Apologies (yet again)

I notice that I've gotten a few more hits, maybe due to my signing up with paperbackswap.com, which I recommend highly, by the way, so if you're not from there, head on over and check it out! Anyway, I obviously have been neglecting this blog, since the last post is from Memorial Day of last year. Please do check back, though. I would really like to start working on it again. I may not talk much about politics, since I am so sick of this presidential race and just wish it were over, but maybe I can get in a few book reviews, at least. Here are some books that I'm working on now - sorry, paperbackswap.com people - most of them are from the library! :)

The Lost Memoirs of Jane Austen by Syrie James. Purports to tell the story of Jane Austen's one true love, blah blah blah, but so far I'm positively impressed with it.

Oscar Wilde and a Death of No Importance by Gyles Brandreth. The first in a projected 9-book series of mysteries featuring Oscar Wilde. I like that about the guy - that he's mapped out his series in advance and isn't going to be going on for longer than he should as some authors do. I'm more than halfway through this one - appears to catch the flavor of the period and Wilde's speech and character very well.

Murder in Volume 2 by Elizabeth Daly. A reprint of a 1940s mystery by "Agatha Christie's favorite mystery writer," featuring a gentleman scholar/amateur detective named Henry Gamadge. I'm almost done with this and am enjoying it very much - haven't guessed who the killer is yet.

White as Snow by Tanith Lee. A retelling of "Snow White."

On Royalty by Jeremy Paxman. A rather quirky look (by an American) at the various aspects of being royal. Interesting, although I've caught the guy in at least one ghastly historical error, when he suggests that Ivan the Terrible (tsar of Russia) was suspected of murdering Don Carlos, the heir to the Spanish throne. Ouch! I think he means Philip II of Spain, though Ivan did kill his own son so that may be the cause of the confusion, but it still hurt the author's credibility with me.

I also have Mademoiselle Boleyn by Robin Maxwell from the library but haven't started it yet. It's supposed to cover Anne Boleyn's early life, and I've enjoyed her other books that I've read, so I'm looking forward to this one. And no, I haven't seen the movie version of The Other Boleyn Girl yet, although I would like to.

Movie Review: Marie Antoinette **

At least I didn't pay any money for this turkey, just grabbed it because I had a free rental coming and had read the book it was allegedly based on. (If I were Antonia Fraser I would sue the people who made this for libel.) Yes, as a lot of people have said, the costumes and sets were gorgeous (that's what the second star is for), but over one half of the movie was essentially saying, "Boy - those French aristocrats sure knew how to party!" Also, there was virtually no inkling anywhere that there was a world outside Versailles until all of a sudden this mob shows up with torches and pitchforks. Considering how little a lot of people know about history, I'm sure that a lot of them were scratching their heads and saying to each other, "Gee - why are those people so mad?" (Oh, someone at some point does say that the people have no bread, at which point Marie Antoinette utters her most famous non-quote, "Let them eat cake.")

If the makers of this movie had actually read the book that they were supposed to be basing it on, this could have been a good movie. The actors seemed to be competent, and a far more interesting film could have been made if they had spent maybe the first 15 minutes on Marie's early days in France and used the rest to show how much she grew and matured over the years. (They still could have used the pretty sets and clothes.)

Then there was the ending. I sat there stunned, saying, "That's it?" Somebody said something along the lines of "Well, we all know how it ends," but I wouldn't count on that, and showing the dignity that Marie displayed during her trial and the abuse that she received at the hands of the revolutionaries, even if they didn't show the actual execution, would have provided a moving contrast to the early scenes.

Final word - it could have been good, possibly even better than good, but they went for the easy, simplistic drivel, despite the high quality of their so-called source. Oh -and the music was horrendous, especially at the beginning.

Why isn't this splashed all over the media?

Three cheers for the Chattanoogan - the only mainstream media outlet that I am aware of that has reported on this! Click on link for full story.

Bush Makes Power Grab
posted May 24, 2007

President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

...

Translated into layman's terms, when the President determines a national emergency has occurred, the President can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Ironically, the directive sees no contradiction in the assumption of dictatorial powers by the President with the goal of maintaining constitutional continuity through an emergency.

...

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of National Continuity Coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position.

NSPD-51/ HSPD-20 also makes no reference whatsoever to Congress. The language of the May 9 directive appears to negate any a requirement that the President submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists, suggesting instead that the powers of the executive order can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.

