"It is not possible for our elected representatives to hold any sort of honorable "debate" over torture. Bush says he is waging a "struggle for civilization," but civilized nations do not debate slavery or genocide, and they don’t debate torture, either. This spectacle insults and dishonors every American."
One Night In Bangkok
CNN and MSNBC are reporting that there may be a coup attempt in Thailand….
This story is only minutes old — even AP has nothing.
UPDATE: 12:10 p.m. – Okay, everyone’s got the story now. Still, some good blogger coverage at Bangkok Pundit and 2bangkok.
I confess. I have absolutely no knowledge of Thai politics. I couldn’t even hazard a guess. So I have no idea if the coup is a good thing or a bad thing.
But usually, military coups are a bad thing. So, I’ll go with "bad thing".
Our economy is affected by Thailand. We have many manufacturers there (you know, cheap labor) so anything destabalizing to that country (and I think an armed military coup probably qualifies) is not a good thing.
And I Say “A Pox On Both Their Houses”
Let’s summarize:
- The Pope trotted out a 14th-century insult of Islam: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman"
- He issued one of those fake apologies, where you say you regret that people were upset, instead of saying you were wrong and feel bad about your words or deeds
- The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei put the Iran into ironic, by saying people who consider his religion violent "should be targeted with attacks"
Foiled Again
Another year, another rejection.
I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll ever win one of these Genius Award grants (each recipient receives $500,000 — with "no strings attached").
Studio 60: A Hasty Review
Aaron Sorkin’s new show — Studio 60 at Sunset Strip — debuted last night on NBC.
Sorkin is, in my humble estimation, a writing god. His previous two television shows — Sports Night and The West Wing — are among my top 3 favorite shows of all time. Like his previous ventures, Sorkin works with director Thomas Schlamme in Studio 60 — a winning combination. So you can imagine how much I anticipated Studio 60. (Actually, I forgot about it, but that’s what TIVOs are for).
Most everybody is familiar with The West Wing, Sorkin’s drama about the White House. Even non-fans of the show know that the first three seasons were classic, and the last three — after Sorkin left — were uneven and sometimes ridiculous.
Sports Night remains a short-lived classic. Unlike The West Wing, Sports Night was a half hour taped comedy. It contained some of the best dialogue ever written for television, second only (perhaps) to The West Wing. Starring a pre-Desparate Housewives Felicity Hoffman, Sports Night was a behind-the-scenes sitcom about the making of a sports show (like ESPN’s SportsCenter). When co-star Robert Guillaume suffered a stroke in real life, Sorkin deftly worked it into the plot, with Guillaume continuing in his role. Sadly, the show was cancelled after two seasons, but West Wing fans should really buy or rent the boxed DVD set.
All I knew about Studio 60 was that it was another behind-the-scenes-of-a-TV-show setting — this time behind the cameras of a fictional Saturday Night Live-like show. But was it to be like Sports Night or The West Wing?
Well, to be honest, it was a little of both. But more heavily on the drama, and that left me slightly underwhelmed. Studio 60 is a TV show about a comedy TV show, so I expected it to contain more humor. But the dark lighting and angry characters gave it a little bit of West Wing gravitas, which I’m not sure worked.
Not that it was bad, but I wasn’t blown away like I was when I saw the first episode of West Wing or the first episode of Sports Night.
But was it better than the standard TV fare? Hell, YES!
The pilot episode centered around the in-show show Studio 60. Like the real life SNL, Studio 60 has been on for decades and it’s, well, not funny anymore. It’s lost its edge. During the live airing of its show (where Felicity Huffman appears, playing herself as the guest host), the show’s producer (played by Judd Hirsch in a guest role) stops the opening sketch, and launches into an on-air tirade against networks, censors, and the FCC — all because he was forced at the last minute to cut a sketch which would, he was told, offend the religious right. The comparison to Howard Beale in Network were obvious and Sorkin makes many Network references.
That very night, new NBS president Jordan McDeere ("NBS" = NBC), played by Amanda Peet, decides she is going to save Studio 60 by bringing back its two best writers who left the show in disgust several years earlier to go into movies. They are Danny Tripp (played Bradley Whitford, formerly known as "Josh" on The West Wing) and Matt Albie (played by Matthew Parry, who also had a short stint on The West Wing, as well as some other show). Both Tripp and Albie are reluctant to return to TV.
