on political criteria in DOJ hires; your stooges going behind the acting Attorney General to John Ashcroft's hospital bed, in a futile effort to get Mr. Ashcroft to sign off on an illegal domestic spying program;

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--at least, so far as I can remember. . .

your friend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales screwing up everything he could touch, to the point I thought Senator Arlen Spector was going to kill the guy--and then, when Gonzales FINALLY stuck a fork in his ass and resigned, you had the temerity to claim that a "good man" had been "unfairly run out of office."

9. Remember when you gave L. Paul Bremmer the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award that you can bestow? He headed the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA (affectionately known as "Can't Produce Anything"). Now THERE was a winner. Under Mr. Bremmer, the CPA's first two orders were 1) dissolve the Iraqi army, and 2) prohibit the involvement of any former Bathist Party members in any government position. How'd that work out for you?

Ms. Janet Leigh. She also wants you to know the truth about what it's like to sit in the oval office.

And that's just while I'm sitting here. But I can't wait to read what you consider to be the "truth about what it was like sitting in the Oval Office," because the truth is you are a profound disgrace to the office where you sat, to the country you professed to represent, and to every principle you claim to hold.

Delusions

‘That is all a lie! Outwardly it’s true, but inwardly it’s a lie!’ shouted Dmitri Fyodorovich, trembling all over with rage.
-- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

“Let me stop you right there, Mr. District Attorney. You’ve said quite enough about this man. As a matter of fact, you’ve said quite a bit about a lot of things, and frankly, I’m tired of listening to you. So now, I’m going to talk. And don’t interrupt me, because I’ve got something to say.

“Now, I’ve sat up here, high above the people for a long time…More years than I care to remember. An endless parade of humanity passes in front of me like a giant river; and sometimes, it’s hard to remember that each person is an individual, and deserves individual attention. And that’s because so many of the people who pass in front of me are—in the words of some of the more uncouth members of our courtroom clientel--they ain’t worth crossing the street to piss on if they were on fire.

“Sit down! Both of you lawyers. It’s my turn to talk now. Like I was telling you, if you think you have a jaded view of humanity, just try looking at humanity from up here. It is nothing less than amazing—amazing and terrible. But that’s my job: to judge. That’s what I do, day in day out, week in week out, year in, year out: judge people. When you’ve done it as long as I have, you get to be pretty good.

“My job is like panning for gold. No, it’s more like mining for diamonds. It’s my job to sort through tons and tons of plain garbage, through the very worst that our society has to offer, just hoping to find that diamond. Only it’s easier to find diamonds than to find what I’m looking for. It has to be. It certainly couldn’t be any harder. I imagine lots of people, when they first start mining for diamonds, they get discouraged. They don’t find anything, because a diamond on the outside looks just like any other worthless junk rock. So everyone misses it. Everyone, except for the miner—the one person who knows what’s inside that rock—the one person who can judge the difference between worthless rocks and diamonds. This Defendant we have here today, without doubt, he is one of the Diamonds.

“What did I tell you Mr. District Attorney? Do not interrupt me again! I said not another word. No! Alright, Mr. Bailiff…would you be kind enough to take this District Attorney over to the courtroom holding cell for me? Maybe he’ll learn to keep his mouth closed a little better when he’s in a room with the door shut. He prides himself in putting so many people behind bars, well, he just put one more in: his own fool self. And don’t think I don’t see you trying not to smile about that, Mr. Bailiff deputy sheriff. I tried not to smile too, but I just gave up. Well, that’s enough about him, that Mr. District Attorney. Let’s talk some more about this diamond I found here.

“It would be easy to just dismiss this Defendant as just another ‘bad guy.’ A lot of people have tried to do just that, and at first glance, it would seem understandable. Look at this indictment: ‘Count I – Murder by Abuse; Count II – Felony Murder; Count III – Non-Aggravated Murder; Count IV -- Manslaughter I; Count V – Criminally Negligent Homicide’…then there’s at least another half a dozen counts of aggravated assaults in the first degree, then a whole laundry list of drug charges and misdemeanor assaults, and then we finish up with another two pages of resisting arrests, disorderly conducts, and refusals to obey a police officer – if you’ll excuse the expression, just the kind of chickenshit charges that District Attorneys throw at people, just to make people look worse than they really are. You don’t have anything to say about that, huh Mr. District Attorney? Good. I’m glad. And believe me, you’re glad that I’m glad. Otherwise, you’d really be telling all your little friends how well you know our jail – both inside and out.

