The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach

Category: politics

  • The Appeal of Apocalypse

    What is so seductive about the end of the world?

    Evidence of the eschatonic impulse are around us everywhere. Disaster movies often reign supreme in the theaters — and the bigger the disaster (Independence Day, Armageddon, etc.) the more successful the movie. Foreign policy seems more and more a push for one last throw of the dice. Preachers orate, as they always have, of the coming of hellfire. Books like Left Behind are runaway best-sellers.

    Why is it that we are drawn to the end of the world? More below the fold.

    (more…)

  • Are you safer?

    In today’s NY Times, Richard Cohen writes a piece that praises Hilary Clinton for having the “courage” to assert “I believe we are safer than we were” (before 9/11). Mr. Cohen lambastes what he sees as the knee-jerk reaction of her Democratic rivals, who (he says) reflexively bash everything associated with Bush, even those things that are true or good. We are safer, Mr. Cohen asserts, and we should be willing to say or hear this.

    Problem is, he’s flat out wrong. More below the fold.

    (more…)

  • Ubi Dubium

    There’s a nice little piece (“Better to Be Hamlet than President George” by Peter Birkenhead) in Salon today on the value of doubt and its sad lack in today’s political culture. It’s worth a read. (Perhaps I’m a bit biased, as I chose to name my original domain “ubidubium”, from the Latin “ubi dubium ibi libertas”, or, “Where there is doubt, there is freedom.”)

  • Defending, Defunding, and the Strength of Madness

    Well, for reasons that escape me at 1:33 AM, I am off on our school’s Senior Trip to Florida for the next few days. But before I head out, I felt compelled to jot down my own thoughts on the recent decision by the Democrats to send Bush a war-funding bill without any of the strict timetables that led to his veto of the previous ones.

    I make no secret of the fact that I fall on the political left and that I believe this Administration is, very likely, the Very Worst Ever. I think it’s time to end this war and to begin healing the massive wounds that have been dealt to our prestige abroad, our civil liberties at home, and indeed the very soul of our democracy. I would support, without reservation, a move to impeach this President for abuse of his office and betrayal of the American people and, worse, the betrayal of core American principles that have made this nation a beacon of hope for humanity.

    So naturally enough, the blogs I read and the people I pay attention to have been in a furor over the recent decision by the Democratic Party leadership. Outraged, and shocked, and hurt, these commentators lament that the Democrats “caved in” to the President and handed him his first legislative victory since November. It will be taken, they say, as a sign of weakness. I felt the same visceral revulsion, the same sense of abandonment, when I realized that the timetable-stripped bill was the one that would reach the President’s desk. After that mind-blowing adrenaline high of sweeping Congress, of finally getting real oversight going, this did seem like a crash back to the dark depths of the Bush supremacy, circa 2004. I did feel that the leadership let me down.

    And yet…
    (more…)

  • Pondering Hate Crimes and Hate-Crime Laws

    Apparently there’s something afoot in the House that has brought this back into national focus. Reading about it, I wandered across a blog post in Orcinus from 2005 January (!). I have to say, for the first time in many years, it gave me something to think about on this issue. I have always been rather cool to the whole idea. I think I agree with Danny Concannon: A crime’s a crime and no murder is any worse or any better than another. But I’ll admit that Orcinus’ argument from mense rea is compelling. Moreover, I hadn’t even viewed hate crimes through the prism that they are crimes against the community as well as against an individual. Put a different way: The purpose of a murder is to kill someone. The purpose of a lynching is to divide a community against itself, to undermine the very idea of the community — in short, to attack society in toto. That’s certainly a different crime and, conceivably, a worse one.

    I still think I come down against hate crime laws. Once you begin criminalizing what someone is thinking, we start down a very dark and dangerous road, and I’m not sure we come out the other side. But for the first time in a long while, I have something new to chew over. I’m not as sure as I was yesterday.

  • Vanishing Ink?

    (written 2007 0412; extended 2007 0413)
    I’ll admit that this post is basically ripped off from Glenn Greenwald, whom you should read for details. I just wanted to collect all the points in a clean, stripped version. The subject? The amazing and disturbing “incompetence” demonstrated by the Bush administration in producing records that might put it in a bad light. How many times must we accept the excuse “The dog ate my homework” before everyone recognizes that this is actually criminal malfeasance. I know that you should “never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity” — but come on — this is passing from unbelievable to ridiculous:

    Date Missing document
    2007 0412 Emails regarding plans to fire US Attorneys, allegedly sent via RNC accounts
    2007 0324 18 days of emails (this time from the Justice Department and White House) regarding plans to fire US Attorneys
    2007 0228 Videotape of the final interrogation of detained US citizen Jose Padilla, which could shed light on whether he had been tortured.

    2004 0624 Memos regarding the White House policies on torture

    2004 0524 Over 2,000 pages of a classified report, missing from the copy submitted to Congressional oversight committees, regarding possible abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib

    2004 0905 Legally-required documents to explain gaps in President Bush’s service — or, more usually, lack thereof — in the Air National Guard

    2006 0301 Transcript of a videoconference call that directly contradicted the White House story on how engaged the President was during the Katrina debacle. The administration told Congress that no such transcript existed — then oops! it was found and leaked.

    2007 0403 FBI records indicating agency participation in the interrogation of anti-war protesters in 2002. The FBI denied that the secret intelligence unit was present, except — oops! — DC police logs show that it was.

    2006 0202 Emails relating to the case against I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for illegally disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative
    2003 1218 Videotape records of abuse by federal guards of foreign citizens detained after the 9/11 attacks.

    How do they expect anyone to believe their story?

    PS: If you have links to any similar events, I’d appreciate hearing them and I’ll add them to the list. And before the wingbats take over the comment space, yes, I’ve heard of Sandy Berger and yes, that was reprehensible. What’s your point?

  • More on Guiliani-as-Kaiser

    Glen Greenwald continues to shine a welcome spotlight on the outright authoritarian — dare we say, totalitarian? — impulses of the Right’s new darling, Rudy Guiliani. Twice in the past few days, he’s made statements that, only a handful of years ago, would have been credible only coming from the mouth of some cartoonish caricature. Really, there is no Constitutional guarantee not under attack by the wingbats who have hijacked the Republican party…

  • 2 out of 3 Republican candidates prefer dictatorship

    OK, so that’s not entirely fair. But Glenn Greenwald has a terrific piece on why it’s not entirely unfair, either. The short version: When asked if the President of the United States should have the power to detain indefinitely American citizens without any sort of review, Mitt Rommey said he couldn’t form an opinion without consulting some “smart lawyers” — despite the fact that it clearly violated the Contitution, the upholding of which is the sworn duty of anyone holding the office Rommey had decided to seek. But it gets better. Guiliani doesn’t need lawyers; he knows he supports this sort of power trip, although (hilariously) he hopes to exercise it only “infrequently”.

    How far we have sunk, in only six years! Who could have guessed that the American habit of liberty would prove so fragile?

  • Why We’re In the Mess We’re In

    Matthew Dowd, an adviser to President Bush, today said in an interview that he was disappointed by the President’s stand on the war, on the will of the public, and, well, just about everything. It’s clear that Mr. Dowd is conflicted in taking this public stance. Said Mr. Dowd:

    I really like him, which is probably why Iā€™m so disappointed in things

    Those first four words are what have spelled our doom these past six years. More below the fold.

    (more…)

  • Firing US Attorneys: Why This Matters

    I don’t have a lot of time to write, but luckily Josh Marshall has written a nice summary over at Talking Points Memo. I’d suggest taking a look if you’ve been wondering why the dismissal of 8 U.S. attorneys is such a big deal.