Jon Stewart returned from his "holiday hiatus" this week, so I thought I'd provide an extra fix, for those in need. Here are 3 clips from this week's shows:
* They're Back - Wiretap 'R Us.
* The Sword of God - Wrath of God vs. Fat, Age & Stress. You decide.
* Coot Off - Stevens vs. Byrd.
Enjoy!!
A Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed piece by Erwin Chemerinsky, The Constitution's message: Not all means are justified, cites an apt warning from Justice Brandeis in his condemnation of warrantless spying:
Since 9/11, the Bush administration has engaged in unprecedented violations of liberties, including approving torture and suspending the Constitution through indefinite detentions without judicial review. Each time the violations of rights have come to light, the administration has defended its actions by saying they were essential for national security, they were technically legal, and those who revealed the misconduct and criticize it endanger the country. . . . Not only do these arguments have no merit. They miss the crucial point: The Constitution is a reminder that the ends don't justify some means, and warrantless spying on Americans' conversations just isn't acceptable.
* * * *
Early in the 20th century, in a case ironically involving wiretapping, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis remarked that the greatest threat to liberty will come from government officials claiming to be acting for noble purposes. He explained that people born to liberty know to resist the tyranny of despots. The insidious threat to liberty, he said, would come from well-meaning people of zeal with little understanding of the Constitution. Louis Brandeis did not know George W. Bush or those in his administration, but he could not have selected better words if he had.
The Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary organized an event today in Philadelphia to deliver almost 1 million petitions to Senator Specter in opposition to Judge Alito's upcoming confirmation to the Supreme Court. There was a Rally and Petition Delivery to Stop Alito at the Federal Building.
Speakers included:
Julian Bond, Chairman of the Board, NAACP
Karen Pearl, Interim President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Rabbi Lance J. Sussman, Ph.D
Corey L. Rowley, Executive Director, Pennsylvania State Independent Living Center
Lauren Townsend, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Citizens for Consumer Justice.
A prominent protester was our very own Martha!
UPDATE: The Philadelphia Inquirer, Alito fight comes to Phila, reports on event, and see Press Release at IndependentCourt.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next up:
This Sunday, Philly will have the "honor" of hosting the latest "Justice Sunday" event. This NYT article, Minister, a Bush Ally, Gives Church as Site for Alito Rally, describes the upcoming event, dubbed "Justice Sunday III," featuring such luminaries as "the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University; James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, a multimedia ministry in Colorado Springs; and Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania."
If you're interested in attending, demonstrations will begin at 3 p.m. at the corner of 5th & Market Streets.
"We were incompatible in a lot of ways. Like for example, I was a night person, and he didn't like me."
--Wendy Liebman, winner of the American Comedy Award
(From Wild Words from Wild Women Calendar)
By popular request, I'm posting the clip of the O'Reilly interview on the David Letterman Show from the other night. Well worth viewing.
If you'd prefer, there's also a transcript of the interview: A la Gauche.
A final note, from Crooks and Liars, is the reminder to O'Reilly his prior words regarding David Letterman:
"Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down."
(Click on Ad to enlarge)This editorial by Robert Steinback, Fear destroys what bin Laden could not, from the Miami Herald was written for me. It expresses my sentiments precisely. In fact, so much so that I have included much of the column:
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
* * * *
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? . . . A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?
A while ago, I mentioned a "rumor" from the National Enquirer (see: Save Our Children), about Bush drinking again. Little did I know just how true it was.
Just watch this clip from The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson (via One Good Move), Party On George.
Man, does he look like he fell off the wagon!! It is hysterical. I guess he had a few (too many) cups of kindness, for auld lang syne.
Philip James comments on the "Bush administration's defence of unauthorised phone taps shows a chilling disregard for the rule of law," in a Guardian piece, The American nightmare, which is worth reading in full. He aptly notes that:
While the rest of the world may have lost faith in America long ago, President Bush is counting on the continued support of Americans. He has calculated that, after 9/11, the American people are prepared to trade some constitutional liberties for personal safety. It is a cynical calculation that has worked so far. So far fear has triumphed over hope.
Another article to check out is this one by Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, Beyond the imperial presidency, in which he says:
President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.
* * * *
But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.
And I'd add, at what point is it wrong to refer to us (U.S.) as a Democracy?
"If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror."
No, this is not a quote from the usual "Liberal rag." This editorial is from the financial business (conservative) magazine, Barron's, Unwarranted Executive Power, which excoriates Bush for committing a potentiatly "Impeachable Offense" (via BuzzFlash). A few snippets:
AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers.
. . .
Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.
Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
The Democratic Daily Blog provides its The Festivus Airing of Grievances. It's worth reading the List.
As the post explains:
Today is Festivus, the nondenominational holiday made famous on Seinfeld. The Festivus celebration includes The Airing of Grievances in which each participate at the Festivus Dinner tells each other all the instances where they disappointed him or her that year. In the spirit of George Lakoff’s “strict father” model for Republican leadership style, for Festivus this year I rant to one and all about all the ways in which George Bush has disappointed . . ."
Another list: Balloon Juice (& thanks for the picture).
And, of course, there's even a Festivus - The website for the rest of us.
Enjoy!
As I sit here, in front of my Christmas Tree, listening to a selection of holiday music, Mandy, this one is for you:
Bah, Humbug - The horrors of December in a one-party state