“But a Diamond, you can’t tell a Diamond how it looks on the outside. And this…this indictment….this is just the outside. We have to look at the inside. My father told me once that you can’t know someone, and I mean really know somebody, until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins. So let’s all just do some walking right here, right now. Look at this man’s life…what he has been through; what he has to put up with…then you’ll begin to see what I see. You will be able to see that diamond inside of all that ugliness.

“This man works at a job down at the Plant, the kind of job that no one should have to work. But he needs that job. Now, this has got to be an example of Divine Providence, because I just happen to know the Defendant’s foreman personally—and I can tell you he really is one of the biggest A-holes to walk God’s green earth. I can’t imagine what it’s like to have this foreman lord over you, boss you around, make up ridiculous tasks, just to force you to do them. And you have to take it, because that’s the only job you’ve got.

“So, this man here, our Diamond, he takes it, and takes it, and takes it…until finally, he’s free, if only for a little while, because his shift is finally over. Then he heads home, for his sanctuary--at least that’s what it’s supposed to be. When he gets home, does he get the hero’s welcome he deserves? No. He’s got a selfish, screeching harpy lashing into him as soon as he walks in the door. She needs more money for the kids. She needs more money for food. She needs more money for the bills. She needs more money for the apartment. Who the hell knows what she really needs more money for, but whatever it is, she thinks she needs it. But what she really means is she wants more money for her own self, because that’s all she can think of: her own damn self. This man can’t even sit his ass down, and have a beer before she’s all over him. She doesn’t, not for a second, appreciate what he has to go through to get his money—all she cares about is getting more of his money. No one deserves to be treated like that. But that’s what happens to this man. For almost a year, he lives like this. And what’s more, that’s not all what this man lives with.

“What can you do to protect yourself, when you’ve got all the pain in the world? I’m not excusing this behavior, mind you, I’m just saying I can understand it. The Defendant turned to the only solace he could find; he had to. He used drugs for the simple relief that they offered him. But drugs, while they ease one pain, they also come back and kick you with a whole ‘nother set of pain. I know you don’t know this, Mr. District Attorney, because you’ve had everything in life handed to you on a platter. You never had to struggle for anything, been denied anything, you’ve never been left wanting for nothing. So you can’t understand the hell that drugs put people though. All you can do is sit there, and blame people. Act like you are somehow better than them—all because you were born on third base, and now pretend like you hit a triple. Listen: addiction is a disease. Understand? A dis-EASE. The opposite of “ease.” And that’s science talking. You can’t control a dis-EASE, and it hurts worse than you could ever imagine. So just try for a minute and imagine the physical pain this man’s addictions pushed on him, then add the stresses of his job, and the pressures of his family. I’m telling you, no one could possibly live like that, and not explode.

“But this man took all that pressure, and took it for as long as he could. He lasted longer than anyone else, because he is made of the hardest substance in the world. But even the hardest substance in the world can only take so much. Again, I am not justifying this man’s behavior. I am only saying that I can appreciate it, because I cannot possibly imagine the daily hell that life had put this man through.

“Now, and only now, can we look at this indictment, and what happened on that day last week.

“Unfortunately, that day ended all too much like every other day that this Defendant had to face. Only worse. Per usual, that foreman rode him all day, and then had the nerve to still write him up for nothing. Big surprise there. After work, his co-workers, they all headed to the strip bar. But this man promised his wife he’d be home that evening. So he didn’t go. Even though if anyone deserved a night of truly fine dancing and prancing, it was him. Instead, he goes home, and straight into the jaws of a shrew. So while his head is cracking from the drugs, and he’s probably just lost his job--meaning he’s going to lose everything--he’s still trying to do the right thing, and explain everything to his wife. His wife; the one person who is supposed to be beside him, supporting him, be on his side; but all this so-called wife can do is screech at him about why he’s always fucking up. It’s now, at this moment, that the baby starts crying. I mean really crying.