The characters are drawn from Sorkin’s life. For example, Albie is reluctant to return to Studio 60 because he just broke up with Harriet Hayes, one of Studio 60’s cast members — she’s a born again Christian who sang on Pat Robertson’s 700 Club; he’s really not down with that. The Hayes character (played by Sarah Paulson) is supposedly based on Kristin Chenowith, whom Sorkin dated once.
And Tripp has had some cocaine problems (like the real life Aaron Sorkin). As a result, he can’t go through with his intended film directorial debut (like the real life Aaron Sorkin). So he agrees to go back to television (like the real life Aaron Sorkin) and "save" Studio 60.
Sound a litte dry? Yeah, it kind of was. But Sorkin’s forte isn’t plot; it’s dialogue — and Studio 60, like Sorkin’s other works, is full of sharp crisp rapparte. And fans of Sports Night and The West Wing will recognize director Schlamme’s style, including his trademark "walk and talks" (where the actors carry on long stretches of dialogue while working their way through the halls of a hustling bustling workplace).
The cast of Studio 60 is full of talent. Timothy Busfield plays the show’s director. Two of the cast members of the in-show Studio 60 are D.L. Hughly and Nate Cordry (who had a brief stint as a correspondent on The Daily Show). Both can act. And Stephen Weber plays the chairman of NBS; he’s going to be the evil "suit".
It was a lot to absorb for one hour, and it’s hard for me to care about the characters yet (none of them got a chance to be fully three-dimensional). There’s also a lot of L.A. cynicism, something I can’t entirely relate to. And someone needs to tell directors Thomas Schlamme and Chris Misiano (who also is a West Wing and Sports Night veteran) that it’s really okay to light the set; not everything has to take place in shadows and dark (it is, after all, a TV studio full of bright lights).
Perhaps my biggest disappointment, however, is that there weren’t enough random asides — meaningless trivia-filled dialogue and crosstalk between the characters that is the staple of Sorkin’s TV work.
But it’s Sorkin and a talented cast, so I’m confident that Studio 60 will find its stride. Even given my slight disappointment with the pilot, it still is one of the best things on television.
By the way, if you want to read the pilot’s rough draft, it’s on the Internets. Or hell — just watch the full premiere episode (or a two-minute "summary clip") here.
In Bush’s America
…it’s okay to kidnap a Canadian citizen (a software engineer), lie to Canada about his whereabouts (Canada is an ally, right?), and ship the poor guy off to Syria (our enemy, right?) for a year or so. In Syria, he’s tortured and beaten with a metal cable until he confesses that he received training in Afghanistan.
As is often the case, when you are being beaten and tortured, you will say anything to make it stop (which is why torture doesn’t work!). Turns out the guy never received training in Afghanistan. Turns out he’s never even been to Afghanistan.
In fact, turns out he’s not guilty of anything.
Yup. It really happened.
A government commission on Monday exonerated a Canadian computer engineer of any ties to terrorism and issued a scathing report that faulted Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.
The report on the engineer, Maher Arar, said American officials had apparently acted on inaccurate information from Canadian investigators and then misled Canadian authorities about their plans for Mr. Arar before transporting him to Syria. […]
But its conclusions about a case that had emerged as one of the most infamous examples of rendition — the transfer of terrorism suspects to other nations for interrogation — draw new attention to the Bush administration’s handling of detainees. And it comes as the White House and Congress are contesting legislation that would set standards for the treatment and interrogation of prisoners.
"The American authorities who handled Mr. Arar’s case treated Mr. Arar in a most regrettable fashion," Justice O’Connor wrote in a three-volume report, not all of which was made public. "They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there. Moreover, they dealt with Canadian officials involved with Mr. Arar’s case in a less than forthcoming manner."
