Quote of the Day

"People are always debating, is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy: it's a religion. You're a religion if you do something as weird as when the Buddhist monks scrutinize two-year-olds to find the reincarnation of the dude who just died, and then choose one of the toddlers as the sacred Lama: 'His poop is royal!' Sorry, but thinking you can look at a babbling, barely-housebroken, uneducated being and say, 'That's our leader' doesn't make you enlightened. It makes you a Sarah Palin supporter." -- Bill Maher, on Real Time With Bill Maher, last night.

Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing

Limbaugh's latest jab at the president: "essentially a primitive, indigenous guy."



What a tool.

"A Hair's Breadth Above Your Average Mass Murderer"

A Sullivan reader and attorney has a few things to say about the backpedalling by the Obama DOJ on the OPR Report, which I commented on yesterday. Money quote:

There are many fine lawyers who endeavor to properly and responsibility [sic] counsel their clients on matters that most would view as far less important than interrogation policy. Many do so with far fewer resources and similar time constraints than those that faced Yoo. (One of the interesting insights from the Margolis and OPR reports is that a junior attorney assisted with much of the drafting of the first two torture memos). But because Yoo had extreme views to begin with, he will not be subjected to discipline for the ideological and slanted nonsense he produced while on the payroll of the American public. Future administrations now have every incentive now to stack the Department of Justice with hardcore ideologues who will embolden the worst impulses of their political masters instead of providing sober and dispassionate analysis.

My italics. His conclusion:

Reading Margolis's memorandum, one cannot escape the conclusion expressed by Jack Balkin that to be a member in good standing of the legal profession in the United States one need only moral standing that is a hair's breadth above your average mass murderer.

Newsweek tries to define "terrorism"

You gotta hand it to the editors at Newsweek. They showed some stones running their internal debate about whether or not to call IRS attacker Joe Stack a "terrorist." Greenwald has his typical detailed (and thoroughly disgusted) take on it here. Money quote:

What's perhaps most strange about the Newsweek discussion is that it often lapses into the Innocent Bystander Syndrome of journalism, where journalists talk about phenomena that they cause as though they have nothing to do with it and merely observe it. Thus, several of them don the voice of objective scientist studying the mating habits of farm animals (i.e., American citizens) -- let's try to understand why these interesting, bizarre creatures get so pent up over the Underwear Bomber but don't care about the IRS attacker -- without acknowledging or realizing that their jingoistic, tribalistic, and government-mimicking use of the term Terrorism (that's what is done by those Muslims who don't like us, but never by us) plays a major role in how these episodes are perceived.

One telling comment in the Newsweek piece is from Editor Devin Gordon:

Fundamentally, I'm with [reporter] Dan [Stone]: a Texan white guy named Joe Stack isn't as interesting / enraging / anxiety-inducing as a Nigerian Muslim named Abdulmutallab. I'm also with [reporter] Eve [Conant]: Stack's philosophy, unlike Abdulmutallab's, is pretty kosher with many — maybe even most — Americans. We're basically with him right up to the burn-down-your-house-and-fly-a-plane-into-a-building part of the story. Other than that part, right on, Joe Stack!

Or this priceless gem from Mulitmedia Managing Editor Kathy Jones:

Here is my handy guide:

Lone wolfish American attacker who sees gov't as threat to personal freedom: bomber, tax protester, survivalist, separatist

Group of Americans bombing/kidnapping to protest U.S. policies on war/poverty/ personal freedom/ - radical left-wing movement, right-wing separatists

All foreign groups or foreign individuals bombing/shooting to protest American gov't: terrorists

While it may be "easier and more convenient... to use the term to describe someone with a beard," that's not the job of a journalist. The job of a journalist is report facts as they are. Joe Stack was a lone wolf, to be sure. I didn't read his "manifesto," but I think I'm okay in assuming that any bit of writing, no matter how cogently argued or passionate it may be, that leads a person to set fire to his home and pilot his plane into a building with the explicit aim of inflicting harm on property and people, ain't gonna impress me all that much. But because his intent was to inflict harm on the employees and property of an institution of the United States government (the same as if that institution was the U.S. military), he is a terrorist. The lone gunman who shot Dr. George Tiller in his own church (and who is now serving time in prison), because his aim was to instill fear in the minds of abortion providers and those who work for them, is a terrorist, even if his cause was something that a lot of Americans support. And all those who think that maniac (or Joe Stack) is a hero for taking a stand against something they perceive as immoral are terrorist sympathizers.