“Of course the baby’s crying. That crack of a wife never, and I do mean never, did a damn thing anyway. Here’s the baby screaming about a damn dirty diaper or something, but instead of dealing with the baby like the bitch is supposed to, she just screams at this man louder, just to make sure he can hear her bitching him out over the baby’s screams. And forget about her getting him his dinner, like she’s supposed to be doing.

“Who could live like that? No one. Who deserves to live like that? Again, no one. The Defendant, he’s like living in the worst torture chamber in the world ever, his life is that bad.

“Again, I am not condoning this man’s behavior. I don’t need to: he’s already taking steps to make amends himself. I am saying though, that before you get back up on your high horse, Mr. District Attorney, just be sure that if you weren’t in the same situation, you wouldn’t do the exact same thing. That’s right, I am talking about kicking a six month old baby.

“Reading this indictment, you’d think this man killed half of a grade school and beat up the other half. He did no such thing. But the insane amount of pressure he was under—pressure that would have killed anyone else--bore down on him, and made him snap….snap to the point he took several steps to build up some momentum, pulled his foot back, and kicked a little baby square in the chest hard, sending the child through the air, hitting the far wall. And there is no denying that this child later died from those injuries.

“But if you were listening to the Defendant today, I mean really listening to him, this man who says that he’s found peace with Jesus, you’d know he’s speaking the truth. I get hundreds of people coming through this court almost every day, all claiming that they’re sorry. That they’re now with Jesus. That Jesus has forgiven them. That they pray to God every day. But I can see right through them; just a bunch of goddamned hypocrites and liars, that’s all they all are. Ignoring God and His message all their miserable lives, right up until the minute they get into trouble. That’s when they suddenly remember our Lord. Just like those people who waited until they were treading water before telling Noah how they knew Noah was right all along, so please open up that door on the ark. Uh huh. Biblical hypocrites, that’s what they are. I spot them all a mile away. So I know what I’m talking about when I tell you that this man is not one of them. That this man is different. That this man truly is that Pearl of Great Price.

“No matter how bad a person you are, Mr. Defendant sir, you cannot possible be worse than the murderer and thief who was on the cross next to Jesus. And when that thieving murder repented with his last breaths, our precious Lord and Savior said to him “Today, you shall be with me in Paradise.” I can’t send you to Paradise—as you know, that’s between you and Jesus. But what I can do, is take you down from the cross where you do not deserve to be crucified on, just like that murderer hanging next to Jesus. Mr. Defendant, I am right now dismissing this case, letting you find the help you need, because I know that I will not see you back here.

“Goddamn it! Sit down and shut up all of you, and I mean it! All of you shut up and stop talking. I’m not done here. Listen, all you people who don’t like what I’m doing here, I want you to remember the words of our Lord: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Okay now, everybody who is perfect, go ahead and tell me all about the mistake I’m making here. Well? A minute ago all you people had a lot to say, but suddenly now I don’t seem to be hearing anybody talking. Imagine that. And for all you people not saying anything, but looking at me all hard eyed and mean – honestly, what do you use your Bibles for? Pressing leaves? I’m assuming all you self-righteous people even go to church. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here (something, let me just say, that none of you are even willing to give me and this Diamond). So, were you just staring out the window when your pastor was trying to teach you the lesson of the shepherd who had a flock of sheep, and what that shepherd did when one of the sheep was lost? He left his flock, and searched and searched until he found the lost lamb. Well, that’s what I’m doing here – I’m finding one of our lost sheep, and bringing him back into the fold. So why are you all mad? Because he got lost so far? Is that it? Why isn’t that more reason to celebrate, to be joyful, that this man came back to us from so far away?

