There is much angst on the right about the U.S. Attorney General's choice to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others now detained at Guantanamo Bay in New York City in civil trials instead of in a military tribunal.
Mohammed has been detained since March 1, 2003. 2003!! That's six years that the Bush administration had to put this guy on trial and they failed to do so. It's just one more thing that they left for the Obama administration to clean up. Now the right wants to rip Obama and AG Holder for not trying them at Gitmo? Give me a break. It's just another one of Bush's failures they want to blame on the current administration.
I think those folks need to be reminded that one of the things Obama ran on was closing Guantanamo Bay, for which there was widespread support. How can people now say they didn't really expect him to do it, they just liked him talking about doing it?
Maybe the reason the Bush administration never put him on trial was because they waterboarded the guy over 180 times. Isn't the definition of insanity doing something over and over and expecting a different result? 180 times? And how did they expect anything given up under that to be admissible anyway?
Fortunately, I hear that he gave a detailed interview to al-Jazeera before he was captured that lays out exactly how he planned the 9/11 attacks. I don't doubt that will give us our conviction without having to use the information obtained under what has now been determined to be illegal torture.
It just goes to show what cowards Bush and Cheney were that they never put these guys on trial while they were in office. They didn't want to be held responsible for their treatment during their detainment any more than they wanted anybody to know that they purposely leaked the name of a CIA operative for political payback.
Now, hopefully, Mohammed and the other terrorists will be tried and finally, legally, face the death penalty they so richly deserve.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sarah's Newseek Cover Photo
If you're looking for me to give a review of Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue, you will waiting a long time. I have no intention of wasting good time reading the thing. But I find her lambasting of Newsweek's decision to run a photo of her in runner's shorts and tennis shoes on the cover so disingenuous I couldn't let it pass by.
Newsweek decided to run a photo of Sarah Palin that had she had taken for an issue of Runner's World where she's wearing a red long-sleeved shirt, blue shorts (pretty short, by the way), and tennis shoes with the head-scratching addition of pantyhose. She has called Newsweek "sexist" for using the photo. Now, it can be argued that of all the photos out there of Sarah Palin, it is curious that Newsweek chose this one for their cover. However, Ms. Palin posed for the photo. And I presume she had to physically put the shorts on, so if she thought the photo was too sexy or too revealing or whatever -- why the heck did she pose for it in the first place? And how can she now claim it's sexist because Newsweek used it and not just Runner's World? If it's sexist, it's sexist, regardless of where it runs.
This from the woman who ran around the country during the 2008 presidential campaign in red high heels and designer clothes. I don't know how many times I saw her wearing a black pencil skirt and those heels, not exactly comfortable attire for a day of running around the country, getting on and off a bus, and being on your feet for hours and hours at a time. But by golly she managed to do it! Just like she always managed to have fresh makeup on and her hair done. I think most of us who work all day would be hard-pressed to make sure we were so dolled up all the time, but despite the time pressures Sarah always managed to look good. Somehow I just don't think that was by accident.
Face it, Ms. Palin -- you're no longer a politician, simply a celebrity that some people (for reasons I certainly don't understand) have gone ga-ga over. Well, I take it back... I do understand why the Republican males like you. Ever since I was a little kid I knew it was the cute girls who get attention from the guys, not the ones with the most brains. Guess things haven't changed any! So enough with the faux indignation already. You're all about selling books, after all, so in that regard Newsweek did you a favor.
Newsweek decided to run a photo of Sarah Palin that had she had taken for an issue of Runner's World where she's wearing a red long-sleeved shirt, blue shorts (pretty short, by the way), and tennis shoes with the head-scratching addition of pantyhose. She has called Newsweek "sexist" for using the photo. Now, it can be argued that of all the photos out there of Sarah Palin, it is curious that Newsweek chose this one for their cover. However, Ms. Palin posed for the photo. And I presume she had to physically put the shorts on, so if she thought the photo was too sexy or too revealing or whatever -- why the heck did she pose for it in the first place? And how can she now claim it's sexist because Newsweek used it and not just Runner's World? If it's sexist, it's sexist, regardless of where it runs.
This from the woman who ran around the country during the 2008 presidential campaign in red high heels and designer clothes. I don't know how many times I saw her wearing a black pencil skirt and those heels, not exactly comfortable attire for a day of running around the country, getting on and off a bus, and being on your feet for hours and hours at a time. But by golly she managed to do it! Just like she always managed to have fresh makeup on and her hair done. I think most of us who work all day would be hard-pressed to make sure we were so dolled up all the time, but despite the time pressures Sarah always managed to look good. Somehow I just don't think that was by accident.