See? When we try on those clothes they feel very strange indeed, huh? We may call some Muslim who straps on a bomb and rushes into a restaurant where off-duty security forces like to hang out so that he can detonate and kill as many as he can a terrorist, but in his community, there are many who believe his cause to be noble, and they honor him in death as a hero/martyr for the cause. To us, they're terrorist sympathizers (or even terrorists themselves), but because we're not even capable of being terrorists we have to call people on our side who engage in similar behavior something else. It's just hypocritical.

Schooled on Deficits

Stan Collender, a colleague of Bruce Bartlett over at Capital Gains and Games, writes a fantastic response to Peggy Noonan, who wrote this in the Wall Street Journal:

People are freshly aware and concerned about the real-world implications of a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit..."

Here is Collender's money quote:

Has anyone ever told you that you have to consider the economic context in which a deficit occurs? A deficit even half that size when the economy was growing, like the ones that happened during Bush 43, were indeed a disaster. But last year's deficit of $1.4 trillion, which occurred when monetary policy was having no effect and when businesses and consumers weren't spending, not only was the correct fiscal policy, it was a triumph. The same will be true this year if the deficit is $1.6 trillion.

In other words, Bush's not reducing the deficit when the economy was strong was the problem, and Obama's adding to the deficit when spending and economic growth were nonexistent was the solution to the problem. And if anyone with a brain takes the time to look around, they will see signs that recovery is happening. Steps are underway to address long term deficits, including tax increases and spending cuts.

I know it's hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. But since I'm on the front line of an industry that is central to the U.S. economy -- mortgages -- I get to see people who have savings, incomes, secure jobs, and an enthusiasm that things will get better from here. I am busy at my job; and I'm getting busier. This is good news for all of us. So, instead of bashing the president for running up deficits, we should be cheering that many of us are working and will be working again soon. When times are good, that's the time to cry about deficits.

Whack Job Watch

Mother Jones's Justine Sharrock has a must-read piece called "Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason." They are a small movement of current and former military and law enforcement who believe that the federal government under President Obama will soon declare martial law, and that they will be ready with their stockpiled weapons to defend the constitution. Here is a list of orders that have pledged not to obey, among them:

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.

Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.

Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey
orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, would find this handy when he tries to secede.

The rest of the 10 orders are actually not unreasonable and indicative of a high level of patriotism, including disobeying orders to engage in warrantless searches of American citizens or to declare any American citizen an enemy combatant. These appear to have found their basis in the actions of the Bush administration.

But there are others, such as the rejection of any order to assist any foreign troops on American soil to "keep the peace" or "maintain control," which are clearly born in racism and xenophobia (the movement believes that Obama is a foreign-born non-citizen and the illegitimate president of this country).

A sample of their resolve:

After a combative Hardball interview in October—host Chris Matthews asked Rhodes whether Oath Keepers had the "firepower to stand up against the federal government"—the group says it gained 2,000 members in three days.

Ballsy, huh? Or perhaps just a little over the line? It's clear that they are saying and doing things to provoke the administration from taking them on, only lending creedence to their claims. Obama would be wise to keep tabs on this domestic terrorist group, and perhaps to help those on active duty in the military see how twisted their logic is. They're being run by a former Ron Paul activist, for God's sake!

Proud Dad Moment

My son, Max, has never before participated in competitive sports. He's great on the schoolyard, loves to mix it up in the backyard against Daddy and Eli (and any other visitors who wish to take him on), but he never wanted to play soccer, baseball, or basketball on a team with other kids. Last fall, his brother Eli (who will be five in three weeks) played in his first soccer league, and Eli was one of the two stars on the team. Max went to every game and eagerly cheered on his little brother, and wanted to work out with and even play on the team. However, when it came time for baseball signups last December, Max was dead set against it.