“All of you people, see into your own hearts, and just look at what’s there. The Defendant, this man here, he has been though hell itself, has repented. He has renounced his evil ways. Our mission is successful, and what do you want to do about it? You want me—and God--to punish this man anyway; punish him for nothing. Here’s something I want all of you to think about tonight, when you’re in bed, just before your head hits that pillow. I want you to think hard on this, what your reasons are here today. Think on what it means to not just talk like a Christian; I mean to really in your heart live a Christian life; a life of forgiveness. And I am talking especially to you, Mr. Mighty District Attorney. I hope for your sake, you were listening. Otherwise, you’re going to have some awfully hard questions to answer in your next life. But that’s between you and Jesus.

“And you, Mr. Public Defender. You were trying to keep the Defendant from telling me his story, keep him from explaining. You even went so far as to tell him that I ‘wouldn’t understand.’ It is bad enough that you insult my intelligence, but must you also insult my humanity, and publicly deny my compassion as well? You are supposed to be ‘defending’ the public. I have never seen a bigger Public ‘Pretender’ in all my years on the bench. Exactly how many other people, just as innocent as this man here, have you let be sent away, all because you were too afraid to just do your job? Don’t answer that. I just want to give you something to think about. At home, in your own bed, you just think about all those other people who are sleeping in jail beds, their lives ruined because of your unwillingness to really help the people who God has placed in your hands.

“Now, I know, and I fully expect that I am going to receive a great deal of grief about what I’m doing here. People are so quick to make judgments, and just not willing to look at the whole story. But that’s why I’m the Judge, not all you other people. When I’m afraid to stand up, and do what’s right, well, that’s the day that I no longer deserve to be sitting up here on high.

“Well, I guess I’m done here. I’ve said my piece. Something I always wanted to say, but never had the right case, the right opportunity to say it. No thanks to Mr. District Attorney and Mr. Public Defender. They were both conspiring together to keep me from saying this, and to send an innocent man—a good man--to prison. I wish I could say I was surprised. But like I said earlier, I’m a diamond miner here. Every day, I wade through the worst of humanity’s trash. But when I find one of these rare Diamonds, that’s when I know that what I do is really all worthwhile.

“Let me just step down here and shake your hand, Mr. Defendant sir. It’s not every day I get to meet a real live Bible hero, a real Prodigal Son, who has gone so far away, but has now come back. I thank the good Lord that he sent you into my courtroom. I’m honored to meet you here today sir. I really am.”


************************

“Are you out of your mind?”
“What?”
“You can’t tell the Judge that”
“Yes I can. I know this Judge. He’ll understand.”
“Understand what? That you were justified in kicking a baby to death?”
“No! No, I’m not saying that at all. You don’t understand.”
“Then explain it to me. What are you going to tell the Judge?”
“I’ll just tell him. I know he’ll know what I mean.”
“How can you know what this Judge knows?”
“I see in his eyes. He knows. He’ll understand”
“Listen. I’ve been in front of this Judge hundreds of times, and this is the first time you’ve ever seen him. So believe me when I tell you that this Judge a) doesn’t know anything and b) doesn’t understand anything.”
“See what I mean? There you are, first running me down, then running down the Judge. You’re not on my side. You’re just a…a Public Pretender!”
“Yeah, I know. That one just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Look, you’ve got at least four murder counts in your indictment, one of which is potentially a capital crime. That means the district attorney won’t rule out seeking the death penalty. Realistically, at best you’re looking at a natural life sentence, just maybe with a possibility of parole after serving twenty-five years—but only if everything goes perfect and you’re luckier than I can ever imagine. Look at me---I’m telling you, that’s your best-case scenario; anything else that could happen is worse. And I am talking about you wearing that big diaper, riding the gurney into the little room with one big window, after spending the next ten to fifteen years double bunked on death row. So this really isn’t the time or the place to screw around. Today’s court appearance is just to say ‘not guilty,’ and get another court date. That’s it, that’s all, nothing else. The Judge is not going to listen to your life story, and then decide to dismiss your case because…I don’t know…the baby had it coming.”
“Goddamn it! That’s not what I saying at all; ‘the baby had it coming’ bullshit. You know what? You just don’t listen. That’s your problem. You’ve never listened to what I’ve said, and you never will listen to me. You don’t listen to nobody. And you know what else? You’re fired, you worthless fuck. Get off of my case. I’m going out there and talking to that Judge by myself. I don’t care you don’t believe me, but that Judge, he’ll believe me. If he just listens, he’ll understand what really happened. Then it’s all going to be okay. No thanks to you or that damn smart mouth District Attorney.”
“Ok. Look. I’m sorry. Ok? I just got excited. You’re right. I apologize. Look: I’m not saying you’re wrong. Maybe after we both look at the evidence some more, maybe practice your allocution a few times so you can be comfortable with what exactly you want to say to the judge, then we can do what you want. Does that make sense to you?”
“’We’ my ass. This is me, my case, my life. It has nothing to do with you. If I listen to you, then I go down, you gonna do the time for me? Bullshit.”
“You’re right, you’re right. It’s your case. Your call. But today is just not the day to make that call. All we’re going to do today is set another court date. The end. Five minutes max. We’re at the start of a long process. Let’s just get through this morning, and then we can explore your options.”
“All I’m trying to do is explain to the Judge, and you won’t let me. You act like that’s the worst idea ever.”
“It’s certainly the worst idea I’ve heard in a long time.”
“Yeah well fuck you then. I’m going to do what I have to do. You’ll see. I have faith. I believe in Jesus, and He knows what’s in my heart. God knows what I’m going to tell the judge. Then you’ll see what happens. All I have to do is tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, like you’re supposed to. Then everything will be fine.”

