Republicans Worship a Constitution They Don't Understand

Imagine a group of self-proclaimed "Shakespeare experts" who claim to know everything that's not in the play The Tempest. They go on at length, explaining how this isn't in it and that isn't in it, giving everyone the impression that their knowledge of things not in the play in all-encompassing and complete. Logic would dictate that, since they know everything that is not in The Tempest, they would know everything that is. Even if only by the process of elimination, they should be able to recognize the text.

Now imagine these scholars set up a big exposition where they would read Shakespeare's work so that everyone would be clear on what is and isn't in there -- apparently, there's been some confusion about this recently and it's important to clear it up. Further, imagine they read the whole thing, but accidentally skip Act II, scene II. And imagine that none of this panel of experts notices the omission. They roll right on, completely unaware that the audience is wondering who the hell this Caliban guy is and where he came from.

Might you conclude that maybe, just maybe, these "experts" weren't quite so expert as advertised? Welcome to the 112th Congress in the House of Representatives.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Irrational Non-Solutions to the WikiLeaks "Problem"

There's nothing like good, old fashioned irrationality. So many other conditions sprout from it -- willful ignorance, stupidity, hatred, paranoia, and fanaticism, to name a few. While we're at it, let's add futility to the list.

New York Times:

The Air Force is barring its personnel from using work computers to view the Web sites of The New York Times and more than 25 other news organizations and blogs that have posted secret cables obtained by WikiLeaks, Air Force officials said Tuesday.

When Air Force personnel on the service's computer network try to view the Web sites of The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, the German magazine Der Spiegel, the Spanish newspaper El País and the French newspaper Le Monde, as well as other sites that posted full confidential cables, the screen says "Access Denied: Internet usage is logged and monitored," according to an Air Force official whose access was blocked and who shared the screen warning with The Times. Violators are warned that they face punishment if they try to view classified material from unauthorized Web sites.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Wikileaks and Kiddie Porn Barbie -- If Something is Possible, You Should Be Afraid of It

Beware this Christmas! Your children could be at risk! If kindly old Grampa Jimmy gives little Suzie a certain Barbie doll, then kindly old Grampa Jimmy could possibly be a child molester! So sayeth the imaginative, paranoid minds at the FBI.

Associated Press:

The FBI has issued a "cybercrime alert" on a new Barbie doll that comes with a hidden video camera.

[...]

The FBI's Sacramento office issued a report last month with the warning on Mattel's Barbie Video Girl. The doll has a video camera lens built into its necklace that can record up to 30 minutes of footage to be downloaded on a computer.

FBI spokesman Steve Dupre says the alert was inadvertently sent to the media but only was meant to be given to law enforcement agencies advising them not to overlook the doll during any searches.

"Officials warn that it could possibly be used to produce child pornography," the report tells us, "but say they don't have any reported crimes." It could be used to create child pornography, but it hasn't been. That's probably a better record of kiddie porn non-production than any other camera in the world.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Glenn Beck, Free Speech, and How Hurt Feelings Trump the First Amendment

It makes me feel sad, so of course, they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Glenn Beck and his racist, anti-government forces will gather in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial -- a memorial to a president killed by a racist, anti-government nutjob -- on the anniversary of Martin Luther King jr's "I have a dream" speech. A speech King gave that day from the same location. He too was killed by a racist. Keep an eye out for confederate flags. It was Lincoln who centralized the federal government these people despise so much. And beyond his civil rights work, King was also anti-war and in support of the hated unions. Clearly, Beck's rally is meant as a victory march on the graves of Lincoln and King, a stab at the heart of a nation still healing -- these many years later -- from the wounds inflicted by the deaths of these two men and the war that nearly tore our nation apart. Sure, they technically have the "right" to do it. But it'll hurt a lot of people's feelings, so "rights" should be ignored in favor of psycho-babble about closure and our deep emotional injuries. Perhaps it would be wisest to add "unless it makes us feel sad" to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

I mean that paragraph only half-mockingly. I doubt the intention is to insult Lincoln and King, but Beck's rally -- as well as his attempt to hijack the legacy of Dr. King -- is offensive. The people attending have been told to leave the signs at home (it's not technically a political rally, you see), but these are the same people whose signs attack the president's race and religion and these are the same people who fly the confederate flag. Expect to see a t-shirt or two that features either/or. And these are the same people who believe a Muslim version of a YMCA "desecrates" the memory of those who died on 9/11. They'll gather in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, on the day that Dr. King told us about the "fierce urgency of Now" -- a phrase that the despised President Obama later took as a title for a book -- and desecrate the memories of Dr. King and President Lincoln. That may not be their intention, but that will be the result all the same.

And they'll be allowed to do this, to deliver this insult to blacks and liberals and anyone who believes that people working together can solve problems (they call this "collectivism" and insist it's inherently evil). They'll be allowed to do this because that's the law and we're not insane. And the massive hypocrisy of what they're doing will be lost on them.





I want you to consider how Beck and the rest of the rightwing media would react to this section of King's speech if it were delivered today:

In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

Beck himself has already accused Obama of seeking reparations for slavery -- a charge completely without evidence to back it up. Does anyone out there really believe that he wouldn't glom onto this "cash a check" metaphor and cast it literally? Beck would be a friend of King's in the same way he's a friend of Shirley Sherrod and the NAACP. He'd attack him in the very same way. In fact, the tactics haven't changed at all from King's day; Beck would attack him as an anti-patriot and a communist, just as they did back then. Glenn's not fooling many people here.

"Beck is hijacking the imagery and symbolism of August 28 and the Lincoln Memorial to promote an agenda of intolerance," said Marc H. Morial, president of the National Urban League, told Media Matters. Morial said that Beck "is deliberately trying to poke a stick in our eye, or kick sand in our faces" by holding this rally.

"His vision of America is a vision of America from yesterday and our vision is an America of tomorrow that builds on yesterday," he said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist movements in America, calls Beck's rally a "sick farce" and points out that his attacks on Obama and minority leaders have "earned him grudging respect from hardcore white nationalists who usually have little patience for major media."

Even the normally slow-on-the-uptake teabaggers have caught on. "I call it 'Beckaplooza,' because it seems to be all about Beck," Andrew Ian Dodge, the Maine state coordinator for Tea Party Patriots, told Politico.

"There have been discussions continuously over the last year about whether he is necessarily a force for good or not necessarily," he said. "Beck takes it outside of the realm of fiscal conservatism into issues that are more emotional and make you wonder if we really want to be associated with this guy." According to the article, Dodge cites "Beck's inflammatory rhetoric, including his blasting of Obama as a racist."