Daddy, however, had a different agenda. I was going to sign him up and have him show up and give it his best. I always knew that Max, who was really quite athletic despite his being small and very slender, was reluctant to anything unless he was immediately excellent at it. I figured that once he got out on the field and saw that he was just as good as the rest of the kids, he'd find his comfort zone and play with enthusiasm.

Tryouts were a couple of weeks ago (not really tryouts, per se, but more of a positioning -- every kid would be put on a team, but they wanted to balance the teams equitably). He pretty much fought me all the way there, although I noticed his arguments were less adamant than about, say, going to Sunday school. We got to the field on a beautiful Saturday afternoon. In his group were eight other boys of similar age. Each boy was screened to see how well they could catch a fly ball, field a grounder and throw it to first base, and hit a coach's pitch. By a wonderful stroke of luck, Max was the last to go; he got to see every other kid go first. A couple of them were able to catch one of the three fly balls tossed them, a couple were pretty good about fielding the ground balls, but only one of them was able to hit a ball into fair territory. Max did not catch one fly ball, but he got his mitt on every one. He successfully fielded every ground ball. And he was the only other kid able to put a ball into play.

Since that day, he has been thrilled to play baseball. We'd go out in the backyard and I'd toss him fly balls. He's a basket-catch specialist, just like Willie Mays, but he's also working on getting the glove up. His throwing arm is getting better as well. Two weekends ago, we met the coach, a laid-back Hawaiian guy named Matty, who has a son on Max's team, the Pirates. He patiently gave Max (and Eli) time to catch, throw, field, and hit. Max got a little frustrated, particularly when Eli hit every single pitch and Max missed about 10 in a row, but he stuck with it and took direction from the coach. We changed bats and he found his arms better able to swing and make contact. Every day, his excitement has grown, and now he looks forward to being on his team.

Over this past weekend, I took him shopping for his black pants, black undershirt, helmet, belt, socks, and cleats. His first team practice was yesterday afternoon, just 45 minutes after completing Sunday school (more on this later). With all the parents sitting in the bleachers above the field, the seven boys and two girls on the team were put through calisthenics and stretching, then played catch in pairs. I could see that Max's confidence was building as the practice went on. He took great direction and played with excitement. He'll need some help charging a ground ball and planting himself for a throw, but that'll come as he practices more. He also got ample time to swing the bat and run the bases.

The whole time, Max wore a serious face, paying attention to direction from the coaches and committing to the tasks at hand. The only time I saw any lightheartedness was when he stood in the batter's box and spun his bat as he waited for the next pitch, just like his hero, Manny Ramirez, which gave both Lisa and me a chuckle.

At the end of the practice, Max got and put on his cap and jersey (#4), and rode all the way home on his bike to show his Mom, uncle Dan, and other guests his new uniform.

I'm so jazzed that Max has come out of his shell and decided to play on this team. He already has one friend on the team (who also played in both of his RockSTAR bands for the past two years), and I'm sure he'll make a couple more. This is real Little League, the kind that culminates in the World Series in Williamsport, PA. It's a pretty big commitment for a seven-year-old, with two games a week and one practice a week. And this is just the "minor" league. If he decides to continue and play in the "majors," there will be another practice. On top of this he still has Sunday school, RockSTAR, a chess club, and now an intramural drumline corp, for which he was personally invited. And he still has enough homework to keep him pretty busy.

Bush Administration Compared to al Qaeda

The recently released report (PDF) of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility is a 289-page account of the actions of the Bush administration in their conduct of the war on terror. I have been a consistent and vocal critic of the use of torture (and have also been against policies by the Obama administration to retain some of Bush's options (such as indefinite detention without access to a lawyer). This memo (which, in all honesty, I haven't read in full but intend to do so as time permits) puts a lot of the truth on the table.