Sarah Palin is SO Dumb . . .

I KNEW IT!

Of course, this does raise a few questions about journalism and responsiblity to the public.

Heroes, Then & Now: The Twin Sagas of John McCain and William Ayers

There’s something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say "Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark," but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children."
--Martin Luther King, Jr. 'Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

The more important the rule, the greater is the likelihood that knowledge is based on avoided tests.
--American Sociologist Harold Garfinkel, “Studies in Ethnomethodology”

Thanks to the McCain-Palin campaign, Bill Ayers has more name recognition today as a former bomber, than he ever had back in the day when he actually was conspiring to plant bombs. Just why Mr. Ayers felt compelled to plant bombs forty years ago, however, is a question left unasked. Likewise, no one feels particularly compelled today to ask John McCain what exactly did the senior senator from Arizona do during the Vietnam War. The agreed upon consensus is that the former was a “terrorist,” while the latter was a “hero.” Everybody knows that.

Which I find troublesome, and not just because the kindler gentler race mobs that pass for Governor Palin’s political rallies also “know” that Senator Obama is the Manchurian Candidate Muslim prophesized in the Revelation of St. John as the communistic socialist Anti-Christ--after all, there’s no denying his people killed Christ.

So, why is William Ayers a “terrorist,” while Senator McCain a “war hero”? Unfortunately, even at first glance, the clear answer starts to blur. Bill Ayers and the loose confederation that made up Weather Underground were a self-anointed American wing of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, or Vietcong. Consequently, they were on a mission from god (so to speak) to place raggedy, homemade bombs in “military targets,” to help discourage America from bombing Vietnam. So far so good: he's a terrorist.

But why was America in general, and John McCain in particular, bombing Vietnam?

Just what exactly makes Senator John McCain's combat experience "heroic"? How should--or even could--you explain how John McCain was 'fighting for his country' in Vietnam? Why isn’t Senator McCain a terrorist, not entirely dissimilar from the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon? And if there are no good answers to those questions, then why isn’t Bill Ayers a hero, for putting his life and liberty at risk, in a futile (if not silly) effort to stop an activity most of the world considered (both then and now) a crime against humanity?

The Vietnam War

These facts are not in dispute. During the Second World War, several Vietnamese nationalist groups formed the Viet Minh, under the nominal leadership of Ho Chi Minh, to fight Japanese occupation. After Japan was defeated, the Vietnamese expected they would be granted their independence, in recognition for their contributions to the Allied war effort. France, however, refused to give up its holdings in Indochina. The Viet Minh, having trained from fighting the Japanese, began fighting the French. In 1954, a peace conference was held in Geneva, involving France, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (what eventually became North Vietnam), Laos, the Peoples' Republic of China, State of Vietnam (South Vietnam), the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. The United States had been supporting France's efforts to preserve colonial rule, even aiding the newly created Vietnamese National Army to combat the Viet Minh. However, the United States refused to participate in or even recognize the Geneva peace conference.