Matthew Hine
Chattanooga
MattHine@excite.com

Let's try again...

I’d really like to keep this going and to talk about different things, but haven’t been able to get back into the swing of it. New “format” – at least for the moment –  none. I was looking at a book at Borders last night that was a sort of reader’s journal - the author spent a year or so taking notes on what she was reading, what she thought of it. I think I’ll try that for now, with some other things thrown in.

Here are the last two books that I’ve bought: The Assault on Reason by Al Gore and The Great Snape Debate by assorted authors, among them Orson Scott Card. I haven’t actually started the Gore book but did read the first essay supporting Snape’s being a bad guy. They actually made a pretty good case, but I’ll continue to root for his being on the right side in the end.

Books that I’ve finished in the past few days and may review in the future, with brief blurbs:

1) Innocent Traitor by Alison Weir - a historical novel about Lady Jane Grey. Surprisingly enjoyable. Of course, while her rather opinionated non-fiction has annoyed me in the past I’ve never denied that she is a good writer. She occasionally slipped into “lecture mode” a couple of times at the beginning (maybe an occupational hazard for someone who normally writes non-fiction), but appeared to recover. The technique of using multiple narrators worked out well for me but may be confusing for people who aren’t familiar with the historical characters. Rating: 4-1/2 stars

2) Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism by Gareth J. Medway - Essentially argues that serious “Satanism” as it’s generally been portrayed by the Church and more recently by fundamentalist Christians, never existed, but then of course, the author is (gasp!) a pagan, so why should we believe him? (snark) Contains an excellent rundown of the “ritual abuse” scare of the 80s and 90s. Rating: 4 stars

3) The Children of Húrin by J.R.R. Tolkien (ed. Christopher Tolkien) - Not The Lord of the Rings, but then nothing is. An enjoyable and suitably high epic tragedy from the earlier days (some 6,000 years before LOTR) of Middle-Earth.

At the moment I’m working on Jane and the Barque of Frailty by Stephanie Barron, the ninth Jane Austen mystery.

Happy Memorial Day - drive safely, have a good time but don’t forget what it’s about, and that American troops are in harm’s way.

Book Review: North by Northanger

North by Northanger by Carrie Bebris ****

This series got off to a bit of a rocky start in my opinion, but this book and the previous one have only gotten better. In North by Northanger in particular, Ms. Bebris has really caught the bantering tone that I imagine conversations between Elizabeth and Darcy would have had after their marriage, and the back-and-forth between them over the sex and possible names for their coming first child was one of the most enjoyable parts of the book for me.

The mystery is bizarre and a bit far-fetched but not overly taxing, and mainly acts as a vehicle for bringing together several of the characters we love (and love to hate) so much from Pride & Prejudice, as well as from the other novels. (I wish that Catherine Tilney - née Morland - had made an appearance, though. I would have liked to see how she could have matured from the slightly silly, though good-natured, "heroine" of Northanger Abbey.) There is also some character development, and it's good to see Elizabeth, who at the beginning of the novel feels overshadowed by the memory of Darcy's mother, gain confidence and become truly the mistress of Pemberley, which certainly would have been a daunting task for her, given her modest upbringing. Darcy, too, must still learn some lessons about humility, particularly in his overprotective attitude over Elizabeth's pregnancy. This is made more understandable, however, by the fuller picture that we gain of his childhood, his mother's personality and the relationship between his parents, mainly through letters that Elizabeth must pore over to discover what has become of a precious heirloom.

Book Review: Water Like a Stone by Deborah Crombie

Water Like a Stone by Deborah Crombie ****

In the latest installment of her Duncan Kincaid/Gemma James mystery series, Deborah Crombie continues to maintain the high standards of writing, plotting and characterization that I have come to expect from her. I recently went back and read a couple of the earliest books in the series, and while they’re good, the later ones only get better. In this one, Duncan, Gemma and their children from other relationships, still feeling their way in their relatively new family relationship, travel to spend the Christmas holiday with Duncan’s parents. On Christmas Eve, however, Duncan’s sister Juliet discovers the mummified body of a baby in the mortarwork of an old barn she is renovating. Simmering family tensions and a present-day murder add to the mix.