Particularly, the report overturns earlier findings that Bush legal counsel (and current UC Berkeley law professor) John Yoo committed "intentional professional misconduct" when he advised Bush that torture was legal. In fact, the OPR report only goes so far as to say that Yoo showed "poor judgement" but did not violate ethical standards.

So basically, Yoo (and fellow torture justifier Jay Bybee) acted in bad faith, but their violations of the law were not unambiguous. That would place them in a category of people who followed orders of their superiors, even though they know that what was being asked of them was wrong. Still Yoo is clearly on record as believing that the president can do pretty much anything in defense of the country, including breaking any law, such as crushing the testicles of a child of a detainee in front of the detainee to get him to talk, or wiping out an entire village of innocent people to get at one suspected terrorist.

The reaction on the blogosphere has been varied and interesting so far. Andrew Sullivan is compiling a bunch of writers on his blog throughout the day. The most provocative piece I've read so far is this one from Adam Serwer, subbing for Ta-Nehisi Coates on his blog. Serwer compares what Bush/Cheney did to the actions taken by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in finding Koranic justification for killing anyone, including Muslims, in their campaign of terror:

The theological justification for al Qaeda's wholesale slaughter of civilians was provided by Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl, one of the founding fathers of al Qaeda. Because the murder of innocents is forbidden in Islam and the murder of Muslims in particular, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden required some sort of theological framework for justifying terrorism. This was provided by al-Sharif, who essentially argued in his book, "The Compendium of the Pursuit of Divine Knowledge," that apostates could be murdered, and that approach, takfir (which has come to be known as takfirism) allowed al Qaeda to, for all intents and purposes, kill anyone they wanted without violating the laws of Islam by declaring them to be apostates. In other words, Dr. Fadl helped provided a theological justification for something that everyone involved knew was wrong.

The legal memos justifying torture aren't very different in terms of reasoning--it's clear that John Yoo and his cohorts in the Office of Legal Counsel saw their job not as binding the president to the rule of law, but to declare legal any tactic that the executive branch believed necessary to fight terrorism.

Eerie parallel, ain't it? Bin Laden needs to have Muslims declared infidels, apostates, in order to justify killing them, so he finds an imam who can provide that justification. Bush/Cheney want to be unbound by any little quaint law that prevents them from torturing people to get information, so they ask a bunch of lawyers -- who all happen to believe that the president is not bound by the law, anyway -- to write up some legal framework that the president and vice president can later use to say, "See, it was all legal and stuff. We had a bunch of really great lawyers show us that we were not doing anything illegal."

A Terrorist By Any Other Name...

Sullivan compiles a few bloggy reactions to yesterday's deliberate crashing of a small plane into an Austin, TX office building. His conclusion:

I have no doubt this act was meant to terrorize and when someone uses an airplane to crash into a federal building and kills people is is obviously terrorism. If he had yelled "Allah o Akbar!" instead of "Fuck the IRS!" would anyone be discussing this?

I've seen reaction online that is calling this terrorist madman a "martyr," an American hero. Lemme tell ya: the right wing in this country is one fucked up bunch of people.

Elton Steps In It, Big Time

One of the first albums I ever bought was Elton John's Caribou. I bought it because I loved the song "The Bitch is Back," which was all over the radio. I was about 12 and had no idea what the lyrics were about. I was the biggest Elton fan, and bought all his early albums. By Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, however, I'd moved on. When he came out during the '80s, it was not a surprise to me.

Fast forward 25 years, and Elton has just given a very revealing interview with Parade magazine, in which he makes this slightly indelicate statement:

I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems. On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East - you’re as good as dead.

His friend, the late John Lennon -- himself the target of a backlash over his "We're more popular than Jesus" comment made 45 years ago -- is smiling from heaven.

Predictably, the Catholic world is aghast. The Catholic League's William Donohue had this to say:

To call Jesus gay is to label him a sexual deviant. But what else would we expect from a man who previously said, 'From my point of view, I would ban religion completely.'

Coming from a man who advocates on behalf of a religion that aided and abetted scores of sexual deviant priests (and would have continued to do so had the public never noticed), I'd say, "Pot, meet kettle."