So, when Beck and his little robots are marching around the Lincoln Memorial pretending to be patriots, remember that they're allowed to do this under the First Amendment. A counter-demonstration is planned, because that's freedom of speech too. And when Glenn Beck gets up behind the podium, squirts Vick's Vapo-Rub into his eyes, and starts "weeping for his country," remember that -- as stupid and phony as those tears are -- they're free speech.

Somehow, I doubt Beck and his robots will give that any thought at all. They're big fans of the First Amendment only when it applies to them. Let it apply to Muslims in Manhattan and they couldn't care less.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

If You Liked "Fahrenheit 9/11," You're a Terrorist

The so-called "Ground Zero mosque" (which isn't actually a mosque and isn't at Ground Zero) is a mere distraction from the larger issues of unemployment, wars, and the economy. It is but a trifle and beneath the notice of intelligent people. It's a blip on the national radar screen that frivolous people have decided to make the fad of the moment. So say the Serious People in Ties. This argument tells us that congress isn't in session, the election campaigns are firing up, so we're entering the "silly season" of American politics, when demagoguery and grandstanding rear their less-than-serious heads and this isn't something we should really pay a lot of attention to. But this line of reasoning ignores the months of hysteria-whipping by the likes of Newt Gingrich and lunatic blogger Pam Geller. This has been brewing for some time and the idea that it's only now gotten the attention of the Serious People in Ties is laughable. They've watched it unfold, reported on it, and now they want to pretend it spontaneously ignited sometime last week. Apparently, the Serious People in Ties have grown weary of this particular story. Time to move on.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald noticed this "it's a distraction" trend in punditry and, as he often does, took the contrary position. According to Greenwald, the issue of Cordoba House at Park51 isn't some momentary outbreak of stupidity. Rather, it underlines a deep and growing misunderstanding of what America is all about and gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves if we like where we're headed.

[The "distraction" meme is] an artificially narrow and misguided way of understanding what this dispute is about.  The intense animosity toward Muslims driving this campaign extends far beyond Ground Zero, and manifests in all sorts of significant and dangerous ways.  In June, The New York Times reported on a vicious opposition campaign against a proposed mosque in Staten Island.  Earlier this month, Associated Press documented that "Muslims trying to build houses of worship in the nation's heartland, far from the heated fight in New York over plans for a mosque near ground zero, are running into opponents even more hostile and aggressive."  And today, The Washington Post examines anti-mosque campaigns from communities around the nation and concludes that "the intense feelings driving that debate have surfaced in communities from California to Florida in recent months, raising questions about whether public attitudes toward Muslims have shifted."

To belittle this issue as though it's the equivalent of the media's August fixation on shark attacks or Chandra Levy -- or, worse, to want to ignore it because it's harmful to the Democrats' chances in November -- is profoundly irresponsible.  The Park51 conflict is driven by, and reflective of, a pervasive animosity toward a religious minority -- one that has serious implications for how we conduct ourselves both domestically and internationally...

Case in point: the Wall Street Journal reports that "Islamic radicals are seizing on protests against a planned Islamic community center near Manhattan's Ground Zero and anti-Muslim rhetoric elsewhere as a propaganda opportunity and are stepping up anti-U.S. chatter and threats on their websites." For a mere "distraction," this seems to have serious ramifications. According to that report, "One jihadist site vowed to conduct suicide bombings in Florida to avenge a threatened Koran burning, while others predicted an increase in terrorist recruits as a result of such actions." It's obvious that this extends beyond even constitutional issues like the freedoms of speech and religion. As important as those are, there are concerns less abstract and more concrete.

But what is this doing to our rhetorical landscape? The aforementioned Pam Geller posted some quotes from one of the organizers of the Cordoba House project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, "proving" he's some sort of Islamic radical bent on destroying Israel and promoting terrorism in the United States. Among the evidence: Rauf likes Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a film customers give 3-and-a-half stars on Amazon.com. Who knew there were so many terrorist sympathizers in the United States?

One of Rauf's statements that Geller finds outrageous is the following:

We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.

Apparently, math hates America. What Rauf says here is undeniably true; more people died because of Iraq sanctions than have from terrorist attacks in the west. In 1999, the BBC reported, "Unicef estimates that at least 500,000 children have died, who ordinarily would have lived." Madeline Albright may have thought those deaths were worth it, but it doesn't strike me as incredibly unreasonable to disagree -- especially considering the fact that I do disagree. Again, by Geller's reasoning, this "proves" I'm a terrorist sympathizer or an Islamic extremist.

Another "radical" quote has Rauf saying, "The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community." Because putting yourself in someone else's shoes is fundamentally un-American or something.

Another: "So men will say: women, you know, they're emotional, ..... whatever, whatever, and women will say: men, they're brutes, insensitive, etcetera [sic], and you have the beginning of a gender conflict. If gender is not what distinguishes us we'll look at skin colouring and say: n#####s or whities, or whatever." This one proves he's... I don't know, racist I guess. Seriously, you have to actively try to read these as offensive. Geller provides zero context (there's a surprise), so anything you try to read into it comes from your own head. And even taken out of context, nothing here seems especially bad. He talks about a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which would necessitate Israel becoming a secular nation, like the US. Geller casts this as Rauf arguing that Muslims -- and I quote -- "must destroy the tiny Jewish state." Needless to say, Rauf says nothing remotely like that, it's just Geller's ham-handed attempt at spin.

I don't doubt that Geller and her crowd aren't big fans of a one-state solution or Michael Moore, but do we really need to elevate these disagreements to the level of some sort of hate speech? Is saying that a lot of people died needlessly because of the sanctions on Iraq really some sort of verbal terrorism? Is it really necessary to equate everyone who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 with Islamic extremists?

Here's the problem in a nutshell: if there's one thing I've noticed about the right over the years, it's that they never let anything go. If something is declared politically incorrect by the right, it remains verboten for decades. So, if it becomes accepted on the right that Michael Moore and criticism of US foreign policy equates to Islamic extremism, then the left can expect to be accused of it until 2020, at least. Probably longer. Republicans started accusing Democrats of socialism after FDR -- look how long it's taking them to let that one go. Similarly, Sarah Palin came just short of accusing Barack Obama of being a terrorist in the '08 presidential campaign. Notice that one fading into the background?

Now, being Muslim is becoming politically incorrect in itself. People like Geller spend tremendous amounts of energy trying to convince people that every Muslim is a terrorist and that there's no such thing as progressive or moderate Islam. If Democrats are still called socialist after WWII, imagine how long Muslims will remain terrorists. And imagine how long it'll be before it's politically correct to criticize belligerence in American foreign policy again.

So no, the focus on Park51 is not a part of the "silly season." It's a struggle for the future of America and what little sanity remains in our national discourse. Far from a distraction and beyond even questions of fundamental fairness and constitutional law, it's essential. It's the answer to a very simple question: will a new McCarthyism rise in this country, to remain a facet of our politics for decades, or will we nip this idiocy and hatred in the bud?