The mystery is interesting and intriguing, if a big complicated, but what I liked best about this book was its portrayal of relationships of several kinds. Duncan’s parents seem like fascinating people and I don’t feel that I got to know them well enough; I hope that they will make appearances in future installments. His troubled son, Kit, who is still dealing with the death of his mother in an earlier book, is a believable teenager, as is his rather less likable cousin Lally and her creepy friend Leo. Characters outside the family, like Duncan’s old school friend Ronnie Babcock, now a local police inspector; former social worker Annie Lebow, who has taken refuge in a life on the canals after a painful case; and the Wains, a poor family who also live on a narrowboat and are portrayed with respect and dignity, come alive in Ms. Crombie’s skillful writing.

Book Review: The Last Wife of Henry VIII

Well, I think that I’ll give this a shot once again, though maybe just with book reviews, at least for now.

The Last Wife of Henry VIII by Carolly Erickson ***

Carolly Erickson has been writing biographies since I was pretty young, and I’ve always had a lot of respect for her, although I have to admit that the last couple I’ve read have seemed pretty insubstantial compared to her earlier work, whether due to carelessness or an attempt to appeal to a broader readership by “dumbing down” her writing. I haven’t read her previous novel, but this one was a terrible disappointment.

Some reviewers on Amazon have countered those of us who object to historical inaccuracies with, “Well, it’s supposed to be fiction.” I would like to explain my feelings about the subject. Obviously, since there is a lot we don’t know about people’s lives and, after all, it is fiction, I personally will give the novelist a lot of leeway. We don’t know that Catherine Parr didn’t have an ongoing friendship with Henry, and it’s certainly possible. We don’t know when she met Thomas Seymour or exactly what her and her second husband’s roles in the Pilgrimage of Grace were, so my attitude on those things is, “Go for it! Imagine to your heart’s content.” However, unless there is good reason for it, a historical novelist shouldn’t contradict history or the known character of a real person. It may be fiction, but it’s also historical.

One example: I can’t believe that the devoutly religious woman that Catherine Parr is known to have been would have conducted an affair with Seymour while she was still married, and certainly not while she was married to Henry, especially with the example of Catherine Howard so recently before her. Also, especially after that experience, Henry would never have married her if there had been even a whisper of scandal attached to her, and I can’t believe that she would have falsely sworn that she had never slept with any man but her two previous husbands.

Catherine is also known to have loved children and to have brought Henry’s family together in a way that they had never experienced, yet the portrayal of her relationship with them is superficial and, except with her second husband's daughter, I never get any sense that she cares for any of her stepchildren. Her relationship with Elizabeth, such as it is, is positively antagonistic, yet we know that in real life there was an abiding love and respect between them, despite their estrangement at the end of Catherine’s life.

As for inaccuracies of fact, the whole scene where the house is under siege and Seymour flees before Catherine gives birth is total nonsense. I also don’t understand why Erickson felt that she had to merge the very real and dramatic story of Catherine’s friend Anne Askew into that of her one-time sister-in-law. As for things that everyone “knows” happened that probably didn’t, Erickson, like every other author who has written about her, had no problem using the whole idea of Catherine acting as a nurse to Henry, which has pretty much been debunked as a nineteenth century invention to fulfill Victorian ideals of the “angel of the house.” Henry had plenty of doctors, and no gently born lady would have been expected to tend to suppurating wounds.

The book was well written, but as I got further into it I was more and more distracted and annoyed by the author’s flights of fancy, and I agree with other reviewers that at times it read more like a tacky romance than an accurate portrayal of one of England's most truly pious, well-educated and level-headed queens.

Apologies

If there is anyone who has been checking this blog out on a semi-regular basis (Hi, Tess!) I have to apologize for my unintentional self-imposed hiatus. I’d love to say that I was out there working for Democratic candidates to get elected or doing something else productive, but that would be a lie. Well, I did spend four days at the JRF convention in Philadelphia (look it up – jrf.org), but that’s a pretty small proportion of the time I haven’t been posting.

Anyway, I hope to be back posting on a regular basis soon –  maybe, as I said in my list of middot, even with some original writing.

Shalom!