What Singer Is Most Often Quoted In Judicial Legal Opinions?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The answer? Dylan, by a mile. He’s also the favorite in scholarly legal journals.
| Artist | Number of Citations in Legal Journals | Number of Citations in Judicial Opinions | Total |
| 1. Bob Dylan | 160 | 26 | 186 |
| 2. The Beatles | 71 | 3 | 74 |
| 3. Bruce Springsteen | 64 | 5 | 69 |
| 4. Paul Simon | 51 | 8 | 59 |
| 5. Woody Guthrie | 42 | 1 | 43 |
| 6. Rolling Stones | 35 | 4 | 39 |
| 7. Grateful Dead | 30 | 2 | 32 |
| 8. Simon & Garfunkel | 26 | 4 | 30 |
| 9. Joni Mitchell | 27 | 1 | 28 |
| 10. R.E.M. | 27 | 0 | 27 |
Other artists narrowly missing the cut include Pink Floyd (26), Billy Joel (21), and Johnny Cash (21). The most notable absence, at least in terms of record sales and cultural significance, would be one Mr. Elvis Aron Presley.
Consumer Advice
Don’t sign the back of your credit card. It’s useless as a deterrent, as anyone who takes your card then has a sample of your signature which they can not only use on any charge slip, but on your checks as well. However, do not leave the white strip blank. In that space, write: "Ask For Picture ID," and be prepared to back that up someday when you’re in a hurry and the clerk wants to see a driver’s license as well as the card. It makes the charge transaction a little longer, but a lot safer.
The Gay Scare Of 1957
For many of my friends, I point to this good article in the local paper looking back on 50 years ago, just down the road.
On Feb. 4, 1957, a Guilford County grand jury emerged from its closed session and issued a bundle of indictments of a scope unlike any before or since — against 32 men accused of being homosexual.
After witnesses named the men during police interrogations, the suspects were tried one by one in a Greensboro courtroom for crimes against nature, almost exclusively with consenting adults.
The now-obscure episode, which some longtime residents came to call "the purge," was the largest attempted roundup of homosexuals in Greensboro history and marked one of the most intense gay scares of the 1950s.
***
Some 32 trials in the winter and spring of 1957 would end in guilty verdicts, 24 of them resulting in prison terms of five to 20 years, with some defendants assigned to highway chain gangs.
Read the whole thing. Hard to believe, but then again, not really.
FOOTNOTE: Following the likes of Durham, Chapel Hill and other NC communities, Greensboro is moving toward granting domestic partnership benefits.
IRS Hassling Pastor For Giving Anti-War Sermon
The War on Christianisty indeed:
This is just unbelievable. The IRS is suddenly ramping up its investigation of whether All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena violated its tax-exempt status with an anti-war sermon just before the 2004 elections.
On Friday an IRS investigator served a summons on the current rector, Rev. Ed Bacon, ordering the church to turn over all documents and e-mails it produced during the 2004 election year that referred to political candidates:
After nearly a year without communication with the agency, Bacon said he was "quite surprised" Friday when an IRS agent handed him the summons at his church.
In addition to seeking electronic communications, the summons requests "a copy of all oral communications identifying candidates for public office delivered at All Saints Church or at events sponsored by All Saints Church between Jan. 1, 2004, and Nov. 2, 2004."
The summons also asks for various financial records.
The church has until September 29 to produce the documents, and Bacon has been summoned to testify on October 11. For frame of reference, Election Day is November 7.
So the IRS holds its fire in an investigation of allegedly improper political activites just before the 2004 elections until just before the 2006 elections. How about an investigation of that?
Bush Loyalty Trumps Experience
WaPo reports on how Jim O’Beirne’s office in the Pentagon valued blind loyalty to Bush over ability and experience in managing post-invasion Iraq:
O’Beirne’s staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade.
Many of those chosen by O’Beirne’s office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq’s government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance — but had applied for a White House job — was sent to reopen Baghdad’s stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq’s $13 billion budget, even though they didn’t have a background in accounting.
This is an administration that put a former organizer of Arabian horse shows in charge of FEMA. Is anyone surprised at how things get bulloxed up?
I think Publius’ take on this story is right on the money:
Not to be too blunt, but this stuff got people killed. Getting these tasks right was essential back when we actually had some window to do something about them. But not only were they not done right, no one even made an attempt to do them right. Sending a home-schooled kid right out of college to run Iraq’s budget is about as clear a signal as you can send that you don’t really care about the job. But they’ve never really cared – about any of it. And if they do, there simply isn’t any evidence to convict them of that charge.