I know which answer I'm rooting for.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Dr. Laura Tells the Nation Her First Amendment Rights Have Been Taken

The First Amendment guarantees your right to say what's on your mind without government censorship, to practice the religion of your choosing -- or, like me, no religion at all -- and a nationally syndicated talk radio show that no one is allowed to comment on. It's right there in the Constitution. Look it up.

Of course, you won't actually find the part about no-feedback radio in the First Amendment, but I guess that's implied somehow. Ask Laura Schlessinger. After a fun little segment where she used the n-word 11 times and told a caller that she shouldn't marry outside her race, people got a little miffed. And it was then that her First Amendment right to a nationally syndicated radio show that no one can criticize was violated in a completely un-American way. So she's done. Freedom of speech in America is dead. She told Larry King that she's going into exile at the end of the year and, having been silenced by radical socialist media critics and people who think racists are awful, will publish a book that stands a good chance of spending time on someone's best-seller list. Because she has no First Amendment rights.

[Partial transcript after the jump]

Media Matters:

I'm here to say that my contract is up for my radio show at the end of the year, and I've made the decision not to do radio anymore. The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart, and what I think is helpful and useful, without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates and attack sponsors. I'm sort of done with that. I'm not retiring. I'm not quitting. I feel energized, actually -- stronger and freer to say the things that I believe need to be said for people in this country.

And shame on me for using the dreadful Media Matters for the clip and the quote, huh? She used her First Amendment right to her nationally syndicated radio show and they went and repeated what she said verbatim. It's just awful. And then people reacted to it, which is even worse. Exercising your Constitutionally guaranteed right to a nationally syndicated talk radio program is a matter of trust. Schlessinger, who is a doctor after all, has every reason to expect a sort of doctor-patient relationship with her audience. When her voice is broadcast to every state in the nation, it's broadcast in confidence. It's a 50,000-watt special and shared secret.

And we're not talking about some trumped up, out of context, Shirley Sherrod sort of thing. Schlessinger herself apologized for it the next day. Now she's going to quit to "regain her First Amendment rights." Good for her. More nationally syndicated talk radio hosts should do that. Let's hope she starts a trend. Rush Limbaugh can quit. Then Sean Hannity. Then Glenn Beck. Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Neal Boortz can all join in. Call it "Talk Radio Goes Galt." We'll see just how long we can get along without the sage advice and accurate information we get from these people. We'll see how well society is able to function without them. Then we'll be begging them to please, please, please accept their First Amendment rights back. But probably not until after they, like Laura Schlessinger, have written best-sellers about how they have no freedom of speech. But don't repeat what they say in those books, because I guess quoting people is a horrible violation of their God-given freedoms. Who knew that John Bartlett was such a ruthless oppressor?

It's tempting to see Schlessinger as something of a whiner, instead of the tireless defender of her own liberty that she is. She'll probably be on the radio today (or already has been -- I have no idea when she's on) broadcasting nationwide the story of how her First Amendment rights have been taken from her. And she'll write that book, where she'll more than likely mention the fact. Of course, we can't forget that she was on Larry King, telling the story of how she'd been robbed of her freedom of speech. Apparently, when Media Matters shoves a gag in your mouth, you go all over the place to talk about it. How long before she tells the ladies on The View how her First Amendment rights have been abridged? Not too long, I hope. America needs to know.

But don't worry too much. The end of the year is still a long way off. It wouldn't surprise me any if Schlessinger, after much prayer and deep introspection, changed her mind about retiring her show and struggled on. Continuing the show without any First Amendment rights will be hard, but she plans to do it for a few months anyway.

Maybe she'll find out it's easier than she thought.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Reactions to President Obama's Friday Statement

I'm in danger of becoming "Ground Zero mosque" central. I've written three posts about it over the weekend and here I am writing one more. Since President Obama's statement on the subject was on Friday, a lot of people simmered over the weekend waiting to write about it. Now that it's Monday, the simmering is over and it's time to serve.

A good place to start would be at the very beginning. Luckily, Salon.com's Justin Elliott goes all the way back to the time that no one cared about Cordoba House (yes, that time actually existed) and tracks the timeline from local news story to manufactured national outrage. The short version of this story is that Islamophobic wingnut blogger Pam Geller is a very useless and awful person. May history remember her jerkitude.

Another piece worth reading is by TIME's Mark Halperin. In "Obama's Islamic-Center Stance: Why the GOP Shouldn't Run Against It," Halperin spells out how Republicans could take advantage of Obama's support of the First Amendment to fearmonger their way to bigger wins in November. Obama's statement on Cordoba House "opened the door so wide that walking through it will be effortless," he writes. But then continues:

But please don't do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now -- the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric -- is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.

It isn't clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama's measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner -- the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.

In short, there's every logical and moral reason not to stoke the fires of intolerance and hatred for short-term political gain. Greg Sargent remarks, "Kudos to Mark Halperin for calling on the GOP to 'do the right thing' and refrain from using Obama's mosque speech as a weapon," while Steve Benen is a lot less optimistic.

"I would genuinely love to be proven wrong," Benen writes, "but waiting for GOP integrity invariably leads to crushing disappointment." Early indicators show Benen's pessimism to be well-founded, as an earlier post he wrote shows Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn signaling that pouring gas on this particular fire is something the GOP is more than willing to do.

At the Republican media's "serious" site, National Review Online, Josh Barro demonstrates how Republican demagoguery on the issue will wind up turning off the more civil libertarian and foreign policy-minded conservatives.

If it were generally the case that Muslims are being welcomed into our communities, and allowed to build their houses of worship without public hostility, then it would be possible to condemn the Cordoba House’s site without worrying about alienating and excluding Muslims generally. But unfortunately the complaints about Cordoba House are just the highest-profile example of a wish that Muslims would stay out of our neighborhoods -- the trouble being that everywhere is somebody’s neighborhood.

In addition to being morally objectionable, undermining the integration and acceptance of Muslims in American society is a huge strategic error. Newt Gingrich doesn’t want mosques in Lower Manhattan until churches are allowed in Mecca -- making the bizarre case that our level of religious liberty is fine so long as it is no worse than in Saudi Arabia. But Cordoba House presents an opportunity to show how we are better than Saudis -- and that it is no skin off our back when mosques are built in America, even in the Financial District of Manhattan.

If I were you, however, I wouldn't hold my breath until people like Barro start getting the headlines that idiots like Gingrich get. As always, conflict sells ad time for ShamWow, so voices of reason -- no matter which side of the aisle they come from -- are likely to be pushed aside in favor of Sarah Palin's latest incoherent tweet.