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Meant to be posted on Nov. 8)
Start picking out those drapes, SPEAKER PELOSI (insert Stephanie Miller’s bloodcurdling scream soundbite here)! And (it appears) Senate Majority Leader Reid – if Joe Lieberman doesn’t flip, which I wouldn’t put past him. America has finally repudiated the failed policies, illegal war, and gutter politics of the pathetic (if they didn’t wield so much power) gang in the White House, the Mayberry Machiavellis, “if you will.“ And Dick (”if you will“) Vader, of course, spent yesterday killing things - I hope it helped him feel better.

And if Democrats don’t want to start investigations on everything right away, there are two that they should start immediately, the massive dirty tricks that took place all over the country yesterday and contractor malfeasance in Iraq. The second should be a no-brainer, even for responsible Republicans. It’s fiscally irresponsible and hurts our troops to have these profiteers mucking things up even more over there.

Middot

On Rosh Hashanah the rabbi listed 13 middot, or qualities that he thought were important to cultivate. On the whole it didn’t really speak to me, so here is my list of qualities that I would like to aim for. The asterisks are for the ones that I think need particular work.

1. Chesed (kindness, compassion, also not being judgmental, snarky –  or at least so quick to be)*
2. Patience (with people, things, and circumstances)*
3. Public involvement (more than just signing Internet petitions –  I feel like I’ve been particularly bad on this over the past year or two)*
4. Use of my talents (even if all I’m going to do is keep a blog, I have to do some actual original writing, not just post excerpts from other people’s thoughts).
5. Financial responsibility*
6. Generosity (more on the selfishness front – if I am going to spend money, spend more on worthy causes, less on myself).
7. Taking care of my body, which is, after all, supposed to be a temple of God, even if it’s St. Paul who says that (getting more exercise, eating better)
8. Respect for others
9. Hope – (Over the past year I feel like I’ve fallen into the kind of “quiet desperation” that Thoreau talks about – try to think less about my own mortality, and living in the moment more)
10. Humility
11. Honesty, both with myself and with others, although always with due regard for the feelings of others.
12. Orderliness (I’ve been saying for most of my life that I need to get organized)*
13. Humor

Stories that have received short shrift in the "all Foley, all the time" atmosphere

Yes, I know – the man is beneath contempt, it's about sex (with underage subordinates, yet) and unbelievable Republican hypocrisy on "family values," and Democrats should be shouting it from the rooftops, but these stories are at least as important and probably far more so.

The end of habeas corpus (see earlier posts). This detainee bill is a devastating blow to everything we stand for as a country, as well as a huge gift (with a big bow on it) to bin Laden.

From 10/3: 8 G.I.’s Die in Baghdad, Most in a Day Since ’05

700 Iraqi Policemen Under Investigation For "Possible Complicity" With Death Squads...

Shooting of 10 girls, 5 of whom have died, in Lancaster, PA Amish school This may be the least important one, in the larger scheme of things, but to me it is the saddest. I can also have nothing but awe and respect for the Amish community, which could give lessons to many Muslims, Christians and yes, even Jews - in forgiveness.

Mark (how appropriate) 9:42

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

This applies even when they’re 16 or 17, especially if you’re a 50-something congressman who’s in a position of authority over them.

Doing bin Laden's job for him

I came up with the idea for the art before reading the column (click on title to read the whole thing), so I guess that Molly's mind and mine run in parallel courses.

Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
Posted on Sep 27, 2006

By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas—Oh dear. I’m sure he didn’t mean it. In Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District, long represented by Henry Hyde, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth [who lost both legs while serving in Iraq], of planning to “cut and run” on Iraq.

...

The legislative equivalent of that remark is the detainee bill now being passed by Congress. Beloveds, this is so much worse than even that pathetic deal reached last Thursday between the White House and Republican Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The White House has since reinserted a number of “technical fixes” that were the point of the putative “compromise.” It leaves the president with the power to decide who is an enemy combatant.

This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. Perhaps this could be considered if we knew the administration would use the power with enormous care and thoughtfulness. But of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place

....

The version of the detainee bill now in the Senate not only undoes much of the McCain-Warner-Graham work, but it is actually much worse than the administration’s first proposal.
...

The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network.

The bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open.

As Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident, wrote, an intelligence service free to torture soon “degenerates into a playground for sadists.” But not unbridled sadism—you will be relieved that the compromise took out the words permitting interrogation involving “severe pain” and substituted “serious pain,” which is defined as “bodily injury that involves extreme physical pain.”