Face it, Ms. Palin -- you're no longer a politician, simply a celebrity that some people (for reasons I certainly don't understand) have gone ga-ga over. Well, I take it back... I do understand why the Republican males like you. Ever since I was a little kid I knew it was the cute girls who get attention from the guys, not the ones with the most brains. Guess things haven't changed any! So enough with the faux indignation already. You're all about selling books, after all, so in that regard Newsweek did you a favor.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The (Very Christian) Memorial to Ft. Hood Victims
Last week there was a terrible tragedy. An Army psychiatrist, conflicted by his Muslim faith and about to be deployed to Afghanistan, shot and killed 13 people in a murderous rampage at Ft. Hood. Since then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey and others have been in front of the press trying to stress that the Army needs diversity, that it's tolerant of other religions, yadda yadda yadda.
But is that what's happening in actuality? I was listening to NPR yesterday and was struck by the juxtaposition of two news stories that ran back to back. The first was a recap of the memorial service for the Ft. Hood victims attended by the President. The next story was about a lawsuit in a case that had been decided in favor of removing religious imagery from a public site.
I listened to the Ft. Hood memorial on NPR and realized that it was a very Christian event. Hindus need not apply. Muslims need not apply. Buddhists need not apply. And for crying out loud, this was certainly not a memorial for secularists. But it was sponsored by our government, attended by our President and First Lady (the President giving a very mainstream Christian speech), and if you think about it, every government-sponsored memorial service that I have ever seen is exclusively Christian.
So what happened to religious freedom in this country? For anyone who thinks that our forefathers created this country to be a "Christian nation," you know nothing about our forefathers and certainly nothing about the Constitution, which only mentions religion to guarantee freedom of it. None of the following words can be found in that document: God, Christian, Christianity, Jesus, or Christ. If this country was meant to be a "Christian nation," then wouldn't those words be all over that document?
Gen. Casey had been making the rounds of the news networks all week trying to assert that the Army is inclusive of all religions and beliefs. But what that memorial service said, at a volume much louder than Gen. Casey's voice had been all week, was that Christians only need apply. Where was the memorial service for anyone else?
Let me make this clear. What Major Hasan did (and I must say allegedly here, I suppose, since we must subscribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty") was horrible and inexcusable. The Army should have given him a discharge and he should have pressed for that harder than he apparently did before he went off the deep end and killed 13 people. While I personally would have preferred the outcome to be that he didn't survive his wounds, I suppose that if he hadn't he would have become even more of a martyr for Muslim extremists. But I do think that the Army inadvertently gave credence to Major Hasan's assertion that it is not really tolerant of other religions by showing its obvious Christian bent that was so prominently on display at that memorial service. This while the government is trying to convince us that all religions -- and by extension, secularism -- are welcome in Today's Army. (And by the way, why do we still have "In God We Trust" on our currency if, on the other hand, lawsuits to remove religious imagery from public areas have succeeded precisely because putting religious items in a state-sponsored, public area has been determined to be unconstitutional?)
The message is clear. The government gives lip service to inclusiveness while clearly displaying the exact opposite.
What do you think the odds of a Buddhist, a Hindu or a secularist being elected President are? My point exactly. In the last election cycle there were plenty of people who weren't happy that a Mormon was running!
This country has a loooooong way to go before we can truly say that there is religious freedom here. We should begin by making government-sponsored memorial services accessible and relevant for everyone. It's not enough for the Christians who run this government to think that this is a "Christian nation" that is simply tolerant of other people who happen to live in it.
But is that what's happening in actuality? I was listening to NPR yesterday and was struck by the juxtaposition of two news stories that ran back to back. The first was a recap of the memorial service for the Ft. Hood victims attended by the President. The next story was about a lawsuit in a case that had been decided in favor of removing religious imagery from a public site.
I listened to the Ft. Hood memorial on NPR and realized that it was a very Christian event. Hindus need not apply. Muslims need not apply. Buddhists need not apply. And for crying out loud, this was certainly not a memorial for secularists. But it was sponsored by our government, attended by our President and First Lady (the President giving a very mainstream Christian speech), and if you think about it, every government-sponsored memorial service that I have ever seen is exclusively Christian.
So what happened to religious freedom in this country? For anyone who thinks that our forefathers created this country to be a "Christian nation," you know nothing about our forefathers and certainly nothing about the Constitution, which only mentions religion to guarantee freedom of it. None of the following words can be found in that document: God, Christian, Christianity, Jesus, or Christ. If this country was meant to be a "Christian nation," then wouldn't those words be all over that document?
Gen. Casey had been making the rounds of the news networks all week trying to assert that the Army is inclusive of all religions and beliefs. But what that memorial service said, at a volume much louder than Gen. Casey's voice had been all week, was that Christians only need apply. Where was the memorial service for anyone else?
Let me make this clear. What Major Hasan did (and I must say allegedly here, I suppose, since we must subscribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty") was horrible and inexcusable. The Army should have given him a discharge and he should have pressed for that harder than he apparently did before he went off the deep end and killed 13 people. While I personally would have preferred the outcome to be that he didn't survive his wounds, I suppose that if he hadn't he would have become even more of a martyr for Muslim extremists. But I do think that the Army inadvertently gave credence to Major Hasan's assertion that it is not really tolerant of other religions by showing its obvious Christian bent that was so prominently on display at that memorial service. This while the government is trying to convince us that all religions -- and by extension, secularism -- are welcome in Today's Army. (And by the way, why do we still have "In God We Trust" on our currency if, on the other hand, lawsuits to remove religious imagery from public areas have succeeded precisely because putting religious items in a state-sponsored, public area has been determined to be unconstitutional?)
