The Elite Fluff Patrol continues to fly missions as Richard W. Stevenson demonstrates in "Bush Contends Partisan Critics Hurt War Effort" front paged on this morning's New York Times. We're not going to deal with his nonsense fluffing.
Last night, my intent was to write something on that speech. Reality intruded with the arrival of a friend bearing tapes of aired and unaired episodes of a show Ava and I have avoided reviewing. (No, not Earl!) To say I don't like the lead in that show is to put it mildly. Hacktress is another mild term for her. The set's a nightmare which wouldn't be a problem (many are) if they created anything out of the chaos. They don't. At least not anything of praise. But damned if it isn't getting praise.
I've avoided watching that trash because Hacktress can't act, never could act, never will be able to act. (Once, as a result of a hugely talented co-star, a director who pushes like crazy and a man who pushed her buttons -- and messed with her mind -- onscreen and off, Hacktress turned in a passble performance. Even then it was only passable.) The tapes were sent on to Ava but I doubt we'll be able to write a review of it this weekend.
I've taken a pass despite repeated requests from friends as well as e-mails on "When are you two going to review this show?" Readers of The Third Estate Sunday Review want a review. I don't like the Hacktress. I never have. Last spring, at a gathering, when the Hacktress started lumbering over to the table I was at, I said "Oh God" (that's the cleaned up version), and immediately got up and walked off to avoid even speaking to the Hacktress.
So I really didn't think it was fair for me to review the Hacktress' new show. (I also wasn't keen on staring at the abnormal face onscreen.) But having set through several episodes of the show last night if, after she gets a chance to watch the episodes, Ava wants to review it, we will.
I say all the above to say, it was well after midnight when I was finally done watching chubby cheeks. At which point, I attempted to deal with the Bully Boy's speech but didn't feel it was getting at what I wanted to say. I saved it to draft and it will go up this morning. I'll give it a once over to see if there's anyway to improve it but I doubt there is, so it will probably go up as is.
Lydia Polgreen shares the front page with Stevenson. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has become the first woman in Africa to become president. This is apparently another "good thing." I'm not sure why we're supposed to care that "In First for Africa, Woman Wins Election as President of Liberia" since the article is sketchy on details about Johnson-Sirleaf and what is in print is certainly enough to raise eyebrows on the left. "Harvard-educated economist and former World Bank official" hardly speaks of feminism. (They may indicate that she's a crony of a West.) The cry of "First woman president!" seems to be something we're expected to rally around as a "good thing." That depends, whether it's a "good thing" or not, on what type of a woman she is.
But that's a factor that seems lost (in the article and in this country today).
GLORIA STEINEM WILL BE ON SATURDAY'S THE LAURA FLANDERS SHOW.
We'll note that in an entry on The Laura Flanders Show today but I want to be sure we note it several times today.
We'll note Eric Schmitt's "Democrats Provided Edge on Detainee Vote" which deals with The Disgusting Five who broke ranks and rushed to provide the Bully Boy with cover as a court show down looms over whether or not Bully Boy's powers should be unchecked.
Before we go further into the article, we have members in Oregon. I hope you're contacting Ron Wyden's office to register your disappointment with his vote.
Let's boil it down because Joey Lieberman is mudding the waters again today. "Enemy combantants" are held at Guantanamo Bay. Which we lease and have for ever.
The argument is that it's not on US soil. Therefore, the torture enablers argue, the Constitution shouldn't apply. Now we hold them at a permanent base, a permant US base.
But here's the other issue that's not really addressed by comments from spokespersons. Does the Bully Boy have the right to hold someone for as long as he feels like with no charges, no trial and no contact with anyone?
Torture Cheerleader Lieberman offers that statement that "A foreign national who is captured and determined to be an enemy combatant in the world . . ." I know we're all yawning already. Joe Lieberman has that effect on people. (Well not on kids. Remember the ice cream social where Lieberman was too huffy and too good to eat a cone? Poor kids. They worked really hard on that. Guess Joey was watching that trim waistline.)
What Torture Cheerleader doesn't tell you is that there was a profit motive (gotta' love that free enterprise system!) at work in Afghanistan. Turning in farmers and others while calling them "terrorists" got you some cash. In addition, the US government whisks people off of streets -- kidnapping is the term, we're calling it "extraordinary rendition" but it's kidnapping.
So Joe, who's determining this?
(Sidebar, do Joey's 2003 and 2004 supporters at a certain neoliberal, British newspaper still feel so fondly about him? Including the reporter who got into a nasty argument with someone who raised the issue that in the recounts of 2000, Lieberman elected to walk on Sabbath instead of taking the car that the Secret Service was recommending to avoid the risks they feared as a result of the very vocal crowd?) (The argument was, if in that case, Lieberman wouldn't get in a car, due to observing religious beliefs, what would happen if he were president and 9/11 occurred on the Sabbath. It was quite a lively exchange.)
The Bully Boy who's seized powers out of thin air.
Joe Lieberman who helped hand Bully Boy the oval office with a Meet the Press appearence during the recounts is still carrying water for the Bully Boy. And as usual, doesn't have a clue as to what he's speaking of.
Here are the excuses from three others. Kent Conrad says he was told on Veterans Day, a day after the vote, by "retired Army soldiers . . . that they . . . opposed giving detainees at Guantanamo Bay broader leeway to United States courts." Oh well, if the apparent legal experts have spoken, Kent, then by all means.
Still looking for his spine, Conrad offers that he doesn't think we should "set" the "precednt" of giving "enemy combatants access to the federal courts." "And justice for all" is a notion that apparently no one expressed to Conrad. Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson (Nebraska) issue similar statements through spokespersons.
Ron Wyden's the weakest vote. He can be swayed. He has presidential ambitions. (And now, truly, the money to run for that office.) That's part of the reason he's popping up everywhere lately. (Flanders, Democracy Now!, last night's NOW on PBS, etc.) His wife's reportedly okay with a testing of the waters. So Oregon members, that's who you need to be contacting to express your outrage over the fact that the Constitution's being subverted and that Wyden's backing Bully Boy's belief that his seized powers are uncheckable. (Federal courts and the Supreme Court have already stated otherwise. Possibly Kent Conrad should speak to some judges when attempting to determine a legal question?)
There will be posts here throughout the day. That includes Ruth's report. I'll be in and out this morning so there will be long breaks between posts. (As soon as this goes up, I've got to run a few errands.) Our last post for the day will be on The Laura Flanders Show (Gloria Steinem is a guest on Saturday's show).
Not much in the paper this morning -- it's a Saturday paper and apparently a lot of people wanted a long weekend.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.
the laura flanders show
the new york times