And, of course, President Obama seems to have undercut his own statement -- at least a little. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said later. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding." To me, this isn't much of a backpedal, since an opinion on "the wisdom" of the location is irrelevant anyway. But a lot of people have been making hay with it.

As this whole thing unfolds, we'll see who stands with the Constitution by defending the right to build Cordoba House and we'll see who stands against it by capitalizing on hatred and fear and intolerance. Unfortunately, we'll also see some cowardly Democrats unwilling to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. And that's a pity.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

If This is a Christian Nation, We're Doing a Crappy Job of It

It seems lately that everything's going to hell. We've got a gusher of oil spilling out into the Gulf of Mexico, We've got major flooding in Nashville, and the state of Arizona has lost its mind. If there was ever a need for divine intervention, now would be an excellent time. Luckily, we had a National Day of Prayer yesterday, which cleared everything all up. We're good now.

Nah, just kidding. While the devout prayed for grace from on high, some clown crashed the stock market by trying to type with xylophone mallets. Turns out our economic well-being rests in the ability of some Wall Street wizard to type an "m" instead of a "b." Yay for the power of prayer.

I know I'm going to lose some of you here, but I've always said the only difference between praying and doing nothing is intention. If yesterday was an example of what a people can accomplish when they all get together and pray, then my advice is to knock it off -- you aren't helping. Want to get something done? Get up off your knees and do something.





Still, if there's one thing that religion teaches us, it's to believe in something despite all evidence to the contrary. This is why praying is a good thing, while not praying is a bad thing. It has nothing to do with effectiveness, that's just the way things are... because religion says so, that's why. And, since not praying is a bad thing, a ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional is the worst thing ever. Hands down. So, despite the fact that this particular National Day of Prayer was an exceptionally bad day, it must be defended. And who better than those two luminaries of religious and political thought, Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly:



Yeah Bill, you walk into the Supreme Court and you see the Ten Commandments, so that means we're supposed to be all Judeo-Christian. But you also see the Prophet Mohammad, so I guess that means the founders wanted Sharia law too. And the image isn't exactly of the Ten Commandments, it's of Moses carrying the tablets -- you can only see Commandments six through ten [PDF]. So I guess breaking the first five was cool with the Founding Fathers. Finally, the frieze was created in the twentieth century, so pointing to it as evidence of what the framers of the Constitution wanted is complete BS. You can shut up now, Bill.

But let's pretend that the Horsecrap Twins here have a valid argument, that all evidence points to the Ten Commandments being the basis of our law, thus making us the most Christian nation this side of Vatican City. How good a job are we doing in this Christian nation business? How many of God's laws -- the Ten Commandments -- are our laws?

Let's look, shall we?

There are actually fourteen or fifteen commandments, but they were boiled down into a handy decalogue because the first one is just a statement ("I am the Lord your God") and a couple of the rest are redundant. Different religions break them up the redundant ones in different ways, but the main idea of all of them is the same.

First up, "You shall have no other gods before me/You shall not make for yourself an idol." I don't claim to be an expert, but I don't think that either of those is a violation of federal law. In using the Ten Commandments as the basis of our law, we fail here.

Next, "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God." Again, seems pretty God damned legal to me. So far, no good.

"Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy." I seem to have noticed people working on Sundays without the cops arresting them. Totally legal. We're really starting to suck at this Christian nation stuff.

"Honor your father and mother." Please... there are TV sitcoms that revolve around breaking this one. Ray Romano remains at large.

"You shall not kill." OK, now we're getting someplace. Murder is totally illegal. War and capital punishment however...

"You shall not commit adultery." This one will get you in a court of law, for sure. But is it a violation of federal statute? It is not.

"You shall not steal." OK, I'll give you that one. Some would argue that there are forms of legalized theft, but that's another story. By legal definition, theft is a crime. Score one for God.

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Perjury? Totally illegal. Lying in other circumstances? Usually not.

"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." There's an entire industry devoted to coveting women. Hell, you're on a porn delivery machine right now. Set Google image search to unfiltered and type in "ass." You're not going to see a lot of donkeys. Thinking your neighbor's wife is hot? Totally legal.

"You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor." Not just legal, but actively encouraged. It's called "consumerism."

All told, if we're using the Ten Commandments as a basis for our law, we're doing a pretty crappy job of it. Only one is always illegal and most are always legal. Now how do you think Bill and Sarah would react to a piece of legislation outlawing covetousness or war? And if lying became illegal, they'd both need to find new lines of work.

So, can we get by without a National Day of Prayer? It doesn't seem to be working and it can't get any worse. Right now, the only purpose it seems to serve is to allow Christians like O'Reilly and Palin to pretend we're a Christian nation. Otherwise, it doesn't actually seem to accomplish anything at all. This Christian nation can't even manage to put together a system of Christian laws, what makes you think we'd have any better luck with prayers?

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Lieberman Tries, Fails to Save McCain from Himself

53 hours after Faisal Shahzad tried to set off a bomb in Times Square, he found himself in custody. This was on May third. On May fourth, The Hill ran the headline, "McCain: 'Serious mistake' if car bombing suspect was Mirandized." Neither the arrest nor the over-the-top reaction from the right took very long. At this point, it's pretty clear that -- no matter how successful an investigation into terrorism is -- some rightwinger is going to have a problem with it, because President Obama can't do anything right. The president could've sent a team back in time to take out Shahzad before he committed his crime and John McCain would complain that he was allowed to be born. The Republican Party's strategy has been to oppose everything and anything this president does and none have taken this strategy more to heart than John Sidney McCain. A man of irrational temper, McCain holds a grudge the way Gollum held his Precious. So, if Obama does anything, it's automatically the wrong thing. And it's John McCain who knows what's the right thing.

Except, as is so often the case, McCain's idea of "the right thing" is stupid beyond words. "Obviously that would be a serious mistake... at least until we find out as much information we have," McCain told Don Imus of Mirandizing Shahzad. "Don't give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it's all about."

See, here's the problem: being read your rights doesn't actually give you any rights you don't already have. Reciting the Miranda text -- "You have the right to remain silent..." -- merely informs you of your rights. So McCain's argument about "giving this guy his Miranda rights" is just plain dumb. Or is McCain arguing that there's no way for Shahzad to know his rights without being informed of them by the arresting officer? Because that would require us to believe that an American citizen never watched TV. Everyone knows their Miranda rights. Except, apparently, John McCain. Withholding the Miranda text would accomplish exactly nothing... Well, other than make sure that any confessions Shahzad gave would be inadmissible in court. I'm pretty sure that's a bad thing.





