a raven attacking an eagle The Raven's Blog. May the better bird win.
Google


WWW The Raven's Blog

November 7
It's been five days since I wondered where this would go with challenging judges on political grounds in the DeLay trial. I spent the weekend in DeLay's district as well as being a tourist around other parts of the Houston area, but I can't tell this is foremost on anyone's minds. At the local daily, the Houston Chronicle, one columnist, Clay Robinson, made mention that the partisanship of judges might be a problem. I like some things about Texas. That's not one of them. Being able to be part of the small but intense crowd at the Houston Aeros game (American Hockey League, the top minor league) was one of the things I've liked. Walking out of a hockey arena and seeing palm trees was just weird. The main thing though is I was accurate in my sort of prediction, "sort of" because I suppose I was suggesting this could happen rather than saying it would.

However, there is something else where I feel justified in saying "I told you so", in this case on my personal site before I started this blog. Over in the quotes column today I added this from a Houston Chronicle editorial today: "It should give Americans of both parties pause when the assessment of ordinary citizens opposing the war, and that of the U.N. officials looking for weapons in Iraq, proves more reliable than the combined intelligence capability of the free world." I was one of those opponents before the invasion. As best I recall, about 30% of the public never bought Bush's sales pitch, and I feel confident in saying the majority opposed the war at least in part because they didn't think the evidence held up. There's a bigger point besides boasting about having been right. What will the effect be of intelligence agencies being so wrong or so misused, whichever you believe? What will the effect be of the government being so wrong or deceptive, again depending on which you believe, and war opponents being so much more accurate then the intelligence agencies, the government, and for that matter the mainstream and conservative media? I suggest all future administrations will have a tougher time selling the public on war, which generally is a good thing, but it isn't a positive for the public to start from the assumption the government is either wrong or lying. It may get harder to sell not just war, but also good things like, for example, energy efficiency or or anti-poverty initiatives.

Supporters of good ideas as well as bad ideas have to get past the point that it doesn't matter if government and media are in agreement when they have a record of being so wrong. Let us hope that once the country can get past the partisan bitterness and some basic level of trust, we'll realize that the credibility problem of the acting president is a function of having such a person as president and having such people surrounding him, and not something inherent to just anyone who might someday work in the White House. Unfortunately, I expect the next president will spend the whole first term just cleaning up Bush's mess, and even the second term and maybe the next president will have to focus on rebuilding American credibility both at home and abroad --- and that's assuming they succeed in rebuilding it. Otherwise, we will be talking about the spectre of Iraq they way we did about Vietnam into the 90's, not to mention the revival of Vietnam's divisiveness in the last election.

November 2
I'm driving down to Texas as I write this, on the same day I read in the print edition of the Kansas City Star that Tom DeLay was successful in getting another judge because the first judge had given money to Democrats. To a degree I don't blame him (though it sounded from the article like he was his usual arrogant smirking self), but I also know he's trying to get a judge who is dependent on Republican campaign cash. It struck me because Minnesota's law preventing judges from running as partisans, collecting large campaign donations, and addressing specific issues, was recently thrown out by the US Supreme Court (but conservatives don't believe in judicial activism, remember that when they, um, judicially activate).

Besides the change in Tom DeLay's judge, I thought of the recent revelation of one of Harriet Miers' scandals, where a judge she gave money to put her crony on a commission that bought her land for ten times market value. I also was reminded of the debate over the nomination of Priscilla Owen, who took a wad of campaign cash from Enron when she ran for the Texas Supreme Court and then ruled in Enron's cases in Enron's favor. I really don't want that in Minnesota, and I start to question the whole idea of electing judges. If Tom DeLay can't get a fair trial from a Democratic judge, can the prosecution get a fair trial from a Republican judge? Isn't it obvious having judges identified by party is just going to undercut the judicial system? One of the smart things Minnesota did was set up a commission for judicial appointments. Think about if federal judges were chosen that way. The fighting over nominations is consistently over nominees with some combination of extreme views, low qualifications, and ethical problems. The result is a judiciary that feels more political pressure than ever, and no originalist can tell me the founding fathers intended the courts to be a branch of one political party.

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who successfully prosecuted Nazis at Nuremberg for the crime of aggressive war, thereby establishing the precedent that starting a war is, in and of itself, a war crime.

"A refusal to look back inevitably means moving forward in blindness."
Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, on the resistance of the Obama administration to investigating human rights abuses by the Bush administration.

"Why is it that strong women are so often called bullies and ballbreakers, while strong, opinionated men are often called, simply, Justice Scalia."
Salon editor Joan Walsh, on the bigoted attacks on Sonia Sotomayor already on the day of her announcement.

"In Minnesota, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has made military ballot protection a key priority of his Department. The result is that twice as many military ballots are actually cast, and half as many are rejected, as the national average in 2006."
The National Defense Committee, in an article on their web site praising Minnesota's efforts to encourage absentee voting by military personnel stationed overseas.

"We're seeing massive resistance to the cramdown proposal. That's a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to reschedule a mortgage on a primary residence. They're fighting this thing tooth and nail. Now the fact is, the people fighting it are the last people who should get the ear of anyone. And it goes to show me they haven't really learned any lessons. A lot of these folks--large banks, Wall Street firms--they have the attitude that "Heads I win, tails you lose." No matter what happens, we always get ours."
Rep. Keith Ellison, on how the bailed out banks are fighting against bankruptcy reform.

''Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis,. Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place.''
The late --- and correct --- Paul Wellstone, expressing opposition to repealing the law that prevented financial corporations from entering other types of financial business, like preventing commercial banks from becoming investment banks. This repeal was a large part of making the (collapsing) conglomerates possible.

"The facts revealed reflect the way the U.S. government has consistently tried to cover up the truth of Binyam Mohamed's torture. He was being told he would never leave Guantánamo Bay unless he promised never to discuss his torture, and never sue either the Americans or the British to force disclosure of his mistreatment."
Reprieve Director Clive Stafford Smith, speaking about a British court's ruling that the Bush administration tried to get Mohamed to plead guilty to something, anything, and keep quiet about his treatment as a condition of release.

"We spend hours and hours and hours arguing over $10 million amendments on the floor of the Senate, but there has been no discussion about who has been receiving this $3 trillion."
Sen. Bernie Sanders. I-VT, on the mostly unreported spending by the Federal Reserve to prop up the big financial corporations.

"The AIG scandal is significant and has resonated so powerfully because it is a microscope that enables the public to see what and who has wreaked the destruction that threatens their security and future and, most important of all, to realize that these practices haven't ended and the perpetrators haven't been punished. The opposite is true: those who caused the crisis continue to exert control over what happens and continue to have huge amounts of public money transferred in order to enrich them."
Glenn Greenwald, explaining why the AIG bonus scandal is both symbolic and important.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
Attorney General John Ashcroft, during a principals meeting about torture methods.

"There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales." Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, who surveyed scientific research from 1965-1979 and showed that contrary to what climate change deniers keep asserting, there was no consensus on global cooling. That means the point that climate scientists must be wrong now because they were wrong then is itself based on a false assumption.

"We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts."
statement on the web site of University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, responding to an assertion by global warming denier George Will that they said sea ice area is the same as 1979.

"It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known. But ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin, whose 200th birthday is coming up on February 12.

"The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That's just what creationists say can't happen."
evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, commenting on an experiment that was able to observe a mutation that changed one species into another.



Home       About       Contact       Archives       Quotes       A Strand of the Celtic Fringe       Sparkyferguson.net

This letter has been read by the acting president and approved as within his definition of national security.