HAVE YOU EVER DANCED...

I keep hearing that Battlestar Galactica is the best science fiction series on television now, and this does not surprise me. Although its cheesy 1970's predecessor was mainly remembered for being remembered by.... well, people who thought that Buck Rogers in the 25th Century was too highbrow, this Battlestar, from what I have seen with my own eyes, is no slice of cheese. It is meaty, topical, brawny and intelligent.

And why shouldn't it be? It is produced by Ronald D. Moore, who started working in the science fiction television universe as a staff writer for Star Trek: The Next Generation. Moore, who, unlike "the braintrust" of TNG (Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, the late Michael Piller), understood what made both great television AND great Star Trek: The Next Generation (and classic Star Trek) (the aforementioned trio, alas, never understood the appeal of TOS, or how the medium of television could harness the allegorical qualities of science fiction, shunned both TOS bold storytelling and inventive science fiction parable plottingit like the plague, and this attitude reflected a work product that was often timid, tepid and dull). Moore served as co-producer of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the best of all six of the Star Trek shows on a show by show, minute by minute basis.

Moore has also written many "Battlestar" episodes. BSG, deals with, in a science fiction setting, stories that Star Trek has often prided itself on telling, but, if one looks at Star Trek's actual record, has not actually been quite as succesful in telling as in telling the world it has told, so to speak. These stories (the BSG ones) include (since the entire premise of the show is that Earth and its remnants are under siege by an alien enemy and what is left of Earth as we know it basically consists of a military government) include tales about the military chain of command, cloning, eugenics, the morality of torture - tales with obvious parallels to our own time - but the stories are told subtly both as stories, and as allegories.

To give you an idea of the kind of work Moore presided over, consider this DS9 episode, "In the Pale Moonlight." The teleplay is listed as being by Peter Allen Fields, a great writer in his own right, but Moore did an uncredited rewrite. The epsiode, coincidentally, aired on my birthday eight years ago.

At the end of the description of the episode, just think about if/when this country ever fights the proverbial good fight. I think it has before, and will again. Even some people within this abomination we call a war are doing so now, which is what makes "Moonlight," though written even before the Project to Wreck - er, Project for the New American Century was conceived, such a classic - indeed, some call it the best DS9 episode, if not the best Star Trek episode ever. Out of all 715 Star Trek episodes, it's in the top ten. It's that good. View it, if you get around to doing so, with "The Drumhead," a description of which was posted earlier.

In the Pale Moonlight
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
Series:
DS9
Season:
6
Original Airdate:
1998-04-15
Production Number:
543
Year:
2374
Stardate:
51721.3
Story by:
Peter Allan Fields
Teleplay by:
Michael Taylor
Directed by:
Victor Lobl


Sick of the losses the Federation ("the good guys") is taking in the war (against an emeny on the other side of the galaxy), Sisko ("the good Starfleet captain") enlists Garak's ("the shifty, can you or can't you trust him character")help to persuade the Romulans (bad guys who are neutral in the war in question) to join the Federation against the Dominion. Sisko soon learns that in order to save the Federation, he must abandon the values it stands for.


Captain Benjamin Sisko is recording a log entry and begins by discussing his dreaded weekly posting of the Federation casualty report, listing the dead, wounded, and missing for that week. This particular week, Lieutenant Commander Jadzia Dax discovers that a longtime friend, Leslie Wong, was lost with all hands on board the USS Cairo. The Cairo was ambushed by a Dominion patrol that passed through Romulan space, a common occurrence, because the Romulans have a non-aggression pact with the Dominion. At this point, Sisko decides he is going to bring the Romulans into the war.

Initially, this objective seems unattainable, as it's clearly in the Romulans' best interests to stay neutral. When Dax plays the Romulan devil's advocate in a mock debate, Sisko determines how to get them into the war on their side. It becomes evident that Sisko needs "solid proof" to convince the Romulans that the Dominion is planning on conquering them after they are done with the Federation Alliance.

Sisko makes the deal with Garak.

Sisko contacts Elim Garak because of his "skills" at retrieving highly secret and guarded information (namely, "secret war plans" that Sisko could use). Garak reluctantly agrees, after noting that it would involve him calling in all of his favors, and that the outing may end up being a rather "messy" business. However, Sisko is not shaken and is prepared to do anything to accomplish the goal, as noted in his log.

That night, Sisko learns that the Dominion has conquered Betazed (moore "good guys," namely, a planet full of pacifists) in a matter of ten hours, placing the Dominion in a strategic position to hit several key worlds (including Earth, Andor and Vulcan - all more good guys, relatively defenseless against the Dominion). This makes Sisko even more determined, and after three days, he asks Garak about his progress. Garak had spoken to several Cardassians (he is a Cardassian; his people are currently allies with the Dominion; therefore he is a pariah among his people now) who were willing to help, but they were all dead within a day. Garak proposes that they manufacture the evidence they need instead. Sisko is at first appalled at the thought but, as he indicates in his log, he went along because he "knew it was right".

Garak proposes that Sisko invite Senator Vreenak to Deep Space 9, since he will be passing by in a few days. Vreenak negotiated the Romulan non-aggression pact with the Dominion and is an outspoken supporter of it, and has quite a low opinion of the Federation. The idea is that if Sisko can convince him to join the war, the whole Romulan Senate will follow. They formulate a plan to show him a fabricated recording of a secret, high-level Dominion meeting in which the Dominion discusses the plan to conquer the Romulans. In order to ensure that Vreenak believes it, they will use a genuine Cardassian optolythic data rod, as well as a good cover story about how Starfleet (the military arm of the Federation, an alliance of planets to which Sisko's Earth belongs)obtained it. Starfleet approves the plan.

The first thing that Sisko needs to do is to get Grathon Tolar, who is an expert in holographic forgery, released from a Klingon (more good guys - by this point in Star Trek history, anyway) prison. Gowron (Klingon Chancellor) pardons him, and Sisko tells Tolar that the conditions of his release are to create a holographic program for him. Tolar realizes the nature of what he has to do when he learns that Garak is involved. Tolar agrees, as the alternative is to face execution by the Klingons.


Later, a glitch tests Sisko's will to go through with the plan. Tolar gets drunk at Quark's (Quark is the bartender of Sisko's space station, Deep Space Nine. Quark is a Ferengi. The Ferengi are a race of, for purposes of this story, one word will do nicely: profiteers), and, in the ensuing bar fight, stabs Quark. Odo (station constable) cannot release Tolar unless Quark decides not to press charges. Sisko bribes Quark into not pressing charges. Sisko agrees to compensate Quark's for his lost profits and damaged clothes as well as to let some illegal merchandise pass security. Quark loves the idea, not just because of his economic gain, but that Sisko reaffirms Quark's faith in the 98th Rule of Acquisition: every man has his price. As Sisko says in his log, he begins to second guess the endeavor, until he receives another casualty report.

The next step in the plan is to obtain a genuine Cardassian data rod. Garak, by some "minor miracle", finds a seller of one; unfortunately, the price is quite high - 200 liters of bio-mimetic gel, a very dangerous and controlled substance. Sisko at first rejects the idea, but Garak tells him that finding another will be impossible, so Sisko reluctantly agrees to the trade, and they negotiate the quantity down to 85 liters. Doctor Bashir is appalled at the thought of having to prepare the gel, and only does so after demanding written orders, endorsed by Starfleet, and even then over his explicit objection and protest. (Dcotor Bashir, by the way, the station's doctor, it is noted, has parents, who, we learned the season before, illegally obtained the services of a doctor to perform genetic enhancements upon him when he was 5. Nothing was wrong with him; his parents were the kinds of pushy types who think that if their child isn't composing concertos at age 5, he is a retard. These kinds of parents, of course, are no geniuses, themselves. The penalty for those who traffic in or solicit genetic enhancement services is a long time in jail. Any individual who is the product of such enhancements cannot serve in Starfleet. Bashir, of course, then, since he knew of the enhancements since he was a child, would seem to be ineligible to serve. Yet, his father "took the fall" for him, so to speak, serving the prison time for him. The point of this little side story is that it is ESPECIALLY the people who have their own ethical and moral hangups who would know when to try and act out Dramatics 101 when they think others are trying to pull an ethical/moral fast one over them).


The "team" of Sisko, Garak, and Tolar obtain the rod and begin preparing a convincing recording in which Weyoun and Damar (Dominion henchmen) plan the invasion of Romulus (Romulan homeworld) making sure to have the two squabble with each other and appear as "real" as possible. The program is recorded onto the rod, and the forgery is complete. In order to ensure that the fake will pass, Sisko threatens Tolar with an unpleasant execution at the hands of Gowron if the forgery is flawed.

Sisko shows Vreenak the program.

Sisko at this point is getting very nervous, as Senator Vreenak comes to the station in a cloaked Romulan shuttle and egotistically dresses down Sisko when the two meet. Meanwhile, Garak plans to inspect the Senator's ship (for anything "useful"), and to stop by Tolar's quarters (to say "hello"). Sisko and Vreenak discuss the fate of their respective worlds over a bottle of kali-fal, at which point Sisko tells Vreenak that he has learned that the Dominion are planning a surprise attack on the Romulans. Vreenak, naturally, demands proof, at which time Sisko presents his forgery. Vreenak demands to inspect the data rod.