So, if McCain -- in the middle of a tough reelection fight -- said something dumb, that would be bad. McCain has a tightrope to walk here; he has to be just crazy enough and seem just ignorant enough to win the wingnut purity test of the Arizona Republican primary, but not so crazy or ignorant that he winds up spending most of his time in the general distancing himself from it all. Even in Arizona, the voters in the general election aren't as goofy as the voters in the primary.

To the rescue rides McCain's best campaign buddy, Joe Lieberman. John McCain makes a valid point, Joe says, people have way too many rights. The Supreme Court ruled in the Miranda case that not informing people of their rights was akin to denying them. And, since the Fifth Amendment protects you against having to incriminate yourself, clearly this is the problem. Maybe we ought to take away terrorist suspects' citizenship -- then they wouldn't have all these rights.


Which, of course, is wrong. Here's the text of the Fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, unless you want to argue that only American citizens (and corporations) are "persons," Lieberman's idea solves absolutely none of the problems Joe and John want fixed. And never mind that, Mirandized or not, Shahzad's been singing like a bird, a problem doesn't have to actually exist in order to be fixed.

That fix comes in the form of legislation that would allow the US government to strip citizens of their citizenship. This way, they won't get those pesky rights -- which they have regardless -- and we don't have to worry about trying them in court -- which we would still have do. According to Greg Sargent, "You would still have the right to contest this in court. And if you did, the burden of proof would be on State -- not on you -- to persuade the court that your involvement with a terror organization is sufficient to justify taking away your citizen status."

"Bottom line: Lieberman's law can't keep you out of court against your will if you want to contest efforts to strip your citizenship," Sargent continues. "And chances are that if you were already facing other charges -- plotting or executing a terrorist act -- you would be simultaneously tried for that in civilian court, too, even as State continued to try to revoke your citizen status."

So there's your solution, a big pile of nuthin'. It wouldn't take away any rights, it wouldn't keep anyone out of court, it wouldn't even solve the made-up problems identified by Lieberman and McCain. The only problem it solves it solves by putting a fig leaf over McCain's kneejerk idiocy. But at least the wingnuts in the Republican primary will be mollified.

Or not. Lieberman's legislation gives the power to the State Department to do all this citizenship-stripping; i.e., the executive branch. John McCain and Joe Lieberman will be giving Obama -- who the Republican base thinks is a  Communist/Fascist Kenyan/Indonesian Pretender to the Throne intent on destroying America and is maybe even the Antichrist -- the power to strip people of their citizenship because someone says they're a terrorist. The teabaggers have convinced themselves that Obama thinks they're all terrorists, so you can imagine all the lunacy this would unleash. This doesn't seem to have occurred to the teabaggers yet, but they're slow on the uptake. Give them a minute. It'll come to them eventually. Someone like Sarah Palin won't catch it, but someone like Michelle Malkin will.

And how will this play in the Arizona Republican primary? You don't have to be a genius to figure that one out. You just have to be smarter than Joe Lieberman and John McCain.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

National Day of Prayer Ruled Unconstitutional - Time for the Religious Right to Get Stupid

Sometimes, I wonder about the legal expertise of so-called "legal experts." Last Thursday, US District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. It seems that a law calling on Americans to engage in a religious activity is a promotion of religion and, as such, is a violation of the First Amendment. In a saner world, you'd have to agree with her. But we don't live in a saner world. We live in a world where any excuse to freak out is a good excuse to freak out -- and, in this Great Freaking Out, to make incredibly stupid statements.

Take this reporting from Christian News Service:

"If the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, then the Constitution itself if unconstitutional," Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Va., told CNSNews.com.

"The National Day of Prayer – or prayer itself – is older than the Constitution," Staver said. "There is no question (this ruling) will be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court."

This Supreme Court? He's probably right, if it gets that far. The current majority is hardly unbiased. But "older than the Constution?" The National Day of Prayer was established as law in 1952. There have been other calls to prayer, but not as a recurring legal holiday. The president can ask people to pray -- he has First Amendment rights too -- but the Constitution clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It's the very first clause of the very first amendment listed in the bill of rights. There doesn't seem to be a lot of ambiguity there.





And even if the Day of Prayer were older than the Constitution, so what? So's the British Monarchy. By Staver's argument, we're legally required to undo the revolution and rejoin the British Empire. I don't think that's going to happen.

Joining Staver in promoting stupid is the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. He says that Crabb should be impeached, as if every ruling someone doesn't like is an impeachable offense.

"Contrary to her opinion, this ruling does not promote freedom, it crushes it," Perkins said in a statement. "Americans pray voluntarily. And exercising that right together, as a willing nation, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended."

OK, so it crushes freedom by... doing what, exactly? She didn't say no one could pray. And it's "what the Founding Fathers intended?" Which ones? The ones that lived until 1952? His argument that we're all in this prayer thing together as a "willing nation" is belied by the fact that the Freedom From Religion Foundation brought the suit in the first place. They don't seem very willing to me.

"We call on Congress to start the impeachment proceedings for Barbara Crabb, as she violated her sacred oath of 'administering justice... under the Constitution and laws of the United States,'" Perkins continues. "What she has done to repress, we will use to revive. When the great men and women of our past bent their knees to God on behalf of the 'sacred fire of liberty,' it was often during the nation's darkest days. My friends, it is time we join them."

Repress? Seriously, who is repressing you? You can pray all you want. Perkins' take on this whole thing is just blatantly dishonest. If Crabb's decision holds up, the president will stop issuing an annual proclamation calling on Americans to pray -- he won't issue a proclamation saying you can't pray. If Perkins isn't being dishonest, then he's just being stupid.

Of course, there's plenty more dishonesty and/or stupidity where that came from. As always, the reaction from the religious right is entirely disproportionate to the perceived offense. Here's a series of enlightening questions: What did you do the last time the president declared a National Day of Prayer? Do you remember anything about that day at all? If it hadn't happened, what would have changed in your life? There's no polling on those questions, but if I had to guess, I'd say that "I don't know," "No," and "Probably nothing" would score in the mid- to high nineties.

Then again, none of this is about prayer. Like the mythical ban on prayer in schools -- you can pray all you want, but school staff can't be paid to do it -- it's about scaring the bejeezis out of people who don't do a lot of independent thinking. That's the reason for all the hyperbole about repression and religion under attack. It gets people to open their wallets and it gets them to vote for the candidates who mimic this inanity.

If the decision holds up and the ruling goes into effect next year, I can guarantee that these same people who argue that prayer is being banned will make a big PR stunt of praying on the date on which the proclamation had previously been issued. And, in doing so, they'll prove their own rhetoric wrong. No one will stop them. No one will even try to stop them. They'll be just as free as they were the year before and, even while they exercise this freedom, they'll argue that it's been taken away from them.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Barack Obama's Radical (But Unnamed) SCOTUS Nominee

President Obama hasn't even come up with a name for a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and already the rightwing blogosphere is freaking out over how much of a radical commie that nominee is. In their defense, you've got to know by now that no matter who he nominates, they're going to get stupid about it, so why wait for a name? This is much more efficient.