UPDATE: The Corner’s K-Lo misses the point entirely:
That "daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator" went over to Iraq and "often put herself at great personal risk to visit her counterparts at the Iraqi Ministry of Finance," as her post-service citation from the DOD notes. The insinuation that civilians who sacrifice to serve are getting posh perks is infuriating. And though I can’t vouch for everyone who’s been over there, just from the stories I do know, I’m grateful we have such brave people who are willing.
Note to K-Lo: Nobody is dissing her or her willingness to service. The problem is that she and others were hired for a job that she was grossly unqualified to perform. If your great-grandmother was hired (without qualification) to be a fireman, I would give her props for her valor. But I wouldn’t count on her to rescue me from a fiery inferno.
On John Yoo
Never in my life have I witnessed such incredible incompetence in a constitutional scholar.
I am referring to John Yoo, Bush’s legal advisor on torture and detainee policy, and his gloriously boneheaded op-ed in the New York Times.
Yoo makes this wildly absurd claim:
[T]he founders intended that wrongheaded or obsolete legislation and judicial decisions would be checked by presidential action, just as executive overreaching is to be checked by the courts and Congress.
This is simply flat-out wrong, and there is absolutely no historical support for Yoo’s assertion.
Of course, Bush himself said the same thing once:
"The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law."—Austin, Texas, Nov. 22, 2000
The Constitution quite clearly says in Art. II, Sec. 3 that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". It does NOT say that he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, unless those Laws be wrongheaded or obsolete."
What Yoo is suggesting amounts to a presidential ability to "veto" judicial decisions. This is decidedly not what the Founders intended.
But don’t take my word for it. Read Alexander Hamilton:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. . . .
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
The power to interpret laws belongs to the courts. So says the Founders, in their own words.
It’s a fundamental truth, even acknowledged by the current conservative Supreme Court. In Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the Court specifically rejected the whole unitary executive theory
[The Government’s position] cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of the separation of powers, as this view only serves to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens. Youngstown Steel and Tube, 343 U.S. at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in times of conflict with other Nations or enemy organizations, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.
Now, some of you may think that, because I’m a lawyer, I know these concepts like "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" and all. And you may think that I have Hamilton’s quotes at my fingertips.
But the proposition that the President can interpret or ignore "bone-headed laws" simply at will flies in the face of simple sixth grade civics. Appeals to Alexander Hamilton aren’t even needed. Heck, you can even go to the U.S. government’s own education-for-kids website and find a clear example of how utterly wrong Yoo and Bush are. Here’s a snippet from Ben’s Guide to US Government for Kids:
Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.
But Yoo thinks the President gets to decide. As Greenwald asks: "How can you be on the faculty of a major law school and say this?"
GW law professor Orin Kerr is on the case here and here and here.
RELATED: Yoo also wrote:
Congress has for years been avoiding its duty to revamp or repeal outmoded parts of bygone laws in the light of contemporary threats. We have needed energy in the executive branch to fill in that gap.
The problem is that the President, constitutionally speaking, does not legislate. He can (and perhaps should) advocate that the "gap" in laws be filled, but he simply cannot unilaterally decide to "fill the gaps" (a euphamism for changing the law) himself. Again, there is no historical support offered by Yoo to suggest that this is what the Founders wanted.
He’s just wrong. Plainly, simply, and wildly wrong.
UPDATE: Funny. Yoo was against expanding executive powers before he was for it. Here’s what he wrote about Clinton back in June 2000:
"President Clinton exercised the powers of the imperial presidency to the utmost in the area in which those powers are already at their height — in our dealings with foreign nations. Unfortunately, the record of the administration has not been a happy one, in light of its costs to the Constitution and the American legal system. On a series of different international relations matters, such as war, international institutions, and treaties, President Clinton has accelerated the disturbing trends in foreign policy that undermine notions of democratic accountability and respect for the rule of law."
Anonymous Liberal has even more on Yoo v. Yoo.
How Bad Is It In Iraq?
It’s so bad that Baghdad’s sewer system is clogged . . . with corpses.