Vreenak, in typical Romulan fashion, takes his time inspecting the rod, during which time Sisko, as he indicates in his log, is very anxious. The fate of the entire Alpha Quadrant hangs on whether or not his forgery passes Romulan scrutiny. Sisko attempts, in vain, to calm his worries, until Vreenak finally calls Sisko to pronounce his judgment.

"It's a fake!"

Vreenak furiously confronts Sisko, declaring the rod to be an absolute fake, and promises to expose Starfleet's treachery and deception to the Romulan Senate, which could easily drive the Romulans to the Dominion's side, dooming the Federation for good.

Fortunately for Sisko and the Federation, two days later Sisko learns that Vreenak's shuttle has conveniently exploded, killing him. Sisko quickly realizes that Garak was behind this, and he confronts Garak in his shop, with a fist to the face. Garak demands a chance to explain and outlines the actual plan...

Realizing that the forgery may well not pass Vreenak's inspection, Garak had planted a bomb on the Romulan shuttle, and he had made its destruction look like Dominion sabotage. To the Tal Shiar (Romulan intelligence) it will appear that the Dominion destroyed the shuttle. And in the wreckage they will find a badly-damaged data rod containing damning evidence that the Dominion was going to betray the Romulans, the damage to the rod masking the imperfections in the forgery. It will appear that Vreenak was on his way to expose the Dominion before being blown up. As for Tolar, the forger, Garak describes him as a "casualty of war". In other words, he eliminated him.

Sisko toasts "the good guys".

Sisko is quite furious, and does further damage to Garak's face, before realizing the real plan was a very good and necessary one. In fact it succeeds. The Romulans declare war on the Dominion the next day, and all Sisko has to do now is to wrestle with his conscience. He soon justifies his actions, stating that the lives of a few innocent men, and his own self-respect, are a tiny price to pay for essentially saving the Federation, along with potentially billions of lives. After coming to terms with his actions, Sisko erases the whole log.

Memorable Quotes

"It...will...pass."
- Grathon Tolar to an angry Benjamin Sisko

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
- Joseph Sisko via Benjamin Sisko

"Or we can just forget the whole enterprise."
- Garak, perhaps referring to the fact that Sisko is undertaking a plan that neither Kirk nor Picard would ever have

"So you're the commander of Deep Space 9. And the Emissary of the Prophets. Decorated combat officer, widower, father, mentor... Oh and yes, the man who started the war with the Dominion. Somehow I thought you'd be taller..."
"Sorry to disappoint you."
"To be honest, my opinion of Starfleet officers is so low that you'd have to work very hard indeed to disappoint me."
- Vreenak, Benjamin Sisko

"You are persistent, I'll grant you that, captain. But I'm afraid dogged determination isn't enough to change the reality of your situation. Time is definitely not on your side. The Dominion shipyards are working at one hundred percent capacity, your facilities are still being rebuilt. The Dominion is breeding legions of Jem'Hadar soldiers every day -- you're experiencing a manpower shortage. But more important, the Dominion is resolved to win the war, no matter what the cost."
- Vreenak
"It's a fake!"
- Vreenak

(And, a speech for the ages - and for the pantheon):
"That is why you came to me, isn't it, captain? Because you knew I could do the things you weren't capable of doing yourself? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you wanted -- a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. If your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain."
- Elim Garak (Andrew Robinson, who was the recipient of Dirty Harry's line "Do you feel lucky, punk?")

"At 0800 Hours Station time, the Romulan Empire formally declared War on the Dominion. They have already struck 15 bases along the Cardassian border. So this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point in the entire War. So I lied, I cheated, I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the damndest thing is ... I think I can live with it. Garak was right about one thing, my conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I CAN LIVE with it (precise equal emphasis on both capitalized words). Computer, erase that entire personal log."
- Captain Benjamin Sisko
-fade to black

EASTER FUNNY

"Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. Putin looked into Bush's ear and saw daylight on the other side." -- Will Durst, allhatnocattle.net

CARGO OVERBOARD!?!?!?!

Who Cries for Cargo?

The death of the men's shopping magazine.
By Michael Agger
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006, at 12:28 PM ET
Slat.ecom

Somewhere in America, men are sad. Cargo, the magazine that told them what custom jeans to buy and where to find the right shaving lotion, is shutting down. It's the latest men's shopping magazine to fold, preceded by the more upscale Vitals and the more tech-focused Sync. Cargo's May issue will be its last, and then, once again, men will be alone, alone on a wide wide sea of gadgets, wheels, and fashion. The pain is still raw, and the question lingers: Did the failure of Cargo lie in its conceit or in its execution?

Back in March of 2004, the answer seemed obvious. Brilliant conceit, brilliant execution. That month, 300,000 ad-laden copies of the premiere issue of Cargo arrived at newsstands, and Condé Nast, the publisher, expected nothing but the best from its bright boy. The previous June, the "metrosexual" (defined as a straight urban male who cared about his appearance and who wasn't afraid of letting others know it) had made his debut in the New York Times "Style" section and graduated into mainstream circulation. Men, it appeared, were becoming the new women. Cargo was designed with same DNA as Lucky, the very successful female shopping magazine. With natural slots for fashion, car, and beauty advertisers, Cargo seemed likely to be a layup.

But even from the start, there was a certain fatal queasiness about the magazine's audience.

Here's the original publisher, Alan Katz, discussing the first issue: "It's not for any stereotypical man or sexual orientation. After all, the Apple iPod doesn't care who buys it." Huh? The iPod may not care (it's the rare unisex tech device), but it's pointless to suggest that clothes, cars, and beauty products do not carry connotations with them. For a guy, the mere fact of paying attention to your appearance sends a message. As a fashion-forward friend once told me: Most men care about how they look, but only two groups of men will consistently admit to caring about how they look, namely gay men and African-Americans. (As Charlie Bucket said, "Here we go again." What does this mean, "admit to caring about how they look?" That every straight man, when asked, "Do you care about how you look?" responds by saying, "No - I don't care how I look, in fact, I like looking like shit!" What scientific evidence exists that only black and gay men - whom this fashion-forward friend would probably state in the same breath are also virulently homophobic - admit to caring about how they look? None, of course. Only anecdotal evidence does. But, of course, it can never, ever, ever be forgotten that some people's anecdotal evidence counts for much more than other's. Especially when the weightier evidence is only obtained as a result of flawed testing procedures, if you catch my drift).

Cargo would naturally appeal to the younger members of these two demographics, but it also needed these alleged metrosexuals to get on board (for the record, I have purchased this magazine about six times, because it constitutes good science fiction to me. The magazine features incredibly expensive gadgets and gizmos that I can gawk and stare at in awe, while knowing I can never buy them. I suppose the fact that I like science fiction means I'm gay. Ditto the fact that I like electronics, whatever price. Ditto the fact that I don't like wasting money. By the way, did I mention that I'm not black? Therefore, since I bought the magazine, I must be gay. The last time I bought it, I purchased it from a black cashier who said that he purchases it also, because he liked looking at the electronics items for sale as well, as did his wife. I suppose the fact of his purchase, since he is black, made him doubly gay, and the fact that he was married made him doubly super secret gay, or something -DRL. The only reason a "straight" man - or SOME of then wouldn't buy this magazine - not that straight men didn't - is because he'd be THOUGHT of as being gay if he were caught reading it, not because READING it meant he was gay, or reading it MADE him gay. The reason why I stopped purchasing it, and the reason why I believe it and the other magazines flopped, is because out of the thousands of products featured in each issue, roughly 5% are below $100. It is a LUXURY magazine. If ONLY gay men were buying it, then according to our fashion expert, who no doubt believes that gay men are wealthier than straight men, shouldn't it have stayed in business longer?).

The first issue (DRL: must have some Crack-xim, if you get what I mean) been clocked in at over 200 pages. It was very flippable, graphics-intense, and dotted with those peppy paragraphs, ladled with adverbs, that define the "voice" of a service magazine. (Most readers, I suspect, would be stunned to know how much time is spent crafting those blurbs.) (Gay ones only, author of this article?)

There was a feature about how to fold a shirt sleeve, and a glossy layout of exotic cars. Women were asked to offer their thoughts on cologne. Cargo also sported the most noted feature of Lucky: the stickers that a reader could use to mark the products he or she wanted to buy. C'mon, who were they kidding? The stickers, more than anything else, underscore Cargo's problem. It believed in itself. (A hallmark of gay, or metrosexual, as opposed to straight, magazines. George Bush believes what he says, which is why he has the homophobe vote all locked up).


The smarter approach would have been to pretend not to care.

There were, however, men who took this seriously enough. Cargo's editor, Ariel Foxman (whom I worked with briefly at The New Yorker), spoke fondly of the grateful letters he received from readers (he was paid to act as though he took it seriously. His speaking fondly does not mean he actually took it seriously).

