Random tidbits for ostriches

With attribution and thanks to David Brin, Daily Kos diarist.

Facts that scream.

* Like the fact that, in Bill Clinton's day, we did not have to lower our recruitment standards, forcing our long-suffering Army to let in ex felons... or offer $20,000 signing bonuses to bribe new "volunteers." A sure sign that the nation is not behind this "war."
* Or the fact that only two (just two!) of our Army's brigades are currently fully trained, equipped and ready for actual war to defend this country! All the rest have been converted into counter insurgency urban swat teams. (One general said "Bill Clinton's U.S. Army could beat our present force with one hand tied behind its back.")
* If Bill Clinton was hiding so much, why did he cut government secrecy in half? If the Bushites are so responsible, why do they run from facts, from testifying, from oversight? Why have they multiplied government secrecy to levels ten times greater than when we were in a life death Cold War struggle against the Soviet KGB?
* In past wars, patriotic wealthy Americans stepped up, accepting the need to help pay for a struggle fought by other peoples’ sons. If we’re now "at war," how come the top neocon billionaires have just two priorities - increasing their tax cuts and getting no-bid, crony contracts to NOT deliver what’s needed in Iraq?

So, get off Clinton's back already. He got a blow job. You've given one. Get over it. Clinton hasn't been President since January 20, 2001 and you're still trying to blame him for everything that's wrong. Uh .. sure. Keep that up.

AMMO CAPSULE!

After inheriting surpluses from Clinton, Bush has run up over $3 TRILLION dollars in debt. Bush's FY2002 budget forecast understated the five-year deficit by $2.8 TRILLION dollars. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was 21.4% when Clinton took office and 18.5% when he left, but is now back up to 20.8%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 325% during the Clinton years but only 27% during the Bush years. The S&P 500 increased of 309% under Clinton and 9% under Bush. Economic growth was considerably higher under Clinton than under Bush and small businesses grew even faster than giant ones. Isn’t that what we want?

"What would you have said if Bill Clinton had --"

And then fill in the blank with something any conservative ought to find repulsive, if they did not have their head buried in the sand.

Like "losing" several billion dollars in cash, by the side of an Iraqi road.

Or "losing" a quarter of a million weapons in Iraq without even keeping their serial numbers.

Or "losing" several billion dollars worth of Iraqi oil per month...
...which is vastly more than the right wing screamed about, during the so-called "Oil-For-Food" scandal.


"What would you have said if this happened under Clinton?
If one thousandth of any of this had happened then?"

Notice how strenuously the Bushites have striven to strengthen the Presidency and insulate it from all supervision, oversight or duty - not only to Congress but the people - sending secrecy skyrocketing far beyond anything we saw in the Cold War. And ask yourself this. "Do you really want future Democratic presidents to have such power? Or do you feel that the Bushites are doing this because they don’t intend to ever let that happen?"

Now, on that torture thing - back to Harper's Magazine:


John Donne: Against the Abomination of Torture

Preached on April 17, 1625, on Easter Sunday, to the Congregation at St Paul’s Cathedral in London
[Image]
John Donne

Transgressors that put God’s organ out of tune, that discompose and tear the body of man with violence, are those inhuman persecutors who with racks and tortures and prisons and fires and exquisite inquisitions throw down the bodies of the true God’s servants to the idolatrous worship of their imaginary gods, that torture men into Hell and carry them through the inquisition into damnation. St Augustine moves a question, and institutes a disputation, and carries it somewhat problematically, whether torture be to be admitted at all, or no. That presents a fair probability which he says against it. We presume, says he, that an innocent man should accuse himself, by confession, in torture. And if an innocent man be able to do so, why should we not think that a guilty man, who shall save his life by holding his tongue in torture, should be able to do so?

And then, where is the use of torture? It is a slippery trial and uncertain (says Ulpian) to convince by torture. For many says (says St Augustine again) he that is yet but questioned, whether he be guilty or no, before that be known, is, without all question, miserably tortured. And whereas, many time, the passion of the Judge, and the covetousness of the Judge, and the ambition of the Judge, are calamities heavy enough upon a man that is accused. If the Judge knew that he were innocent, he should suffer nothing. If he knew he were guilty, he should not suffer torture. But because the Judge is ignorant and knows nothing, therefore the prisoner must be racked and tortured and mangled.

John Donne and the Outlawing of Torture

Recently I asked a clerical friend whether, considering the persistence of torture as a moral issue, he had thought of giving a sermon on the subject? He looked very uncomfortable and responded saying that his congregation was bipartisan and that he would be loathe to introduce a political issue as a sermon topic. It would fragment the congregation, he thought. Really?