On April 27 1954, the conference produced the Geneva Accords: Vietnam was nominally given its independence, and the country partitioned into northern and southern zones. The Accord also provided that Vietnam would be unified, following internationally supervised free elections in July 1956.

In 1955, elections (as such) were held in South Vietnam, with Emperor Bao Dai running on a platform to restore the monarchy, opposed by Ngo Dinh Diem, who vowed to create some unspecified form of republican government. Diem, though, did have a base of support in Vietnam's Catholic minority, as opposed to the Buddhist majority. Additionally, Diem had the backing of the Americans, as well as control over the existing governmental apparatus in the South (such as it was). Even though Diem would have been elected president under any semblance of a free election, he preferred to be 'elected' by 98.2% of the vote, including winning 133% of the registered voters in Saigon.

As the date for the July 1956 elections drew near, it was clear that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh would win by a substantial margin in every part of Vietnam. Rather than face certain defeat, President Diem and his American backers withdrew from the elections, claiming that the Republic of Vietnam had not been part of the Accords, and therefore was not bound by them.

South Vietnam under the rule of President Diem and his extended family quickly devolved into a morass of incompetence and corruption. By December 1960, disparate South Vietnamese groups of communists, nationalists, and people generally opposed to President Diem formed the National Liberation Front (Vietcong), to fight the autocratic rule of the Diem family. Most of the fighting of the 'Vietnam War' prior to 1968 was between Southerners: the Vietcong versus the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). That changed, however, following February and March of 1968, when the entire nation of South Vietnam exploded in combat during the Tet Offensive. In putting down the Tet Offensive, significant numbers of Vietcong soldiers and cadre were killed, leaving the Vietcong virtually destroyed as a fighting and political force. Only after Tet did the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) start sending large numbers of soldiers into South Vietnam to continue the war against escalating numbers of American troops and an increasingly ineffective ARVN. An excellent book on Tet and its aftermath is Ronald H. Spector's “After Tet, The Bloodiest Year in Vietnam” (Free Press, 1993).

With that background in mind, here are the circumstances of Senator McCain's combat experience. On October 26 1967, Senator McCain was flying his twenty-third bombing mission, bombing Hanoi. His plane was a A-4E Skyhawk, which carried 9,900 pounds of bombs and four missiles. His plane was shot down by a Vietnamese missile, and he was badly injured when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi. He was pulled ashore, then badly beaten. Senator McCain was then placed in a POW camp, where he was badly treated, frequently tortured, and released five and a half years later, on March 14 1973. Almost two years later to the day, in April 1975, the South Vietnamese Government collapsed, with the debacle of US helicopters desperately airlifting refugees from the roof of the American embassy. Seventeen years of war had ended, and ended for less than nothing.

Had the United States honored the Geneva Accords, and allowed the July 1956 elections, Vietnam would have been united--but united under a system that would have had to recognize the pluralistic nature of its society. By 1975, much of the Vietcong as a governing body had been killed, and no opposition remained in the North. The totalitarian communist nightmare predicted by the west came true--but only after another generation of Vietnamese lost to war.

Senator McCain’s Sacrifice was of No Help to Vietnam . . .

How did Senator McCain’s war service benefit the Vietnamese people? And what were the American interests Senator McCain was fighting for in Southeast Asia?

There is no dispute that American military involvement in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia was nothing less than an unmitigated nightmare in the lives of those peoples. During America's involvement in Vietnam, North Vietnam was one of the world's poorest countries. Nevertheless, the world's most powerful nation dropped more bombs in tonnage on an area the size of New Jersey, than were dropped in the entire European theater during the Second World War. That level of bombardment does not even include the napalm, the Agent Orange and other defoliants, or the 'anti-personnel' weapons that were dropped. If you are interested in more information, I recommend “Hearts and Minds,” the 1974 documentary by Peter Davis. Specific to Senator McCain’s role, Senator McCain’s twenty-four bombing missions were aimed at civilian targets, because there were no targets in Hanoi that could be defined as “military.” From the perspective of radical Islamists and the third world (as well as the Americans selecting ‘military targets’ to bomb in Baghdad, Belgrade, and Afghanistan) the World Trade Center was a much clearer military target than anything 1967 Hanoi had to offer.