And, incredibly, the Cargo message boards do contain earnest exchanges about whether or not wearing a collared shirt over another collared shirt is attractive or stupid. (Answer: stupid.) But the Cargo nation of males 25-45 never materialized, and advertisers noticed. (The latest February figures show a 32 percent decline in ad pages when compared to the same period last year.)

The magazine, backing away from its pure conception as a "shopping guide," began to put celebrities on its cover, hoping for more pop at the newsstand. Sure, celebrities can move copies, but they can also instantly broadcast your lameness. Witness Nick Lachey on the April cover.


Cargo, unfortunately, never felt like a peer, it felt more like your "confused" friend. What's he going to look like today? The magazine veered wildly across the gay/straight divide, often in the same issue: one month asking 866 women to "Reveal the Secrets That Catch Their Eye" and also telling guys how to "Drink Your Way to a Hard Body." (Oh, I get it - half Vogue, half Maxim = all gay!) Other magazines like Details and Esquire, with longer articles and nonservice content, walk this line with more finesse. Cargo's tone was never right. (Meaning, of course, it was too gay and therefore, since the only people who would therefore buy it were therefore gay people, it went under. That makes sense).

Given more time, Cargo may have survived. If MySpace profiles are any indication, today's teenagers, under the influences of indie rock and hip-hop, look like a nation of metrosexuals in training. But I'm certain that most guys won't miss the title, because they already have a men's shopping magazine that they love. It has a circulation of over 4 million, and every month it provides chart-filled articles on cars, appliances, electronics, gardening, personal finance, and health & fitness. Men have been known to pass this magazine along to each other after reading it. They even save copies in boxes in the garage. The name of this august publication: Consumer Reports. (Consumer Reports is successful, by the way, not because it is "straight," "gay," "metrosexual," or anything else, but because it is recognized as THE magazine that provides comprehensive REVIEWS of products (as opposed to advertisements of them), and because the products it features are often products people can afford; even when the products are expensive products like cars, CR, unlike Cargo, writes reviews of cars in ALL price ranges, not those in just the higher-end ones).

The incessant tendency to label and stereotype people and thinking into oblivion is ruining this country. Yes, I am sensitive about the "gay" issue because I have been made fun of mercilessly for "being gay" (I don't think that there is anything wrong with being gay, but ANYONE would, after a point, resent being ridiculed being called ANYTHING about himself that wasn't true, simply because the human capacity for being annoyed is only finite. For example, suppose I was called a "Brandeis" graduate for weeks on end by someone. This comment would be no less or no more offensive than the gay comment - it would bother me because it isn't true and because the person who is saying it is acting as a human waste of space).

People today cannot have a discussion without labeling - without calling others "gay," "li-brul," "beer snobs," "fundies," you name it. It's not the being called gay that's the problem. It's the breakdown of fundamental human communication and the desire, from the point of the labeler, to go straight for the insult (while simultaneously and hypocritically claiming that he is not being insulting) that is the problem, combined with the fact that the labeler's definition of his label is such that he somehow always manages to carve out a personal exemption for one person only: himself. We live in a society of communication by declamation and slither, one that favors labels over exchange of ideas, one where people attempt to hurt others using hypocritical double-speak, and one in which those who happen to not like this are scorned. And, of course, the more those who do not like this protest - the more they state that the labeling is harmful and inaccurate, the more, of course, the labels "must be true." Of course, if those who protested remained silent, the labels would still "be true." If those who protested remained silent and stopped caring, the labels would again, still be true.

Which is why I've actually told people who've incorrectly labeled me as gay, a George Bush supporter, or what have you the following: you want to believe that, fine. You want to shout it to the world, fine. I just do not care. When someone's mind has turned into a desert, it's pretty hard to expect that offering that person a drink will do anything.

HAM"DAN"-FISTED

From scotus.blog:

Analysis: Hard day for government in Hamdan case
01:02 PM Lyle Denniston Comments (4)
With Justice Antonin Scalia taking part -- and, in fact, providing the only clearcut signs of unstinting support for the federal government's arguments -- the Supreme Court on Tuesday probed deeply into the validity of the war crimes tribunals set up by President Bush, and came away looking decidedly skeptical. From all appearances during the 90-minute argument, the Court may have some difficulty fashioning an opinion, but perhaps not a result: the existing "military commission" scheme may well fail.

The Court spent comparatively little time on the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to proceed to a ruling on the merits in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184), but Justices Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter strenuously -- and repeatedly -- advanced the point that the Court would have to find it has jurisdiction in order to avoid the very difficult constitutional question of Congress' power to abolish all forms of habeas challenge to the treatment of war-on-terrorism detainees (this is an old federal courts saw: if federal court finds that it has to find whether it has jurisdiction in order to address issue X - issue X being a federal issue - then the federal court has jurisdiction; moreover, the Supreme Court, as a general rule, is supposed to avoid adjudicating issues upon a constitutional, as opposed to statutory, basis, whenever possible). It was a point that seemed likely to draw the support of enough Justices to prevail (in other words, the Court doesn't want to issue the sweeping pronouncement that Congress can't abolish all habeas because the Court is a bunch of mealy-mouthed diaper dandies, but the only way the Court can avoid making this sweeping pronouncement is by saying 1)we can hear the case, and 2)we avoid this pronouncement. 1) is necessary for it to utter 2) Since the Court really enjoys exercising its jurisdictiona and really likes its mealy mouthedness, the Court is likely to find that it has jurisdiction over the case, notwithstanding the recent DTA law, which attempted to deprive the Court of the effort to review this case and others like it).

If the Court does proceed to the merits, it appeared that there would be at least three ways that a majority could be formed to find the "military commissions" to be flawed: first, those tribunals would be using procedures that would violate federal laws, the Constitution, or an international treaty; second, a variation of the the first, the "commission" system was not set up properly in the first place, or, third, they can only try crimes that definitely are recognized under the international laws of war and that does not include the most common charge brought so far -- terrorism conspiracy. There was little exploration of ultimate arguments against the "commission" setup: the claim that the President had no power to create them on his own, without specific authorization from Congress, and, alternatively, the claim that Congress has not given him that power (mealy-mouthedness again).

With only eight Justices participating (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., is recused), it appeared that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy might well emerge as holding the decisive vote. In a variety of ways, Kennedy seemed troubled about the legitmacy of the tribunals as presently arranged. Most of his questions seemed aimed at locating the specific deficiencies that might be found in their functioning. At one point, he suggested openly to the detainees' lawyer, Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal, that the Court might well "think there is merit" in his argument that the tribunals were not "properly constituted." In that event, Kennedy suggested, the Court would not have to get into the complex question of what kind of charges were within the tribunals' authority to try.

There were a number of comments or questions indicating that the detainees may well be able to draw the votes of Justices Breyer, Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens. There was no doubt whatsoever that Justice Scalia (whose recusal had been suggested by some amici, troubled over public statements he made about detainees' rights) would line up definitely on the side of the "commissions" in their present form. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., through a few questions, seemed to be sending a message that he was inclined to allow the "commissions" to go forward with trials, leaving any challenges until after convictions, if any, emerged. Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, but he has been, in the past, the Court's most fervent supporter of presidential wartime powers.

The overall tone of the hearings seemed significantly in favor of the challenge to the new tribunals. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, defending the tribunals, seemed more challenged than is customary for him; indeed, at times he appeared genuinely relieved at the help Justice Scalia provided for his argument. He rushed to embrace Scalia's points as if they were stronger than his own.

PROGNOSIS: promising.

IF YOU HAVE NO VALOR, WHO CARES ABOUT DISCRETION?

Nino Fat Five Fingers Tony Scalia recently gave a speech in Switzerland. During his speech, he ripped into European lawmaking bodies for their recent comments that, in effect, described America as a nation that is transforming from a police state to a police hate state that will not abate. Apparently, what really bugged Fat Tony was some of these sissy Euros' suggestions that detainees in our war on terror receive some kind of due process before a tribunal once (or if) our President charges them with a real or imaginary crime. Scalia squawked, "The notion that a detainee who has taken arms up against the United States deserves a jury trial is absolutely crazy." This declamatory comment echoed the whiff of Wildean (perhaps the wrong choice of author there) wit Scalia gave us just a month ago, when he called those who advocate the idea of a living Constitution (including, of course, himself, as he has done so when it has suited him) "idiots." If ideas are so obviously crazy and people are so obviously idiots, surely Scalia need not be paid thousands of dollars at a $500-a plate dinner ($1,000 if you, rather than Scalia, actually retain the right to eat the food on your plate) to offer these intrepid insights.

Yet the Great Pissanter (no disrespect, Justice Holmes) continues to share his pearls with us, as when he made an obscene gesture a few days ago to describe how he feels about those who ask him what his view of foreign law in Supreme Court jurisprudence is.

Contrast Scalia's ululations with this elegant statement describing Petitioner's argument in the case the Court just finished hearing today - a case that could, depending on how it is decided, be the most important case EVER vis a vis the limits of Presidential power in wartime:

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Neal Katya
The central issue in the Hamdan case is one that has perpetually disturbed the governments of civilized nations : Does an armed conflict give the President the power to supplant the existing system of justice? As the Supreme Court put it in a military commission case following the Civil War, “[n]o graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people.” Ex parte Milligan.