In July 2003, George Bush said in a speech: “The United States is committed to worldwide elimination of torture, and we are leading this fight by example. Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes, whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit.”

Fellow citizens, this bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the president deems it necessary—these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.

...

To find out more about Molly Ivins and see works by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Give me liberty or...oh, never mind.

Hang your head in shame. Obviously Bill taught his fellow Democrats nothing on Sunday. From an editorial in the New York Times - not always one of my favorite news sources (I just can't seem to write anything myself these days - luckily others have been more than eloquent):

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.
...
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Speaking of our early history, here are a couple of quotes from Benjamin Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Franklin what type of government the was being formed. “A republic, if you can keep it,” replied Franklin.

A thing of beauty and a joy to behold

I haven’t liked the way he’s been buddying up with George H.W. and Rupert Murdoch over the last few years, but Bill Clinton’s smackdown of Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday shows that the Big Dog still has what it takes. Just imagine Dubya giving such a reasoned, point-by-point rebuttal to a challenge like this one if he’d had a week’s warning! About Chris Wallace’s smirk, though – after watching that and also the appearance he made to discuss how shocked! shocked! he was at Bill’s “going crazy” on him, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s actually a face that he made once and, as all our mothers warned us would happen, it froze that way.

Go, Bill! Democrats, this is what someone with a backbone looks like. Please (except for Russ Feingold and one or two others) watch over and over again, and take notes.

One more thought: We also heard two words from Bill that we have only heard from one other person in the government regarding 9/11 (Richard Clarke, whose book is now #19 at Amazon in the hardcover edition), and I can guarantee that we will never hear them from Dubya or any of his cronies: "I failed." Yes, sir, you did, but it wasn't for lack of trying, and you are a big enough man to admit it and to feel remorse for it. For that I respect you.

Our soldiers are risking - and giving - their lives - for THIS?

Excerpted (click on title for full story). And the former governor’s furious lobbying to insert the right to torture into U.S. law is an apt illustration of the caution to “choose your enemies carefully, because you will become like them.”

New terror that stalks Iraq's republic of fear
By Patrick Cockburn in Arbil
Published: 22 September 2006

The republic of fear is born again. The state of terror now gripping Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. Torture in the country may even be worse than it was during his rule, the United Nation's special investigator on torture said yesterday.
...
The brutal tortures committed in the prisons of the regime overthrown in 2003 are being emulated and surpassed in the detention centres of the present US- and British-backed Iraqi government. "Detainees' bodies show signs of beating using electric cables, wounds in different parts of their bodies including in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns," the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq says in a new report.
...
Human rights groups say torture is practised in prisons run by the US as well as those run by the Interior and Defence ministries and the numerous Sunni and Shia militias.
The pervasive use of torture is only one aspect of the utter breakdown of government across Iraq outside the three Kurdish provinces in the north.
...
Iraq is in a state of primal anarchy. Paradoxically, the final collapse of security this summer is masked from the outside world because the country is too dangerous for journalists to report what is happening. Some 134 journalists, mostly Iraqi, have been killed since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
...
The bi-monthly UN report on Iraq is almost the only neutral and objective survey of conditions in the country. The real number of civilians killed in Iraq is probably much higher because, outside Baghdad, deaths are not recorded.
...
Nobody in Iraq is safe. Buses and cars are stopped at checkpoints and Sunni or Shia are killed after a glance at their identity cards. Many people now carry two sets of identity papers, one Shia and one Sunni.
...
The Iraqi state and much of society have been criminalised. Gangs of gunmen are often described on state television as "wearing police uniforms" . One senior Iraqi minister laughed as he told The Independent: " Of course they wear police uniforms. They are real policemen."
...
It has long been a matter of amusement and disgust in Iraq that government ministers travel abroad to give press conferences claiming that the insurgency is on its last legs. One former minister said: "I know of ministers who have never been to their ministries but get their officials to bring documents to the Green Zone where they sign them."

Beyond the Green Zone, Iraq has descended into murderous anarchy. For several days this month, the main road between Baghdad and Basra was closed because two families were fighting over ownership of an oilfield.

Government ministries are either Shia or Sunni. In Baghdad this month, a television crew filming the morgue had to cower behind a wall because the Shia guards were fighting a gun battle with the Sunni guards of the Electricity Ministry near by.