As they did with the Sonia Sotomayor nomination, Republicans are telling their base that they're gearing up for a big fight, while telling the press that there isn't really going to be a big fight. Two Republicans -- John Kyle and Jeff Sessions -- have brought up the filibuster, but few believe they'd actually carry it out. An expert on this sort of thing explains:

The two Republicans' comments are likely to have little influence on Obama as he ponders his selection, said Trevor Parry-Giles, a communications professor at the University of Maryland and author of a book on the Supreme Court confirmation process.

"I don't think they're going to give him an easy time of it, no matter who he picks," Parry-Giles said.

Choosing a Supreme Court justice "has become a ritualized process" in which early statements by opposition leaders like Kyl and Sessions are meant to galvanize their political base rather than advise the president, Parry-Giles said.

"What they stated was sort of the obvious," he said. "You could have written the script before they said it."

I don't have much doubt that they did write the script beforehand. Like the rightwing blogosphere, they don't seem to feel the need to have an actual nominee to criticize. No matter who gets nominated, they'll attack a straw man version anyway, so what's the point of waiting? It wouldn't surprise me if they had this whole process written out beforehand, like a wire service obit of a celebrity.

And what better way to start this Kabuki than to warn the president about nominating a certain type of "radical" judge, then later slapping that label on whoever the nominee happens to be? "We warned you that there'd be trouble if you did this," they'll say. "You only have yourself to blame."

Then some histrionics, some talk radio blowhards whipping up hatred and fear, a couple of poorly chosen (and probably racist and/or sexist) comments, and finally -- like the Sotomayor nomination -- an easy confirmation by a comfortable majority. Meanwhile, Republicans rake in the cash from the reliably fearful and gullible base.

Republicans' filibuster threat -- empty though it is -- hinges on one qualification. They say the nominee must be "mainstream." And therein lies a problem; what Republicans consider mainstream everyone else considers insane. While you'd be hardpressed to find a Republican who believes the new healthcare reform law is constitutional, the University of Washington was hardpressed to find a constitutional law expert who'd argue it isn't. For a debate on the issue, they couldn't find anyone who'd take the Republican side. In the legal realm, Republicans have no business talking about the "mainstream."

Take the GOP's ideal Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia. Among the "mainstream" decisions he's signed onto were Bush v. Gore and the idea that the state has every right to execute someone who can prove they're innocent.

Scalia's dissent in In re Davis [PDF]:

The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s “actual-innocence” claim on the merits, denying his extraordinary motion for a new trial. Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” It most assuredly was not. This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

Scalia was joined in his dissent only by his handpuppet Clarence Thomas. "[I]f the attorney for Troy Anthony Davis can establish his innocence, he should be freed not put to death. Makes sense, right?" asked Mark Karlin for Buzzflash. "Not for Mr. Scalia (or Mr. Thomas)."

I ask you, do you think that advocating for the execution of innocent people is a mainstream position -- or would you call that radical? Scalia speaks (and Thomas parrots) often of his love for "original intent." Do you really believe that the framers of the Constitution intended that innocent people be put to death? Scalia apparently does.

Given the sort of judge Republicans would like to see on the Supreme Court, I think they get to shut up about who is or isn't a "radical." But proportion is a concept beyond them -- you're either a good judge or a Communist, either a fine legal mind or a wild-eyed crazy. No matter who Obama nominates, they'll attack that nominee as some radical to be terrified of -- if only to rake in the money thrown at them by their cowardly base.

But you can't get more radical, more insane, more poorly suited to the highest court than Antonin Scalia (Thomas isn't as bad, because he doesn't have his own mind). It won't be the President's eventual nominee who'll be outside the legal mainstream, it'll be that nominee's Republican critics.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

The GOP Tantrum Over Being the Minority

"Eleven months ago, I wrote you to share my expectations for the coming health reform debate. At the time, I expressed Democrats’ intention to work in good faith with Republicans, and my desire that – while we would disagree at times – we could engage in an honest discussion grounded in facts rather than fear, and focused on producing results, not playing partisan politics.

"Obviously, the opposite has happened..."

Obviously.

That's Harry Reid, in a letter sent to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell yesterday. In it, Reid lays it all out. Republicans have spent the last year "mischaracterizing the health reform bill and misleading the public." The majority leader writes, "Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies. At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it." As a result, Reid concludes that "these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry."





In the oh-so genteel chamber that is the United States Senate, this is about as close as you'll ever come to a bitch-slap. And all it is is the truth without sugar-coating. From "death panels" to "government takeover" to "socialist nightmare," Republicans have been remarkably unserious in their approach to healthcare reform. In fact, "childish" is the word that comes to my mind; the teabaggers and town hall mobs aren't about actually policy. If they were, then they'd have some sort of basis in fact -- unless all those people are quadrennial millionaires, no one's raising their taxes. The teabaggers and the town hall mobs and the birthers are about having a national right wing tantrum and holding your breath until you turn blue, because there's a Democrat in the White House. You can't have a fact-free debate. It just can't be done and it's an abuse of language to call the right's reaction to Democratic policies "debate." It's the foot-stomping, fist-waving, shrieking fit of a two-year-old refusing to eat her broccoli. As Reid describes it:

[T]he attacks on the health care bill are part of a broader pattern. As has been well documented, your caucus conspicuously shattered the record for obstruction last Congress by demanding gratuitous procedural votes on even the most non-controversial matters, and by stalling the work of the Senate despite the urgency of the serious problems facing our country. Senate Republicans are on pace to again break their own record this Congress, illustrated by Sen. Bunning’s effort to prevent the Senate from acting to extend families’ unemployment and health benefits even after those benefits had expired.

While Republicans were distorting the facts in the health care debate and inflicting delay after needless delay, millions of Americans have continued to suffer as they struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their homes. Thousands of Americans lose their health care every day, and tens of thousands of the uninsured have lost their lives since this debate began. Meanwhile, rising health costs have contributed to a rising federal budget deficit.

So, Reid informs McConnell, reconciliation it is. For the GOP, "bipartisan" obviously means "strictly Republican policies that Democrats vote for."

"I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified," Reid wrote. "There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation." It seems that, if you take a gander at the Constitution, you won't find the word "filibuster." What it does say is "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." If sixty votes are needed to pass anything, why would the VP have to break ties? Despite Republican claims to the contrary, the framers of the Constitution clearly envisioned majority rule in the Senate. To argue anything else is to lie. This isn't some arcane parliamentary trick, some weird loophole that's being exploited, this is democracy. If you find the idea of majority rule disturbing, you might look into finding some other place to live, because this country is just lousy with it.