In this short essay, I want to make two points about how the question presents itself in Hamdan—one about the domestic rule of law, the other about the international law of war.

First, take a step back and think about what is happening: A man, Salim Hamdan—who is alleged to be part of the motor pool for a notorious enemy of the United States—is bringing suit against the Secretary of Defense and the President. How many other countries would tolerate such a thing? In some countries, he (and his lawyer) might be threatened or otherwise discouraged in any number of ways. But America is different and special. And for all the negative things said about our country both across the world and within its borders in the wake of the revelations at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, I think it important that all of us remember that access to the courts, even to bring a lawsuit against the nation’s highest officials, is precisely what makes our country great.

Hamdan has had the cards stacked against him every step of the way from Afghanistan to the Supreme Court: from his capture by the Northern Alliance, who sold him for a bounty to the Americans, to the President’s executive order subjecting him to trial by before a military commission with rules defined by the Executive alone. From the Defense Department’s shifting policies and rules about Guantanamo to the commission’s decision to kick him out of part of his own criminal trial. And if that weren’t enough, we’ve recently seen some members of Congress try to pull his case off of the Supreme Court’s docket. It has been a difficult road, to be sure.

Yet, today I, as his lawyer, will walk into the nation’s highest court and plead his case to a panel of impartial, independent jurists. This is why my parents came to America—because we don’t sacrifice justice simply because we are scared. We allow a Yemeni with a fourth-grade education accused of conspiracy to plead his case to the highest court against the most powerful individual on earth. This is why we are the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Second, a word about the role of international law in the case. It has been memorably said that the problem with using foreign law (DRL: and legislative history) is that it’s like looking out over a crowd to pick out your friends. I share this general skepticism of foreign law, and that has led some to wonder how I could be arguing that Hamdan is protected by supposedly vague international treaties like the Geneva Conventions. The odd thing about the Hamdan case is that the prosecution, not the defendant, is invoking international law first. Military commissions can only try violations of international law, so the typical claim that international law has no place in our legal system cannot apply without undoing the prosecution itself.

Mr. Hamdan’s complaint, in essence, is that the government is relying on vague international law doctrines in those commissions, even as it refuses to afford him the rights guaranteed by the very same doctrines. Mr. Hamdan would be perfectly happy to abide solely by the domestic law of the United States, which would mean that he’d be tried either in a civilian court or a court-martial. The President, though, wants to prosecute Mr. Hamdan for an offense against “the laws of war” (laws which do not include the crime of "conspiracy," by the way - DRL)—a body of international law.

The full “laws of war,” which were developed in the context of wars between nation-states, have never applied to a stateless, territory-less group like al Qaeda. We have never had a military commission trial to enforce the laws of war against an individual alleged to belong to a group that was stateless and territory-less. Indeed, the one place where the laws of war do expand beyond traditional conflicts between nation-states is in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which covers all armed conflicts, even internal ones like civil wars. The Administration, though, clings to the sorry position, memorialized by John Yoo (a.k.a. "Dr. Crusher") during his time at the Office of Legal Counsel: that Common Article 3 does not apply to al Qaeda. It is bad enough that this position is in complete disregard of the history of the Article and its interpretation by scholars and jurists alike. The more troubling problem is that by making that judgment, the Administration has deprived a properly constituted military commission of the one set of offenses it could lawfully try—violations of Common Article 3.

The Administration did not want to find that Common Article 3 applied because it sought to avoid providing the rudimentary and baseline protections presented in the Article, such as the right to be tried by a “a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” This isn’t a hard standard to meet. It was developed to provide the minimal justice required in the midst of armed conflict. But the Guantanamo tribunals cannot even meet this low threshold.

What the President is really seeking in Hamdan under the auspices of international law is the power to unilaterally redefine the laws of war. Those laws bind Hamdan, the Administration argues, but somehow don’t protect him. No matter how vague international law is, it isn’t this vague.

When people’s lives, quite literally, are on the line, and where the stigma of criminal punishment by an unlawful court is a not-so-distant possibility, such vagueness cannot be allowed to serve as a clear statement from Congress to authorize such a striking departure from the existing system of justice. In the end, the President’s position, of unbridled power and the absence of individual rights, is simply un-American. The point is made poignantly clear by a number of Retired Generals and Admirals who have explained that the niggardly interpretation of the Geneva Conventions is likely to mean our own troops will face war crimes trials that do not meet international standards. It is also made clear by hundreds of members of the European Union and British Parliaments (including the leaders of all major political parties in Britain, even the conservative Tories), and by Secretary Madeleine Albright, who have argued that these commissions will undermine America’s position as a leader of the rule of law.

The genius of our Founders, of course, was to foresee these very arguments. It was a great patriot, Thomas Paine, who wrote, "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Neal Katyal is a law professor at Georgetown University. After co-authoring an Article with Professor Laurence H. Tribe in Volume 111 on military commissions, he became Counsel of Record, pro bono, to the Pentagon defense attorneys in the Office of Military Commissions, and has represented Mr. Hamdan from the inception of his lawsuit in April 2004.
Preferred Citation: Neal Katyal, From the Court's Docket: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Yale L.J. (The Pocket Part), Apr. 2006, http://www.thepocketpart.org/2006/04/katyal.html.

HATING THE OBVIOUS

I was reading some of the posters' comments in response to a HuffPo column entitled "Republican and Democratic strategists both say that if House elections were held today, Democrats would gain control of the House."

I found the following comment:

"Well, come elections 06/08, Repubs have nothing to run on... It can't be their accomplishments - because THEY HAVE NONE! The ONLY thing they have to run on is Fear, and Hate....their famous stand-bys....Immigration, Gay Marriage, Gay Adoption, Civil Unions...they're at the bottom of the barrel for Platforms...so, stay tuned for Propaganda and Bigotry! "

Just when I thought that no one understood!

THIS IS IT, BOYS, THIS IS WAR!

Sometimes, I almost want to pinch myself when I contemplate how sheerly ingenious some of our citizens are.

About two years ago, I heard the (English version) classic anti-war song "99 Luftballons" ("99 Red Balloons") on TV, and a thought popped into my head: since, as we all recently discovered, prisoners at Guantanamo were being tortured, by, among other methods, being forced to having to listen to songs of wretched pop singers blaring at ear-shattering decibel levels, why not lock Dumbya, Hatey, Scummy, Kindasleazy, Rove-ing Wiretap, What-a-Card, Wolfman, Bowel, Revoltin' Bolton, Pearl Necklace, Thief, Whoeturd, Instanity, Dimballs, O'Lielly, Krauthammer, Swill, Fuckley, Swiller, and all of the other cheerleaders for the Iraq war into a room, the exits to which would be properly secured and/or non-existent, and force them to listen to "99 Luftballoons" until they oinked for mercy? Of course, this day will never come.

But, some enterprising soul has taken something resembling the the point of this fictitious exercise and has toruned the exercise into reality:

'99 Red Balloons' Video to Air for an Hour
54 minutes ago
NEW YORK

They're kidding, right? VH1 Classic will present a full hour of the English and German music videos for the 1984 hit "99 Luftballons," aka "99 Red Balloons," by German rock group Nena.

The music video presentation, to air Sunday (2 p.m. EST), caps off the cable channel's "Pay to Play for Hurricane Katrina Relief," which raised over $200,000 for Mercy Corps, a humanitarian relief organization.
Viewers could request one video to be played on VH1 Classic for every $25 donation. For a $35,000 donation, they could select an hour's worth of music videos from the 1960s through the early 1990s.

However, one viewer chose something different for his allotted hour, requesting continuous playing of "99 Luftballons," said VH1 spokeswoman Maura Wozniak.

"99 Luftballons" is a Cold-War era protest song that tells the story of 99 red balloons floating into the air, triggering an apocalypse when the military sends planes to intercept them

Recently, a group of 15 Republican Congressman got stuck in an elevator, and were trapped for over half an hour. Hey, someone could rig the White House tape recording and speaker system to......, and a false alarm terrorist scare could cause the White House could go into lockdown at 2 P.M. Sunday, and.....

Who am I kidding? At the end of the day, someone would still have to explain the song to Bush. Even if he got the point, the sole question he'd probably concern himself with - the sole manner in which he'd express any curiosity about the song - any sign that the song connected with him - is by asking, "Why would Captain Kirk fly 99 balloons into the sky or use nukular weapons? He has a startship, for Christ's [my] sake!"

"BEN"DED BEFORE IT STARTED

Ben Domenech - remember him, right?

Well, look at what the Washington Post (which has increasingly turned into a hackpiece for the Bush Administration) wrote today:

Ben Domenech Resigns

"In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday. An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately. When we hired Domenech, we (unlike the rest of the world) were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity. Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. (Save for writing something genuine). Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times. We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism. We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.
Jim Brady, Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Of corse, the Powers That Be will see to it WaPo (Washington Post) will not be permitted to be ridiculed as CBS was when Dan Rather ran the Bush National Guard story last fall (never mind that the "background check" was much more nonexistent in the WaPo case than in the 60 Minutes II case, and that conservatives, by constantly attacking the "MSM" as biased, are implicitly holdings themselves out as beacons of journalistic and blogospheristic integrity). Domenech now awaits his martyrdom. He will be portrayed as the victim of a cruel Washington Establishment (actually, Bush Establishment) paper that is part of a left-wing conspiracy. Of course, these conspirators conspired to hire him in the first place, but those who matter will cry that this act was all a setup, just as they have claimed that Nixon was framed in Watergate.