Nor can it be argued that Senator McCain was bombing North Vietnam to help preserve “democracy” in South Vietnam. Presidents Diem and Thieu, as well as the circus of incompetent Generals who seized and lost power in South Vietnam, did not even pretend to build any semblance of a representative democracy, or even a government that existed for any purpose other than to enrich the current ruling clique.

Therefore, Senator McCain's military service cannot be considered heroic, in the sense he was helping the Vietnamese people.

. . . Nor Did Senator McCain’s Service Support Any American Interest

So, if Senator McCain's bombing of Hanoi was not assisting the Vietnamese people, then what American interests were advanced by his service? The short answer is “none.” In 1967, the rationale for American involvement was to prevent Mao Zedong's China from establishing domination in southeast Asia. Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese were seen by the West as puppets, under the complete direction of China. Even at the time, that view was ridiculous, and acceptable only to people wholly uninformed about the history of the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples. But from the perspective of 2008, the 'Mao's Puppet' rational is even more absurd. While China gave Vietnam military supplies during the long war with the French and the Americans, the two nations always had--at best--an uneasy relationship. When China and the Soviet Union began competing for power and influence in the Socialist world, Vietnam was always closer to Moscow than Beijing. Later, China actively supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, while the Khmer Rouge maintained an on-going border war with Vietnam. After Vietnam invaded Cambodia in late 1978, driving the Khmer Rouge out of the capital of Phnom Penh, China invaded Vietnam. The two nations fought a bloody, month long border war, after which both sides claimed victory—probably because there was ample evidence to show how both sides had lost.

So, to say that Senator McCain's service in Vietnam was 'heroic,' because he fighting against China's domination of Vietnam--the 1960s era rationale—that is simply wrong. Additionally, no one--not even in the 1960s--honestly considered the Viet Minh a military threat to America, so Senator McCain was not 'protecting' America from anything.

Certainly, Senator McCain's actions as a POW were admirable--particularly his refusal to be repatriated until all POWs were released. But to say that his actions in bombing Hanoi were 'fighting for his country' is (at best) a distortion of history. Senator McCain, as I would argue were all Vietnam Veterans, was lied to and badly used by his government. Both he and the Vietnamese people deserved better.

So—John McCain v. Bill Ayers: Who’s the Hero?

Not John McCain. But because I live in Oregon USA, not Bill Ayers either. By the close of the 1960s, a clear majority of the country had turned against the Vietnam War, led in no small part to the truly heroic eloquence of Martin Luther King Jr. As a nation, we should be embarrassed that every school child is inundated with Dr. King’s 1961 speech from the March on Washington (“I have a Dream”), much less so his final “Mountain Top” address in Memphis 1968 (“I See the Promised Land”), and his 1967 speech at Riverside Church on the Vietnam War (“A Time to Break the Silence”) is largely ignored. Dr. King lost almost all his supply of political capital when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War, the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover seized that opportunity to escalate his private war against the civil rights leader.

But I have never lived in Hanoi. Or Hue. Or Khe Sanh. Or had my town torn up, and relocated to a prison camp called a "strategic hamlet." Or see my neighbors chopped into pieces from machine guns on a Bell Huey Helicopter or a Douglas AC-47. The now-obsolete technology on the latter could fire 300 rounds a minute, and the accompanying documentation bragged how it could "put a round in every square inch of football field in less than a minute." Would I feel the same way about the niceties of a republican democracy and non-violence on the other side of the planet, after Puff the Magic Dragon made a few passes down my block? Or seen a pregnant woman miscarry, after being poisoned by Agent Orange? Or a child with plastic shrapnel in his leg from an anti-personnel weapon--designed so that an x-ray will not locate the pieces under the skin? Michael Herr in "Dispatches" quotes a marine saying "Spooky understands." I am so fortunate in that I can choose not to understand. For my generation and those that followed, Phoenix is nothing more than a place where it gets too hot in the summer.