So take your bawling fit someplace else. In a democracy, there are winners and there are losers. You can't always win. And, when you lose, it isn't some catastrophe -- the nation isn't being destroyed -- it's just voting. If Democrats have the votes to pass this, then they will -- and they'll do it legally, ethically, and in a way that the founders intended.

All the crying and stomping of feet in the world won't change that.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Sen. Grassley's McCarthyism

In 2008, Michael Gabelman successfully ran a campaign to unseat judge Louis Butler from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Gabelman's campaign was so slimy, so dishonest, that it gained national attention. That campaign can be summed up with one ad:

The ad was compared to the infamous "Willie Horton" ad run by then Vice President George HW Bush against Michael Dukakis. But this was actually worse -- it misrepresented Butler's role in the case of Reuben Lee Mitchell, a child molester.

FactCheck.org:

Some of the ad's statements are true. But the conclusion a viewer would naturally draw from the construction of the ad – that Mitchell was freed as a result of Butler's legal finagling (or maybe a decision he made since he became a judge), and used that freedom to commit more crimes – is not.

Butler was a public defender for part of his career. His job as a defense lawyer was to protect the rights of the accused. His job now as a judge is different. To say he "worked to put criminals on the street" while showing him in a judge's robes hoodwinks the viewer on two counts.

So Butler was being faulted for doing what he was constitutionally required to do as a public defender. In my opinion, anyone who would so mischaracterize the way the criminal justice system is supposed to -- hell, designed to -- work has no business in any courtroom, let alone a state's highest court. Any judge who would portray public defenders as inherently evil can't possibly be a good one. And, so long as Michael Gableman sits on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, any rational observer should question every finding that court hands down. It is now a court without credibility.

So what do you care about some Wisconsin election some slimeball won? Pretty much the same thing is happening again, on a national scale:

Washington Post:

Conservatives who are unhappy with the decision to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have trained their fire on an unusual target: political appointees in the Obama Justice Department who represented detainees earlier in their careers.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) has been demanding for months the names of nine appointees who previously advocated for or represented detainees in their private law practices. Grassley has argued that the lawyers' backgrounds could pose "conflicts of interest" and complained that the department had been "nonresponsive" to his requests.

The rhetoric reached new levels this week when Keep America Safe, a group affiliated with Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of former vice president Richard B. Cheney, released a YouTube video that featured the headline "DOJ: Department of Jihad?" and asked, "Who are these government officials? . . . Whose values do they share?"

Here's that video:

So, to make a long story short, Chuck Grassley and Liz Cheney are slime on the scale of Michael Gableman. People in Gitmo are entitled attorneys -- even the Bush administration agreed with that -- but Cheney would have you believe that the right to an attorney is some legal loophole only criminal sympathizers would fill. The charge is not only plain wrong, but immoral and contrary to the Constitution. Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald:

This slander encompasses scores of American military lawyers, who have vigorously, passionately and often successfully defended numerous Guantanamo detainees, including those accused of being Al Qaeda operatives. Adam Serwer and Spencer Ackerman both have excellent pieces on this ad, featuring quotes from several military officers who have defended accused Terrorists, including retired Col. Morris Davis, who was once a lead prosecutor in Guantanamo's military commissions only to became a vocal critic of that system. Watching as their integrity and character are smeared by the likes of Dick Cheney's daughter and Bill Kristol is really revolting.

This is McCarthyism, pure and simple. There is no other word for it. And it's the lowest, most useless, most despicable form of politics. That Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney would engage in this is no surprise -- they're both worthless pieces of crap, fearmongers and cowards of the very worst kind. But that a sitting senator would join in should give us pause. We've been down this road before and we know where it leads.

At long last, Senator Grassley, have you no decency?

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

The United States of God

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
-Abraham Lincoln, to Judge JS Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death in 1862.

It's unfortunate for the religious right that history exists. They'd have you believe that every President of the United State spent all of their time thinking about God -- what God wanted from them, what God wanted from the country, what they could do that would please God, etc. George Washington, for example, shuffled around his office on his knees, hand clenched in constant prayer, fulfilling his duty as elected lead shaman of a new democratic republic. Every president thereafter followed Washington's lead.

But the hole in this rewritten history is that there have been four presidents -- at least -- who weren't Christian. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Millard Fillmore, and William Howard Taft were all Unitarian. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Johnson didn't belong to any church at all. Turns out a lot of heathens have been elected lead shaman.

That someone bothered to write these sort of facts down represents a problem for right wing revisionists who claim the US is -- and always was -- a "Christian nation." But what has been written can be erased, truths are only problematic so long as they're known. The ongoing effort to transform a secular government based on law and reason into a big church based on reverence for Jesus is a big project. Every unfortunate fact must be hidden -- preferably by painting over them with new "facts."

And here we come to Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes. Not surprisingly, Forbes is a Republican and a loyal and reliable foot soldier for the religious right. History offends Forbes' Christian sensibilities, so history must be changed. Forbes has a plan to do just that.





The history so offensive to Forbes and other Christian right crusaders comes in the form of a new visitors' center for the US Capitol. Tourists waiting for Capitol tours no longer have to wait outside, but can now wait in the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), which is a 580,000-square-foot, three story structure filled with exhibits and the inevitable gift shop. For the most Jesus-addled Republicans, the exhibits are insufficiently Christian.

Sane people see it for what it is, insane people see it as literally evil and an insult to a Christian heritage they've pretty much made up.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU):

...During the dedication, congressional leaders hailed the CVC as something that should make Americans proud.

“As both members and visitors enjoy the educational benefits of the Capitol Visitor Center,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), “we will be inspired to explore new paths and to write new chapters in our nation’s great history. With that reverence for our history and dedication to progress, may this Temple of Democracy continue to be a place where people of diverse background and opinion can find common ground for the common good.”

But there is one segment of the population that is anything but proud of the Capitol Visitor Center: The Religious Right has spent the last few months complaining about the new structure, issuing salvo after salvo against it. The CVC, according to these groups, is a “godless pit” and a shrine to secular liberalism. They’d like to rework it -- and add a heaping helping of “Christian nation” propaganda.

Especially ridiculous in his complaints was S. Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. He complained that the CVC exhibits "are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history. Exhibits portray the federal government as the fulfillment of human ambition and the answer to all of society’s problems."

Yeah, that's terrible. What's basically a museum about government focuses on -- *gasp* -- government. What a bunch of liberal BS. A museum about government should teach that Jesus runs everything. Because, if there's one perfect place to rewrite history, it's in a museum dedicated to historical education.