As for Mr. Domenech, he will be "banned" to that special place where Republican potty-mouths, perjurers, crooks, and plagiarizers always seem to find a home. Why, I can hear Rupert Murdoch calling him right about now... After all, don't we need plagiarizers to balance out all of the non-plagiarizers?

"BEN"DED BEFORE IT STARTED

Ben Domenech - remember him, right?

Well, look at what the Washington Post (which has increasingly turned into a hackpiece for the Bush Administration) wrote today:

Ben Domenech Resigns

"In the past 24 hours, we learned of allegations that Ben Domenech plagiarized material that appeared under his byline in various publications prior to washingtonpost.com contracting with him to write a blog that launched Tuesday. An investigation into these allegations was ongoing, and in the interim, Domenech has resigned, effective immediately. When we hired Domenech, we (unlike the rest of the world) were not aware of any allegations that he had plagiarized any of his past writings. In any cases where allegations such as these are made, we will continue to investigate those charges thoroughly in order to maintain our journalistic integrity. Plagiarism is perhaps the most serious offense that a writer can commit or be accused of. (Save for writing something genuine). Washingtonpost.com will do everything in its power to verify that its news and opinion content is sourced completely and accurately at all times. We appreciate the speed and thoroughness with which our readers and media outlets surfaced these allegations. Despite the turn this has taken, we believe this event, among other things, testifies to the positive and powerful role that the Internet can play in the the practice of journalism. We also remain committed to representing a broad spectrum of ideas and ideologies in our Opinions area.
Jim Brady, Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

Of corse, the Powers That Be will see to it WaPo (Washington Post) will not be permitted to be ridiculed as CBS was when Dan Rather ran the Bush National Guard story last fall (never mind that the "background check" was much more nonexistent in the WaPo case than in the 60 Minutes II case, and that conservatives, by constantly attacking the "MSM" as biased, are implicitly holdings themselves out as beacons of journalistic and blogospheristic integrity). Domenech now awaits his martyrdom. He will be portrayed as the victim of a cruel Washington Establishment (actually, Bush Establishment) paper that is part of a left-wing conspiracy. Of course, these conspirators conspired to hire him in the first place, but those who matter will cry that this act was all a setup, just as they have claimed that Nixon was framed in Watergate.

As for Mr. Domenech, he will be "banned" to that special place where Republican potty-mouths, perjurers, crooks, and plagiarizers always seem to find a home. Why, I can hear Rupert Murdoch calling him right about now... After all, don't we need plagiarizers to balance out all of the non-plagiarizers?

BIG(OT) BEN

Some Readers See Red Over Post.com's New Blogger

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer and Bush Administration Fellater
Friday, March 24, 2006
Page C07

The Washington Post Co.'s Web operation has touched off an online furor by hiring as a blogger a 24-year-old former Bush administration aide who co-founded a conservative site and recently referred to Coretta Scott King as a "communist." (This comment reminds me of Talia Shire's imploring everyone around her to "protect the family" in Godfather III - a seriously underrated film, by the way. What family? Sonny - dead. Fredo - dead. Vito - dead. Kay -divorced from Michael. Vito's wife - dead. Tom Hagan - oh, let's not even go there. What does it mean to call someone a "communist" anymore? It's like calling someone a Jacobite).

Ben Domenech, an editor at the conservative Regnery Publishing, said he regrets the King reference, which he insists was tongue-in-cheek, and that the reaction to his new "Red America" blog is "a little meaner" than he expected. (That's the problem with buffoons - they say that their remarks were just "tongue-in-cheek"- which raises the question of why they "regret" them - but their real problem is that the remark was the verbal/written equivalent of the buffoon's tongue being unwantedly IN someone's cheek!)

More than 1,000 people and a Democratic member of Congress have sent the newspaper letters of complaint. The decision to hire Domenech was made by Washingtonpost.com, an Arlington-based division that works with the newspaper but is editorially independent.
Jim Brady, executive editor of Washingtonpost.com, said Domenech was hired because "we were completely unrepresented by a social conservative voice." He said his goal "is to provide voices from as many perspectives as possible" (time to hire a Neo Nazi!) and that Domenech is not intended to balance anyone in particular on his staff (no, he was just intended to balance all of the non-social conservatives IN GENERAL, just as Clint Eastwood told Meryl Streep in The Bridges of Madison County, to her laughter that he loved people a great deal - just no one in particular).

Domenech is "controversial" and the fact that liberals object to his hiring "shouldn't really be a shock to anybody," Brady said.

Said Domenech: "I'm there to do opinion. That's what I do. I'm not a journalist."

In a letter yesterday, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said: "Balanced coverage and ideologically diverse editorials have long been hallmarks of responsible journalism. If The Post would like to appear evenhanded, I strongly suggest the Web site launch a similarly partisan liberal blog, 'Blue America.' "

Domenech, who was home-schooled (in the immortal words of Fred Gwynne, "that would explain the.... hostility) by his mother in South Carolina and Virginia, says he began writing for the conservative publication Human Events when he was 15 and continued until he left to attend the College of William & Mary. He was an intern and researcher for the Bush White House, served as a speechwriter for Tommy Thompson, then the health and human services secretary, and then spent two years working for Sen. Jon Cornyn (R-Tex) (who evidently was not mean enough for Domenech, improbable as that may sound).

Late yesterday, the liberal Web sites Daily Kos and Atrios posted examples of what appeared to be instances of plagiarism from Domenech's writing at the William & Mary student paper. Three sentences of a 1999 Domenech review of a Martin Scorsese film were identical to a review in Salon magazine, and several sentences in Domenech's piece on a James Bond movie closely resembled one in the Internet Movie Database. Domenech said he needed to research the examples but that he never used material without attribution and had complained about a college editor improperly adding language to some of his articles. (see next post for a follow-up).

Domenech is a board member and one of three founders of RedState.com, which bills itself as a "Republican community Weblog." Under his regular pseudonym, Augustine, he questioned President Bush's decision to attend King's funeral because she is (was?) a "communist."

"I regret using the term because I think it's been way overblown," Domenech said. But he said King worked with organizations affiliated with communists (as did our own government) in the 1950s and 1960s. Brady called it "a silly comment" but said he is satisfied with Domenech's admission of error.

As Augustine, Domenech has engaged in numerous personal attacks, some of which were compiled by the blog Dragonfire. Domenech has called cartoonist Ted Rall a "steaming bag of pus" (well, gotta love that one); said Teresa Heinz Kerry looks like an "oddly shaped egotistical ketchup-colored muppet"; called Pat Robertson a "senile, crazy old fool" (ditto); and described Post.com's "White House Briefing" columnist Dan Froomkin as "an embarrassment."

Liberal bloggers, some of whom have been criticizing The Post since its editorial page backed the war in Iraq, have expressed varying degrees of outrage over Domenech's hiring. Many say there is a false equivalence in hiring a Republican political activist to balance Post bloggers, such Froomkin, who are viewed as left-leaning but have journalistic backgrounds.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote that he is "embarrassed for The Post" and that the editors' explanation "doesn't cut it. If they want to make a blogger Crossfire with a firebreather on the left and on the right, they should do it. . . . But here they've just been played by bullies and played for fools."

John Amato of Crooks and Liars wrote that The Post "continues to become more and more a mouthpiece for the GOP by hiring a right-wing blogger."

Domenech said his views are his own. "I part with the president on a whole host of issues," he said. "I consider myself a conservative blogger but not a Bush loyalist."

Now, get ready for the next post!

RANK HYPOCRISY

On April 1, U.S. News' annual "Graduate School Rankings" issue will hit newsstands across North America. The contents of this issue that U.S. News deem suitable for web publication will be posted at http://www.usnews.com at 12:00 A.M., 4/1/2006 ("Have we not heard the chimes at mid-night?")

Because the law profession, and in particular, the industry through which one must navigate to gain entry to this profession (law school) is pickled more in artificiality than in substance, the rankings for law schools (which rank schools based on criteria such as reputation among other schools; reputation among judges and attorneys; student to faculty ratio; median LSAT range; median GPA; acceptance rate; library volumes; % employed at graduation; % employed nine months after graduation) are, so to speak, the proverbial NutraSweet on the pickle.

Since we live in a fantasy world, however, these rankings are monitored with keen interest, by both the law schools themselves, by prospective employers, and by prospective, current and former students.

The usage by prospective students of these rankings as a proxy for how "good" a school is is eminently understandable. While almost every law school, a few years back, signed on to a letter exhorting applicants to, in effect, "ignore" the U.S. News Rankings (because, the schools said, the rankings attempted to quantify that which could not be quanitified), the schools have not given students a compelling reason to heed this exhortation. Why?

