Democracy Now! (Marica "always worth watching"):
Headlines for April 26, 2005
- U.S. Clears Soldiers in Giuliana Sgrena Shooting
- It's Official: There Were No WMDs In Iraq
- US Pressures Out Top UN Human Rights Investigator
- NYC: 465 HIV+ Foster Children Used in Drug Trials
- Bolton Criticized For Exaggerating Threat Posed by Syria
- United Airlines Faces Largest Corporate Pension Default Ever
- Save the Children: Over 100,000 Girls Fighting In Wars
- NY Man Dies After Being Shot w/ Taser
- California Police On Trial For Pepper Spraying Protesters
God's Politics: Frist Fights Filibuster on Judicial Nominees in "Justice Sunday"
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist delivered a taped speech Sunday at an event called "Justice Sunday: Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith," in which he again threatened to ban Democrats from filibustering Bush's judicial nominees. We speak with preacher activist Jim Wallis, author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."
War Resister Pablo Paredes Denied Conscientious Objector Status
An investigating officer has recommended to deny Navy sailor Pablo Paredes' request for conscientious objector status. In addition, his request for Other than Honorable discharge in lieu of trial was also denied. His court martial is scheduled for May 11. Pablo Paredes he joins us on the line from California.
Bush Meets Longtime Saudi Ally in Crawford
President Bush met with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah for the first time in three years at his ranch in Crawford, Texas on Monday. The price of oil topped was the main topic of the talks. We speak with Middle East expert, professor As'ad AbuKhalil.
Remembering Farouk Abdel-Muhti: Three Year Anniversary of Detention of Palestinian Activist
Today marks the third anniversary of the arrest and imprisonment of Palestinian human rights activist Farouk Abdel-Muhti. He was jailed for two years without charge. He died last summer just three months after being released. We hear an excerpt of an address he gave the day after his release.
From Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler:
There's a word for Coulter's approach to the public; Ann Coulter is filled with contempt. It takes a special kind of contempt to write a book like her best-seller, Slander--a book that's defined by its endless wild statements and bizarre, multi-faceted "errors." As we've seen, Coulter's "mistakes" often show up in layers--layers that display her open contempt for our society's most basic values. For example, she closes Slander with a crazy screed about "liberals," who are said to be "savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie sport." But uh-oh! Coulter's generalization was built on a claim about the New York Times--a factual claim which turned out to be utterly false. But so what! Coulter said she'd change her "mistake" when the book appeared in paper. And sure enough, she did change her "mistake"--to something else that was blatantly bogus! Yes, there's only one word for the type of person who would produce such layers of misstatement. That person is filled with contempt for the truth--and for the people who purchase her books.
But just try to make the mainstream press corps speak back to Coulter's misstatements!
Coulter can mislead readers and make a joke of our discourse because the mainstream press corps allows it. Indeed, how far has the mainstream press corps gone to avoid confronting this pundit's contempt? Consider the way Coulter's book was reviewed by her favorite target, the reviled New York Times.
As we’ve seen, Slander's "mistakes" about the Times are legion--and they drip with contempt. The book begins with a silly claim about the paper's treatment of Tom DeLay. On page two, we get an absurd description of the Times letters page--a description any New York Times reader would recognize as laughably bogus. (Most Coulter fans don't read the Times; they had no way to know they were being deceived.) And yes, the book ends with another "mistake" about the Times--the "mistake" which set up that closing screed, which Coulter changed in paperback form to yet another "error."
The reviewer? Janet Maslin. Which is prompting for me to do what Jim made me agree to two Saturdays ago. (Sorry for the delay, in the best of times, my memory's not that great. These aren't the best of times.) That will contain links to Bob Somerby's posts (some of them) on Slander.
Lloyd notes this editorial from BuzzFlash, "The Myth of the Three Northeast Republican Moderates: They're Republicans, Stupid!:"
Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe like to cultivate the perception that they are Republican "moderates" with their Rhode Island and Maine constituents, reluctantly being pulled along by a right wing jihad. They kind of pretend that they are Quakers kidnapped by the marauding troops of Genghis Khan.
How the "down east" common sense plain folk of Maine and the Democrats of Rhode Island can fall for this charade is beyond BuzzFlash.
Oh, yeah, Chafee, Collins and Snowe, it appears to us from a distance (we have never met any of them), don't seem to be your rabid, psychotic Tom DeLay or Rick Santorum type of Republican. They actually seem like people who might be nice neighbors.
But they made two big mistakes.
(Click link prior to excerpt to continue reading.)
Marica e-mails this (language warning, may not be safe in all work environments so click on link at your own risk) from The Rude Pundit:
So, let's see if the Rude Pundit's got this straight: In James "Behold My Angelic Combover" Dobson's speech yesterday to the gathered parishioners who were in attendance for "Justice Sunday" (motto: Gonna Get Legislative On Your Asses), the bouncing ball of logic was careening around that Louisville church like a jackrabbit on a three-day meth binge. Apparently, Dobson learned everything he needed to know about the U.S. Constitution from his fourth-grade teacher, who may have been named Eunice Cobblower, but the Rude Pundit can't be sure because he's only watched the speech, thanks to the good people at Crooks and Liars. Quotes, thus, may be off a word or two. Said Dobson from Miss Cobblower's lawyerly erudition, "The Founding Fathers knew we are flawed individuals," and so they devised checks and balances between the branches of government. And then Dobson snarkily giggled that this was back during a time when you learned things a bit differently about the way government works, like say, when it was proper to lynch a niggrah in public, as opposed to in private.Now, here's the weirdness: see, Dobson's got a problem with the Supreme Court, or, at least, "five black-robed judges" who can tell us all what to do. Those judges, one should acknowledge, were put on the court by a majority vote of the Senate based on the appointments of (mostly Republican) presidents. So, apparently, the majority can be wrong, whether it's the majority of the Supreme Court or the majority of the Senate, elected, one may presume, by a majority of the people in a majority of the states. So the will of the majority must not be given such power, right? Right? Got it? No, no, you don't, you stupid, godless f**k, because then, we learn, the problem is that the minority of Democrats (and a few "spongy Republicans," as Dobson put it, apparently comparing them to that prominent animated starfish fellater in square pants) can block judges that they deem too radical. So the will of the majority must be obeyed or judges will make decisions regarding shit like prayer in school that are "opposed by more than 70% of the American people," according to Doc Jimmy Dob.
I'm way behind tonight, I know. I've spent the entire night working on one post and am waiting for a response before posting.
E-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.