The message is clear. The government gives lip service to inclusiveness while clearly displaying the exact opposite.
What do you think the odds of a Buddhist, a Hindu or a secularist being elected President are? My point exactly. In the last election cycle there were plenty of people who weren't happy that a Mormon was running!
This country has a loooooong way to go before we can truly say that there is religious freedom here. We should begin by making government-sponsored memorial services accessible and relevant for everyone. It's not enough for the Christians who run this government to think that this is a "Christian nation" that is simply tolerant of other people who happen to live in it.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Ridiculousness on Capital steps
Brain-challenged Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann called a Tea Party and all the nuts showed up. What I hadn't seen mentioned elsewhere was the fact that most of those people were bussed in by an oil and gas conglomerate. Hmmmm.....
Here's the Mother Jones article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/tea-partys-takeover-gop
I expect that kind of crap from Bachmann, whose IQ ranges somewhere south of her bra size. But Majority Leader John Boehner? You'd think he'd know better. Sorry so short a post, but that's really all of my time those people are worth.
Here's the Mother Jones article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/tea-partys-takeover-gop
I expect that kind of crap from Bachmann, whose IQ ranges somewhere south of her bra size. But Majority Leader John Boehner? You'd think he'd know better. Sorry so short a post, but that's really all of my time those people are worth.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Some thoughts post-election day
I knew it would happen. The Republicans pick up a couple of victories and all of a sudden the talking heads are trying to say it's a sign of things to come in 2010 and 2012. Give me a break.
It's no surprise that Corzine lost in New Jersey. Nobody likes the guy in his state, his favorability rating is in the tank, and just when everybody's ticked off at the banks and the bank bailouts, we're reminded that he's also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yikes! It's a wonder that race was as close as it was.
In the meantime, I happen to live in a Southern state that is now completely and totally BLUE. That's right, Democratic, baby! Last year we elected a Democratic governor and a Democratic Senator. The mayor of our fair city is now a Democrat for the first time since anybody can remember. Our city council now has an 8-3 Democratic majority. We sent our electoral college votes in for Obama last year. But do any of the talking heads mention this? No. All they can talk about is how the Republicans beat us in a couple of governorship races that were no surprise to anybody. Whoop-dee-doo.
By the way -- I have to mention that I was having a chat with a co-worker of mine today and she said something that just makes me sad. She is terrified -- I mean terrified -- that Congress is going to vote in a tax increase on... wait for it....... overweight people. Now, this is a professional, intelligent person. (Does this sound like the "death squad" crap, anybody, or is it just me??) Where do people get this stuff? Do they think Congress is going to hire a squadron of federal workers to take scales around to everybody's house? What??? I don't get it. Now there has been some discussion about taxing sugary sodas and juice drinks. And it's entirely possible that insurance companies, in their zeal to wring every last cent out of the American populace, may in fact raise rates on people who are considered obese -- if they want to take the time and effort to do so through some mechanism such as a pre-insurance exam. But taxes? On overweight people??? Me suspects that some right-wing nutball has been poisoning my friend's otherwise logical mind!
It's no surprise that Corzine lost in New Jersey. Nobody likes the guy in his state, his favorability rating is in the tank, and just when everybody's ticked off at the banks and the bank bailouts, we're reminded that he's also the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Yikes! It's a wonder that race was as close as it was.
In the meantime, I happen to live in a Southern state that is now completely and totally BLUE. That's right, Democratic, baby! Last year we elected a Democratic governor and a Democratic Senator. The mayor of our fair city is now a Democrat for the first time since anybody can remember. Our city council now has an 8-3 Democratic majority. We sent our electoral college votes in for Obama last year. But do any of the talking heads mention this? No. All they can talk about is how the Republicans beat us in a couple of governorship races that were no surprise to anybody. Whoop-dee-doo.
By the way -- I have to mention that I was having a chat with a co-worker of mine today and she said something that just makes me sad. She is terrified -- I mean terrified -- that Congress is going to vote in a tax increase on... wait for it....... overweight people. Now, this is a professional, intelligent person. (Does this sound like the "death squad" crap, anybody, or is it just me??) Where do people get this stuff? Do they think Congress is going to hire a squadron of federal workers to take scales around to everybody's house? What??? I don't get it. Now there has been some discussion about taxing sugary sodas and juice drinks. And it's entirely possible that insurance companies, in their zeal to wring every last cent out of the American populace, may in fact raise rates on people who are considered obese -- if they want to take the time and effort to do so through some mechanism such as a pre-insurance exam. But taxes? On overweight people??? Me suspects that some right-wing nutball has been poisoning my friend's otherwise logical mind!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)