As an initial matter, the literature provided from law schools' admission offices describes the law schools and "what they have to offer" in perfunctory and desultory terms. In other words, the schools do not provide students with a sense of what "unquantifiable qualities" they possess that U.S. News "leaves out."

Secondly, students have tuned out the message of the schools' letter because the letter is the vertiginous height of hypocrisy. One of the few pieces of useful information that the schools do provide is data concerning admission rates by LSAT score and GPA. Every law school in America ascribes significantly higher weight to the LSAT than it does to GPA, and every school ascribes almost exclusive weight to the LSAT and GPA, as opposed to, say, um, anything else. Even when we look at how the schools' "affirmative action" programs work, while it is true that "set-asides" are admitted with lower LSAT scores than are "non-set-asides," the LSAT score is still the dispositive factor for the set-aside. In other words, assuming that a "set-aside" can gain admission with, say, an LSAT score that is 6 points lower than a non-set-aside, if the set-aside receives a score that is 7 points lower - a mere one point difference - he will likely not be admited - just as a non-set-aside will likely not be admitted if he receives an LSAT score that is 1 point below the median. What a wonderful system - a discriminatory system that is linked by a discriminatory and irrelevant test.

But back to my point about hypocrisy. The schools regale us to regard them as more than mere "numbers." Why should we, though, when their own data makes it irrefutably clear that they refuse to regard US as anything more than mere numbers? The schools, in their propaganda, tell us that they are not guided solely by numerical considerations. Students have seen through these lies, and have every right to pay no heed to the words of hypocrites and liars.

Of course, if the U.S. News rankings had no significant implications - either for schools or students - the students' slapping the schools' pap would amount to little more than a slap on the wrist. Students would pick schools in accordance with the rankings, but, since the rankings were not deemed of value by society, the schools would be able to conduct their disingenuous business without significant disturbance.

As everyone knows, though, the rankings (not because they SHOULD) have TREMENDOUS importance. Why? Reason #1 - Yep, you got it: Because the SCHOOLS assign the rankings this importance. If you don't believe me, Google the words "Brian Leiter" and "University of Texas." Leiter has written extensively about the sheer servility these schools have to the rankings, and the laughable extent the schools go to flat-out lie about their numbers so as to increase their rankings. Of course, if the schools meant what they said about the rankings being of no importance, such manipuation would be unnecessary.

I know, I know. The schools, were they ever to acknowledge such mendacity, would justify it by saying, "We have to do this. The students are making us. They are the ones who are going number shopping. Since the number shopping creates and maintains a system wherein much money is at stake - a one-place drop in the rankings could cause a school to lose thousands of dollars of application money - we have no choice but to be slaves to the rankings."

But since we all know that the law schools aren't in the business of education for the application money, for the prestige, or for the extra money that flows into their coffers on account of the cachet that a high U.S. News ranking gives them, surely THAT explanation can't be the reason why the schools are slaves to the rankings, now can it. Can it?

Bottom line: students, employers, U.S. News, and the schools are all in it for the money. But only the schools will not admit this. After all, teaching is "God's work," and those who speak in the name of God NEVER serve him and mammon at the same time.

TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL

Will Durst
WorkingForChange.com
03.16.06


"Impeachment? Hell no, impalement. Why are we sick of George W. Bush? Pick a reason.

I don't know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, right-wing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting, infrastructure destroying, hysterical, history defying, finger-pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking, collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clear-cutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture outsourcing, "so-called" compassionate- conservative, women's rights eradicating, Medicare-cutting, uncouth, spiteful, boorish, vengeful, noxious, homophobic, xenophobic, xylophonic, racist, sexist, ageist, fascist, cashist, audaciously stupid, brazenly selfish, lethally ignorant, journalist purchasing, genocide ignoring, corporation kissing, poverty inducing, crooked, coercive, autocratic, primitive, uppity, high-handed, domineering, arrogant, inhuman, inhumane, insolent, know-it-all, snotty, pompous, contemptuous, supercilious, gutless, spineless, shameless, avaricious, poisonous, imperious, merciless, graceless, tactless, brutish, brutal, Karl Roving, backward thinking, persistent vegetative state grandstanding, nuclear option threatening, evolution-denying, irony deprived, depraved, insincere, conceited, perverted, pre-emptory invading of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 911, 35 day vacation taking, bribe soliciting, incapable, inbred, hellish, proud for no apparent reason, smarty pants, loudmouth, bullying, swell headed, ethnic cleansing, ethics eluding, domestic spying, medical marijuana busting, kick backing, Halliburtoning, New Deal disintegrating, narcissistic, undiplomatic, blustering, malevolent, demonizing, baby seal clubbing, Duke Cunninghamming, hectoring, verbally flatulent, pro-bad, anti-good, Moslem baiting, photo-op arranging, hurricane disregarding, oil company hugging, judge packing, science disputing, faith based mathematics advocating, armament selling, nonsense spewing, education ravaging, whiny, unscrupulous, greedy exponential factor fifteen, fraudulent, CIA outing, redistricting, anybody who disagrees with them slandering, fact twisting, ally alienating, betraying, god and flag waving, scare mongering, Cindy Sheehan libeling, phony question asking, just won't get off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, two-faced, inept, callous, menacing, oppressive, vulgar, antagonistic, brush clearing, suck-up, showboating, tyrannizing, peace hating, water and air and ground and media polluting -- which is pretty much all the polluting you can get -- deadly, illegal, pernicious, lethal, haughty, venomous, virulent, ineffectual, mephitic, egotistic, bloodthirsty, incompetent, hypocritical, did I say evil, I'm not sure if I said evil, because I want to make sure I say evil... EVIL, cretinous, fool, toad, buttwipe, lizardstick, cowardly, lackey imperialistic tool slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could just spit. Impeachment, hell no. Impalement.
Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people's justice."

*******************************************************************************
I feel compelled to note that I have not seen any member of the Bush Administration club a baby seal, nor have I heard any news reports that any such person has done so.

THE GAME'S AFOOT

"The Game's Afoot," Shakespeare once told us, as did General Chang in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Chang, of course, was played by the supremely underrated actor Christopher Plummer, who plays a prominent role in Spike Lee's new movie "Inside Man," opening today. This may be the first movie that I am genuinely enthused about seeing that has come out this year. While I have my problems with Mr. Lee, who himself seems to have problems with certain ethnic groups, including my own (he especially dislikes the fact that Holocaust documentaries win Best Picture prizes - why this fact should suffuse one with anti-Semitic feelings is not entirely clear, nor is the old saw that "the Jews own Hollywood" much of a powerful laugh line anymore, I think. What owns "Hollywood" is what executives - Jewish, goyim, whatever, think people want to see), he at least is forthright in his expression of those problems. Yes, he is disingenuous as well, but those on the right who attack him are disingenuous AND simultaneously not forthright, nor have they attempted, in their own way as Lee sometimes has, to seriously/creatively discuss the state of race/ethnic relations in America.
If this argument leaves you unmoved, then consider this: as long as the Bill O'Reillys, Bill Bennetts, Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world exist, the Spike Lees of the world MUST be allowed to exist and to speak their mind if we are to have anything resembling an exchange of ideas in this country-healthy or otherwise. The former group's hatred of minorities, I think is hate for hate's sake - yet this group will deny that any such hate exists. Perhaps Lee is one little step above the evolutionary ladder than these Cro-Magnons. Make of that what you will.

Anyway, "Inside Man" has been described as less of a "Spike Lee Joint" (i.e. polemical) than a "genre film" (bank heist film) with some play at the "Joint," so to speak. I particularly like one scene and how that "Joint" scene is described by Boston Globe film critic Wesley Morris:

"One of the bank's hostages is Vikram (the excellent Waris Ahluwalia), a young Sikh whom the robbers release early with a message tied around his neck. The NYPD officers on the scene assume he's Arab and that the message is a bomb. They rough him up, then swipe his turban. When Frazier (Denzel Washington) and Mitchell (detectives) interrogate him later in a booth at a diner, Vikram refuses to discuss the heist until his turban is returned, then condemns his harassment. When he's done, Washington says, "But I bet you can still get a cab." In this single moment, which is more vivid than almost all of "Crash," we see the sad modern hierarchy of American bigotry."

Mr. Morris, I should point out, is black. I should also point out that the most enthusiastic praise of "Crash" came not from black film reviewers, but from white ones, who described the film as hopelessly "bleak." It was not. The seeds of optimism were sprinikled throughout that film like so many Afghan poppies. Certain groups feel comforted by this. The above-described scene eschews optimism - it tells it like it is.

In other words, scratch "Inside Man" off the list of potential Best Picture nominees. Not that you, despite the great reviews it's received, ever had it there to begin with.

WHAT WOULD XENU DO?

Scientologists aren't just bleatin' about thetans today. Their most visible, and visibly embarrassing spokesman, Tom Cruise, has threatened to refrain from promoting his newest movie, Mission Impossible 3, should Comedy Central (owned by Viacom, which also owns Paramount, distributor of MI3), air re-runs of the infamous (and hilarious) episode of "Trapped in the Closet," which quite satisfyingly mocked Tom Cruise and his so-called religion. Mr. Tough Guy knows he has no chance of actually prevailing upon a defamation lawsuit premised upon the claim that the show libeled him or invaded his privacy, so he has chosen to resort to the method of the gutternsnipe, to declare that either there shall be no criticism of his movie, or that the American public will not be honoured with his presence as he shills for his latest movie.