"The ruckus over the Capitol Visitor Center is yet another manufactured controversy courtesy of the religious right," said Americans United's Barry Lynn. "These groups want to enlist Congress and use the Center to promote their fallacious and discredited ‘Christian nation’ view."

So Forbes introduced H. Con. Res. 34, a bill subtitled, "Calling upon the Capitol Preservation Commission and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol to place the Lincoln-Obama Bible on permanent display upon the Lincoln table at the Capitol Visitor Center for the benefit of all its visitors to fully understand and appreciate America's history and Godly heritage." You see the problem already.

Law professor Howard Freidman boils the bill down to it's most unconstitutional and inaccurate basics:

Whereas the Holy Bible is God's Word;

Whereas each President, after taking the oath of office, has repeated President Washington’s petition prayer seeking divine help by saying, "So help me God";...

Whereas in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, he referred to God 14 times, to verses in the Holy Bible 4 times, and invoked prayer 3 times in 701 words; ...

Resolved ... That Congress calls upon the Capitol Preservation Commission ... to place the Lincoln-Obama Bible on permanent display ... at the Capitol Visitor Center for the benefit of all its visitors to fully understand and appreciate America's history and Godly heritage.

That's right, we're to use unchurched doubter Abraham Lincoln's Bible to declare, in US law, that "the Holy Bible is God's Word." At the same time, visitors can "fully understand and appreciate America's history and Godly heritage."

"It’s offensive to see Forbes attempting to use Lincoln as a vehicle to promote 'Christian nation' claptrap," writes AU's Rob Boston. "He’s merely trying to exploit one of our greatest leaders by laboring to portray him as some type of antebellum Jerry Falwell. In fact, the religious views of our 16th president have been hotly debated by scholars for years."

Of course, the bill is doomed on so many levels. It has no chance of passing in the Democrat-controlled House. If passed, it would almost certainly be vetoed. If it miraculously survived the veto pen, it would be struck down by even our currently right-leaning Supreme Court.

Maybe Republicans like Forbes and DeMint are setting themselves up to lose, so they can go running to the nutjobs with "proof" that our "Christian nation" is under attack by godless heathens, Muslim terrorists, and -- I don't know -- the Masons, maybe. Lot's of money to be raised that way.

Or maybe they're just as crazy as they seem to be. Maybe, despite all evidence to the contrary, they believe their own BS. Maybe they believe that history, as it's always been written, has always been wrong. That the US really was meant to be a big church, but got sidetracked on day one.

Whichever it is, the people they're representing are being rendered stupid by their actions. Propaganda by people like Forbes and DeMint is encouraging people to be ignorant.

I suppose that's the point. Only the most ignorant voters would elect people like these.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

The Tyranny of a Short-Term Majority

A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.
-Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America."

That reasoned argument against what de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority" is a total crock. A bunch of hooey. Liberal claptrap from a French intellectual with no real understanding of democracy. Never mind that James Madison agreed in the Federalist Papers, warning of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority" -- Madison was just some loonie leftist. The majority is all-powerful. If you can get enough people to agree with you, you can do anything you want to anybody. There are no such thing as rights, only privileges that can be voted away at any time. Get enough people together and you can even take someone's First Amendment rights away -- if people don't like what you're saying, they can use the power of democracy to shut you the hell up.

So sayeth that great American patriot Kenneth Starr. Best known for an unsuccessful witch hunt against then-President Bill Clinton, Starr is the dean of Pepperdine law school -- which makes you wonder what kind of education Pepperdine law students get for their money.

At issue was California's Prop. 8 -- a ban of same sex marriage. The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to marriage. Prop. 8, which passed as a referendum, would remove that right and retroactively undo the marriages that have occurred since the court's ruling.

But, since the court ruled that marriage was a right, not a privilege, Prop. 8 became a classic example of the "tyranny of the majority" -- with a simple majority vote, Californians took a right away from a minority group. The ballot measure is now in California's Supreme Court, where Ken Starr -- representing Prop. 8 supporters -- argued yesterday that there's really no such thing as "rights." At least, not if you're in the minority.

"Swallow the bitter pill and act with diligence if one is weak, enjoy all one's rights if powerful: that's my doctrine," wrote the Marquis de Sade. Starr apparently agrees.

Raw Story:

The people "have the raw power to define rights," he told the court while arguing in favor of invalidating over 18,000 marriages.

"The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process," said Starr. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle."

Chief Justice Ronald George posed a hypothetical: what if the majority demanded the right to free speech be revoked?

"After much banter back and forth, Starr says they do," reported Advocate.com. The Los Angeles Times reported similarly on Starr's alarming response.

So, if the majority votes that you should shut up, by God you'd better shut the hell up. In Starr's world, rights are a legal fiction. The founders basically argued that the person and the person's rights were one thing, inseparable -- "unalienable" as the Declaration of Independence put it. But Ken argues that your rights are granted to you by majority rule and can be taken from you at any time, presumably for any -- or no -- reason. As I've already pointed out, those aren't rights, those are privileges. Starr argues that people in California -- and Americans in general -- don't actually have rights.

What the right is really worried about here is the "normalization of homosexuality." When you get right down to it, same sex marriage is harmless -- it can't possibly have any effect on your life if your not in that marriage. If you're outside that family, what that family consists of can't possible harm you. There is no rational reason to oppose marriage equality.

However, "rational" is a bad description of the religious right. They're so panicked at the idea that same sex couples would be considered just people and not monsters that they're willing to give away all the guarantees they have to any rights at all. By Starr's argument, people could literally vote to bar Christians from holding office. But hey, that's better than having to look at two male or two female dolls on top of a wedding cake.

But the "normalization of homosexuality" is pretty much a done deal. Regardless of how people feel about marriage equality, the idea that homosexuality is some sort of national problem is losing ground rapidly. The religious right isn't just losing that fight, they've lost it. Same sex marriage isn't a question of "if," but "when."

A Harris Interactive poll taken after the 2008 elections found that "Three-quarters of U.S. adults (75%) favor either marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Only about two in 10 (22%) say gay and lesbian couples should have no legal recognition." The numbers for legal marriage alone, as opposed to civil unions, was evenly split between pro and con.

This "normalization" train has left the station.

But the most desperate battles are often fought at the end of the war. That's when the craziest tactics will be tried. The religious right would burn the village in order to save it, by giving away any guarantee they have to any rights in exchange for a victory in a losing battle against marriage equality.

If Ken Starr really wants to argue on behalf of the tyranny of the majority, he might keep in mind that public opinion is moving away from him. It won't be long before he's in the minority, subject to the whims of the mob rule he advocated.

Unfortunately, when that happens, I don't expect him or any of his allies to shut up and "swallow the bitter pill and act with diligence," as the weak and rightless should.

Maybe we can all take a vote and make them shut up.

-Wisco