I'm hopeless, I admit

I was so intimidated by the powerful 9/11 tribute/indictment delivered by Olbermann (as detailed in the last post) that I was silenced for a week. I tried to write something that came anywhere near it but gave up in despair, although as it turned out what I wrote was more personal than political. (Maybe I will finish it and post it later.) Since then I’ve been unpleasantly riveted by the campaign being waged by the former governor of Texas (how horrible that he should share that title with the late lamented Ann Richards) to legalize torture. It’s a little like a bad accident on the freeway – it’s sick, but you have to look.

The thing that I found most offensive was the press conference, where (if the photo I saw on the front of the NY Times was from that) he stood in front of a bunch of American flags and demanded the right to torture, or else he was going to essentially stop any interrogation of prisoners. That may not be what he was saying, but it sounded that way to me. There are plenty of ways to interrogate people without breaking the law, and if he even stops those because (WAAAAAAHH!) he can’t have his way, then he is responsible for anything that happens and should be impeached for a willful refusal to protect this country even in undoubtedly lawful ways.

The great Paul Krugman says it best:

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it’s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.

And many of our politicians are willing to go along. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is poised to vote in favor of the administration’s plan to, in effect, declare torture legal. Most Republican senators are equally willing to go along, although a few, to their credit, have stood with the Democrats in opposing the administration.

Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those opposing him on this issue is that he’s willing to do what’s necessary to protect America, and they aren’t. But the record says otherwise.

The fact is that for all his talk of being a “war president,” Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause — even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

Keith Olbermann hits another one out of the ballpark

I was trying to come up with something meaningful to write on this fifth anniversary of 9/11, but while I may be able to within the next couple of days, I doubt that I will come up with anything better than this.

Some excerpts below (full transcript available at link):

...
Of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast — of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds… none of us could have predicted… this.

Five years later this space… is still empty.

Five years later there is no Memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country’s wound is still open.

Five years… later this country’s mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later… this is still… just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.
...
Five years later, Mr. Bush… we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir — on these 16 empty acres, the terrorists… are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
...
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President — and those around him — did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
...
A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever "spin" 9/11.
...
When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…
When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Thank you once again, Keith, for saying what needs to be said, and for saying it so eloquently. You are truly showing yourself to be the heir of the great Edward R. Murrow.

A trio of fiery patriots

Last week was kind of rough for me so I have to apologize for not posting much. I also would like to get back to my Torah commentary at least after Rosh Hashanah. We will then be studying the sixth aliyah.

In the meantime, I'd like to highlight a couple of great speeches (well, one commentary and a speech) that took place last week. The first was given by Ross C. ("Rocky") Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City, at an anti-war rally on the same day (I believe) that Dear Leader was arriving for a visit. Talk about chutzpah! One particularly memorable quote (although the speech is worth reading in its entirety):

Blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism.

A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president.

That is not a patriot. Rather, that person is a sycophant. That person is a member of a frightening culture of obedience – a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular. And, I suspect, that person is afraid – afraid we are right, afraid of the truth (even to the point of denying it), afraid he or she has put in with an oppressive, inhumane, regime that does not respect the laws and traditions of our country, and that history will rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.

The second was a response by Keith Olbermann to Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion (also in Salt Lake City), comparing those of us who oppose the war in Iraq to Chamberlain and the "appeasers" of Hitler and calling us "morally and intellectually confused." (As Frank Rich points out in his column from this weekend, "Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain’s hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia.") A quote from Olbermann:

[Rumsfeld's speech] demands the deep analysis - and the sober contemplation - of every American. For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence - indeed, the loyalty - of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land; Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our employees - with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve. Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq. It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it is right - and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
...
From Iraq to Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelope this nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Mr. Anderson, Mr. Olbermann, and Mr. Rich, we salute you!

Books for kids hit by Katrina

Democrats.org has a post called "CDF Katrina Project Needs Books" that's worth checking out...

The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) Freedom Schools Katrina Project partners with community based organizations, service agencies and universities in the Cleveland, Columbia and Jackson, MS areas to provide after-school programming each day public schools are in session for children in families affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Dubya thinks that if we leave Iraq we will have "lost our soul as a nation" or some such thing. I think that, despite all the good work that has been done by private individuals and organizations, the mess on the Gulf Coast a year after Katrina shows that we already have.