As the English say, "Whatever happened to letting an umbrella be your smile?" Cruise's attempt to shut up Comedy Central (an attempt which was all too successfull; Comedy Central should be ashamed) has merely brought more attention to the episode and brought him into that much more ridicule. Cruise, like would-be censors everywhere, though, would destroy his "reputation" and his "religion" to "save" it.

And this is a religion that is the definition of "not worth saving," one which has only not been able to supplant Catholicism as, in Christopher Hitchens' words, "the biggest retardant of human and social development in the past 1,000 years" because it has only been around for a few decades and because its so-called doctrines make Catholic Church orthodoxy sound like Voltaire. (Of course, Scientologists can dispute all of these criticisms by making more about their "religion" available, but they refuse to do this. This "religion" is the only major religion where not only memership is privileged; you have to BE a member (read: pay by the hour) to find out what membership entails. As a favorite Star Trek friend once said, "Knowledge should be free to all." Cf."Nothing disinfects like sunshine," but the sun of information of Scientology will not shine upon the uwaashed masses unless they open their wallets).

Those courts unlucky enough to hear claims involving the "Church," as a litigant - to hear these claims spouted by Scientology litigators - must, by the end of the experience, feel like they've undergone the mental equivalent of being molested of a Catholic priest. One such court (a federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia), in 1995, held that Scientology had no right to an order enjoining the publication of documents describing the religion that a former member had given to the press. The Court offered this observation, among other choice observations:

"A second related argument regards the alleged spiritual harm claimed by the Scientology that will befall Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike from reading the documents. Scientology claims that premature exposure of the documents to non-Scientologists (and even to Scientologists who have not reached the requisite OT level) will result in "devastating, cataclysmic spiritual harm." According to the church's dogma, founder L. Ron Hubbard (a man with a documented history of committing fraud against the government) taught that disclosure of these documents to anyone who had not progressed through the necessary spiritual prerequisites could cause profound spiritual harm to the person prematurely exposed." Non-Scientologists will also be harmed because premature exposure will interfere with their "personal spiritual progress." Id. p. 11.

This argument has no merit. We reside in a country which allows individuals and organizations to confront the risk of harm, spiritual or otherwise, in the face of protected speech. The First Amendment represents a conscious and explicit trade-off which the Founding Fathers made between paternalistic protection from "harmful" thoughts and free access to information. Where statutorily and constitutionally protected speech is concerned, our system permits an individual's fate to be sealed by the individual's choices rather than governmental monitoring."

Read what the judge said. President Bush, who probably mocks Scientology, actually has a lot in common with the Scientologists: both claim that they are unfairly portrayed as stupid, brainwashed, empty-vessel zombies highly susceptible to being duped or misled by charlatans. The portrayal is accurate in each case. More to the point, though, the degree to which both believe that WE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC are stupid, brainwashed empty vessel zombies far exceeds the degree to which both believe that they are perceived as such.

WHO WOULD ___________ TORTURE?

A survey taken last year revealed some not-so-startling results:


Survey by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press Oct. 12-24, 2005; nationwide survey conducted among 2,006 adults

Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?

1.Total public 2. Total Catholic 3. secular

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Don’t know/refused
1. 15% 31% 17% 32% 5%
2. 21% 35% 16% 26% 4%
3. 10% 25% 16% 41% 4%

Of course, Pope Bendict XVI and Pope John Paul II have inveighed, using what counts for the Catholic Church as eloquent reasoning, against torture of terrorist suspects, and many Catholics at least feign to be spiritually guided by these men. But, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., so famously said, "A page of history is worth a volume of logic." "Religious" people know how their empires were built, who was crushed to build them, and how they were crushed. Religion, sorry to say, is, at least in this country, organized, tax-exempt bigotry that is the only institution beside the state itself that has really successfully claimed, historically speaking (and can even successfully claim in the history of this country) the legitimate usage of violence as a means of maintaining social order.

And nothing is worse than when a religion fees threatened, as Catholicism (and white male Protestantism) claim to do now, even though it has the hatronage of the most overtly faux-religious President in modern times. It is at the point when religion feels (or claims to feel) most threatened that its tentacles of ignorance, superstition and fear probe at their most pierceing, leaving entropy where once life resided.

As Christopher Hitchens once said (and he could have been speaking of any number of religions, if only history had worked out just a little differently), there has been no greater agent for the retardation of human social and intellectual development in the past 2000 years than the Catholic Church.

If I were the Church, I would not want to extend this dubious honor into the third millennium

IN CASE IT COMES DOWN TO IT...

As we all know, the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (does the word "Terrorist" refer to the object of the program or to its creator?) has been used, at least in part, solely for domestic security surveillance.

The Supreme Court directly addressed the issue of whether a warrantlesss domestic surveillance program violates the 4th Amendment. 8-0, the Court concluded that the program did:

Syllabus
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
407 U.S. 297
United States v. United States District Court
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 70-153 Argued: February 24, 1972 --- Decided: June 19, 1972
The United States charged three defendants with conspiring to destroy, and one of them with destroying, Government property. In response to the defendants' pretrial motion for disclosure of electronic surveillance information, the Government filed an affidavit of the Attorney General stating that he had approved the wiretaps for the purpose of
gather[ing] intelligence information deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of the Government.
On the basis of the affidavit and surveillance logs (filed in a sealed exhibit), the Government claimed that the surveillances, though warrantless, were lawful as a reasonable exercise of presidential power to protect the national security. The District Court, holding the surveillances violative of the Fourth Amendment, issued an order for disclosure of the overheard conversations, which the Court of Appeals upheld.

Note this:
Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which authorizes court-approved electronic surveillance for specified crimes, contains a provision in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3) that nothing in that law limits the President's constitutional power to protect against the overthrow of the Government or against "any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government."


The Government relies on § 2511(3) in support of its contention that "in excepting national security surveillances from the Act's warrant requirement, Congress recognized the President's authority to conduct such surveillances without prior judicial approval."

Held:
1. Section 2511(3) is merely a disclaimer of congressional intent to define presidential powers in matters affecting national security, and is not a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillances. Pp. 301-308. [p298]

Note how nothing in the AUMF signed into law shortly after Sept. 11th (the resolution allowing the President to use military force, which he says was Congress' way of saying, "violate the 4th Amendment") authorizes court-approved (let alone NOT-court approved) surveillance for any crimes, and note how nothing in the AUMF says the President is not limited by the Constitution in his ability to protect us against overthrow, or clear and present danger to structure and existence. In other words, the President, based on holding (1), doesn't even have the merely precatory Congressional language argument going for him, let alone the argument that Congress ACTUALLY intended to let him break the law. (In other words, he can't even argue that there was a disclaimer - he can't even argue a losing issue).
2. The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case. Pp. 314-321; 323-324.
(a) The Government's duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression. Pp. 314-315.
(b) The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security suveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch, without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.
(c) Resort to appropriate warrant procedure would not frustrate the legitimate purposes of domestic security searches. Pp. 318-321.
444 F.2d 651, affirmed.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEWART, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 324. BURGER, C.J., concurred in the result. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 335. REHNQUIST, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. [p299]

This was because he was one of Nixon's goons in the Attorney General's office before coming on to the Court. He no doubt would have been the lone dissenting voice. Rehnquist never met a Fourth Amendment violation he didn't love.

The Court, in the opinion (often referred to as the "Keith" case, since one of the actual defendants - not the nominal defendant - the District Court - which rendered a decision adverse to the government), explicitly left open the question of whether its holding applied to foreign intelligence surveillance (defined as where at least one party to the conversation is speaking from a location outside of the U.S.)

Well, the government didn't want the Court to have the opportunity to let the Court actually decide a case on this point that could be potentially adverse to it, so in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was created. This Act creates a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, before which the government must present an application for a warrant that contains sufficient facts to convince the FISA judge (who is roughly equivalent in the federal judicial hierarchy, in terms of power, to a district court judge), that the surveillance (search) is justified. If the search is justified, the judge will issue the warrant, and the search can be conducted. Warrants are almost ALWAYS granted by this court. This means that the DE FACTO (and de jure) standard the judges use to assess whether the grant of a warrant is justified is not the normal criminal law standard of probable cause, but rather something less - much less - most likely an "any evidence" standard. Warrants can even be applied for retroactively - up to 72 hours after a search has beeen conducted, and retroactive warrants are almost always granted.

When the FISA Court was created, the Court only could grant warrants for searches - that is to say, for things such as allowing interceptions of telephone calls. Such interceptions are considered searches because they involve the act of looking for something and finding it without physically taking dominion and control over it. In the late 1990's, Congress amended the Court's powers such that the court could grant warrants for seizures (of property and persons) as well.