I reject the notion that torture is a political issue of any sort. It is a great moral issue. And when those who have a clerical vocation fail to understand it and address it in those terms, they do their flock and themselves a great disservice.

Consider John Donne’s sermon of 1625. It was delivered as his Easter Sunday sermon, which is important. Then as now, the Easter service drew the biggest crowd of the year. The Easter sermon was the minister’s minute in the spotlight—the moment when he would reach his greatest audience and make his reputation. And we know from John Donne’s correspondence, he was concerned about another audience: the king, his entourage and the courts. When Donne rose to deliver this sermon, torture was a heated “political” issue in England. Under the Stuart monarchs, the use of torture was viewed as a royal prerogative (how little things change). It was administered by judges, particularly by the national security court of seventeenth century England, the so-called Court of Star Chamber. John H. Langbein’s important book, Torture and the Law of Proof gives us very clear guidance into how torture was prescribed and used.

Over a series of centuries, the genius of the English law had been steadily to restrict and limit the use of torture, until at this point, under King James, it was controlled by the king’s judges and limited in practice through a series of special writs. Which is to say, legally it was far more constrained than it is today under an Executive Order issued by King James’s understudy in allegedly Divine Right governance, George W. Bush.

Donne delivered a direct blow against this system, the use to which it was put, and the suffering it caused. He makes no equivocations. And in the end he delivers his blows against even the king’s judges who administer the system. No one viewed Donne as a “political figure.” Indeed, owing to his Catholic background and sympathies, he eschewed court politics. Nor in the end was there anything “political” about the question of torture—it was an issue of ethics and of faith.

Donne’s resolve is strong. He cites and relies on two classical authorities. And whereas they muddle and equivocate, he does not. St. Augustine, writing in book nineteen of the City of God said that “torture is indeed a thing to be lamented, and, if that were possible, to be watered with a fountain of tears.” But what follows is arguably the darkest and most ethically dubious moment in the entire work. Augustine pulls back from a condemnation of torture, accepting it as a part of man’s barbarity, and accepting even that a person might be forced to torture, and should not be held to have done wrong for it. Many centuries would pass before the Roman Church recognized the error in Augustine’s reasoning. Donne also cites Ulpian, the famous author of the civil law commentaries from the third century, who described the use of torture in great detail, and its evolution in the Roman legal system. Ulpian reminds us that torture began as a process authorized for use only against slaves, then it was applied to non-Roman citizens, and finally it applied to citizens as well. (How the past echoes even in today’s newspapers, in which we learn of the use of torture against Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen). In the end, Ulpian rejected torture, though his argument is morally indifferent. “Torture is a difficult and deceptive thing for the strong will resist and the weak will say anything to end the pain.” The law, Ulpian argued, must be a pursuit of the truth. Torture always leads into a cul de sac. Yet you would not think from hearing Donne that either of these authors had even a second’s hesitation in condemning torture. Certainly Donne does not.

Donne points to the ultimate irony of the use of torture, not to punish the guilty, but as a tool to extract information—when it is well established that doesn’t serve that end. He notes the immorality of this practice. John Donne was the most important clerical voice in England in his day. His opinion carried weight. Only three years after this sermon, following the assassination of the Duke of Buckingham, the lawyers and judges of England assembled in the Inns of Court in London to consider a special question put to them by the king. Was the practice of torture to be permitted by the common law?

And the judges met, deliberated and declared “upon their sacred honour, and the honour of England” that the answer was “no.” That marked the end of legalized torture in the English-speaking world… until the arrival of George W. Bush. And what hand did John Donne and his sermon have in this important moment in history? The answer is plain enough. And John Donne can stand as a solid model for men and women of faith today–to have courage, stand for their convictions, and not be cowed by the hollow charge of “politics.”

Back to me now.

Clinton had a blowjob and prevaricated. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice have all engaged knowingly in felonious, criminal acts that violate the law of this land since the Founding Fathers. You wouldn't want to go against the Founding Fathers, would you?

So, take a deep breath and forgive Clinton his blowjob. You've done it. Blowjobs, I mean. And then lied about having done that. So, you've done exactly what Clinton has done and for the same reasons. Have you committed felonies against the deepest convictions held by our Country for more than 225 years? No, you haven't. So, which is more important - being self righteous about Clinton having a little frisky fun isn't in the same realm, the same conversation, the same Universe as crushing people's emotional and physical state, as violating laws that George Washington and the other Founding Fathers spoke their word in favor of as being among the most important values of our Republic.

I'm not talking about the rest of what you've been ignoring. You're not able to handle it.