When Republicans (who believed that Bush had not broken the law by violating FISA in that he did not apply for warrants for searches OR seizures under his terrorist surveillance program) tried defending his (perfectly lawful) actions, they claimed that, yes, Clinton violated FISA too (at the same time claiming FISA was irrelevant, of course, and while pretending to, of course, hold Clinton up as a moral exemplar), by stating that he ordered the seizure of Aldrich Ames' papers in violation of FISA. At the time of these seizures, FISA did not require that such seizures required a warrant; nor did any other law; Clinton's actions may have been of dubious legality, but they were not PATENTLY illegal.

Here is why Bush's violation of FISA, in addition to being illegal, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In 1952, the Supreme Court decided Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer ("The Steel Seizure Case."). The events leading up to that case involved Harry Truman deciding to, instead of letting steel workers and their managers settle a strike under existing legal provisions (and under a recently passed law that REQUIRED that said law's provisions, and no other law or act could dispose of the strike, end it prematurely, or otherwise affect it in any manner), order the federal government to seize (put under federal government control) certain steel mills. He simply felt that the strike was taking too long, and that the resultant non-production of steel was resulting in a shortage of war materiel for the Korean war. The steel executives complied with his order, reluctantly, but immediately filed an injunction in federal court declaring that the seizure was an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers, as well as a taking of their property without just compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment. The case got to the Supreme Court quite quickly. By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that the seizure was unconstitutional. Not many people remember who wrote the majority opinion or what it says. The opinion that has become to be recognized "the law" of this case is the concurring opinion of Justice Jackson, who provided a seemingly simple, but eloquent framework, for analyzing the case.

Jackson observed that the Constitution itself - its text - and any reasonable implications drawn therefrom - simply did not provide the answer to the question of whether Truman's actions were constitutional (yes, textualists, sometimes, judges DO have to "legislate from the bench.") Since this was so, he said, and since no prior Supreme Court case was illuminative, he said that resolution of the question must necessarily turn on something that IS in the Constitution. That "something" was Congress' power to legislate rules pertaining to the resolution of labor disputes involving non-federal employees (derived from its power to regulate interstate commerce). Jackson said that when Congress passed/passses a law pursuant to a specific enumerated power (and the law that it passed in this case that Truman violated was such a law), assuming that the law is, ceteris paribus, constitutional, the President's ability to claim "Commander-in-Chief" powers (i.e. to ingore the law and to sub slientio declare it unconstitutional by taking the law into his own hands by, say, commandeering the steel mills) is "at its lowest ebb," meaning it SHOULD be and in fact is at its weakest. This is so because Congress, when it passes such a law, as it did in this case, not only passed a law pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, but passed a law that was a necessary and proper incident of its power to declare (and monitor) war. In other words, in the Steel Seizure case, Congress knew full well that it passed the law when the Korean War was going on, but nonetheless, as the body with the power to declare war, decided that the President was not above the law. Jackson, through this analysis, concluded that because Truman violated a specific constitutional law, Truman's power was at its lowest ebb, and that his seizure was unconstitutional in that it violated the separation of powers. Jackson further stated that if the President commits an act, claimed to have been committed pursuant to the "Commander in Chief" authority, and the act has neither been forbidden or permitted by Congress, the President's action MAY or MAY not be constitutional, depending upon, among other things, 1) whether the act really is effected pursuant to the President's Article II powers to conduct war (as opposed to the President's just saying it is); 2)whether the President's action, standing alone, violates any provision of the Constitution; and 3) whether the act has beeen historically sanctioned by Congress or the Court in the past. Jackson ended his analysis by stating that if the President commits an act that already HAS the approval from Congress in the form of a law making legal that act, the President is acting, as Commander in Chief, at the height of his powers.

Cases since Steel Seizure have more or less followed Jackson's analysis. Of course, now, we have at least one - if not two, three, or four - justices who believe that, contrary to their professed "strict constrictionist" views, the President's powers in time of war are extratextual and are derived from natural law. Of course, only the President has such powers to these Justices. The federal government does not, the Congress does not, and the judiciary does not - never mind the fact that the Constitution contains more verbiage pertaining to the powers of the Congress and federal government than it does to those of the President.

Under Justice Jackson's analysis (with a Keith gloss put on it), should the issue of whether the TSP is unconstitutional arise (and indeed it might; the case is already in several federal district courts), the answer, to me, is obvious: the program is unconstitutional in all aspects.

EITHER OR BORE

Perhaps because everyone around President Bush realizes he was a false choice, he has amped up his false-choice rhetoric to a truly prepsterous degree:

"Nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for the getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me. That's what they ought to be doing."
--Dumbya, yesterday

Bartcop.com replies as follows (I merely offer the quote; take it as you will):

"Nobody from the GOP has actually stood up and called for the lynching of every black man in America (although some have called for the killing of every homosexual in America). You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the GOP believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say, "We're gonna hang every black man we can find. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me." If that's what all Republicans believe, who don't they have the courage to say the words out loud?

I think Bart is missing the point. He is suggesting, through his analogy, that some or most Democrats want to, at a minimum, stop ILLEGAL spying ("The Terrorist Surveillance Program") AND want to go further (stop spying on Al-Qaeda at all), but that, if these cowardly Democrats said so, the public would be outraged and turn on them, just as the public at-large would be outraged if people from the GOP called for lynching of black people.

Here's the difference: polling has shown that a slight majority of America believes that the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (the one that violates FISA) is illegal and improper. To therefore assume that if Democrats came out against it en masse would all of a sudden turn off "the public" (who, for purposes of this discussion, includes Democratic voters, 75% of whom disapprove of this program)? If the Democrats came out strongly against this program, my goodness, people would respond favorably, because people would finally see evidence of the Dems growing a spine!

For all of the talk about how Russ Feingold didn't win the succor of, and didn't endear himself to, the Washington punditocracy with his censure motion, a rasmussenreports.com poll states that 38% of America supports censure and 45% does not. Rasmussen predicted the margin of Bush's popular vote victory (and the popular vote percentages) more accurately than ANY major polling organization in America, and it is consistently more accurate on a wide array of issues than any other organization. In the cosmic order of things, could - could it just - could it just be the POLITICIANS who are out of touch, and could it be their constantly telling us ("projection") that WE'RE the ones out of touch that is responsible for people not reacting sometimes to Russ Feingold-type measures the way the Russ Feingolds of the world want them to?

I offer as Exhibit A in support of my thesis Hurricane Katrina. The devastation happened so fast, so utterly, so inexorably, so irrevocably, that even the spin-shellacked Fox News Room's stable of GOP talking heads from Denny Fatstert's House could not spin away the images people had seared into their minds of an entire city going under.

Similarly, Feingold's censure motion, at least to people who don't follow Washington news obsessively, appears to have come out of nowhere. Peope heard about it and digested it before Republicans were able to call him a terrorist. Likewise, John Kerry's decisive win in the 1st debate in 2004 (the win that brought him back into the race) was such an early rout that even Karl Rove evidently was having difficulty communicating with Bush through whatever bulky wire contraption Bush appeared to be wearing.

Message to Democrats: grow some reflexes, some intuition, and some initiative, in addition to growing a spine.

By the way, the real observation to be made from Chimpy's comment is that the comment, like so many of his comments, is couched in the language of false choice: the very language implies that Democrats have only two options - to accept his program and sanction his lawbreaking, OR to NOT SPY ON AL-QAEDA AT ALL. Of course, there is a third option: to spy on Al-Qaeda in a manner not violative of the Constitution. The non-false-choice option should be the starting point, not the ending point, of Democratic criticisms of Bush's actions. Democrats can learn the art of criticism by implication or omission by saying: "I propose a spying program that is legal and that is sanctioned by Congress. When we offer my proposal, the American people can listen to President Bush as he tries to explain why breaking the law is actually and morally needed to capture terrorists," instead of saying, "Bush lied, he didn't consult us, he broke the law, oh, and by the way, now that you asked, we do need to have some kind of lawful spying program - I'll get back to you on my ideas about that some day."

Bush also loves brandishing the false-choice stick by saying "Some say we should have done nothing after 9/11." "Some say we should wait for our enemies to come to us." First of all, the man doesn't listen to radio, TV or newspapers, and gets the "news" from his advisers' brainwashing him, so he isn't even in a position to know who these hypothetical "some" are. Who are they, George? The flying spaghetti monsters in your nightmares? More to the point, all of these comments represent the first comment in a series of remarks that constitutes a false-choice paragraph, such as "Some say we should have done nothing after 9/11. Well, I disagree. I like knocking down my own straw man. You see, on that day, America - and by that, I mean me - changed the way it viewed the world. We realized that oceans no longer protected us. Actually, America - but not me, of course, came to this realization over 200 years ago, but who cares about facts when you've got terra on your side! And so, on that day, when Ossama Hussein - I mean, Saddama bin Laden - attacked us, I realized that the only way to keep America secure was to fight (create) the terrorists over there (the Yanks are coming!) - never mind that we didn't actually do this and Osama escaped, so (the craeted terrorists would be too busy killing us over there AND plotting over there to kill us here) we wouldn't have to fight them over here. Wow! This last sentence, apart from being ridiculous, is actually a false choice within a paragraph that constitutes nothing BUT one big false choice. Nice work, Karl."