La Gringa took the quote from a 44 comment thread (re Honduras) which lasted for 10 days at a left blog, in which I stood like a comment thread sheriff facing down the bad guy in the dirt street. That comment thread followed another thread at the same blog, in which I counseled a right side commenter to be patient until facts became apparent, as I believed all parties would then agree on what ought be said and done. Problem was, when facts became apparent, the left commenters ignored the facts.
That thread was the reason I was later able to show evidence Zelaya wished to overthrow Honduras: I had accumulated the data during the previous 10 days. When End Zone commenter "Bud" spouted off some bull, I reacted like a cantankerous blogger who had lost all patience for showing mercy: By God, that's enough! I'm gonna give what you got coming! No warnings! No politeness! Don't bring that weak @#$% in here no more!
It doesn't matter that Barack throws worse than a girl. Seriously. He does. But it doesn't matter.
What matters is to notice the staging. Been thinking, off and on, about what was and was not staged. Am I overly cynical about staging? No. I've been watching Barack a long time. It was ALL staged, and that sucks eggs. It's not sporting. This was a national occasion, and a leadership occasion. Just go out and throw the pitch like a sportsman and a leader.
I'm trying to say this: when people cheered Pres. Bush at a ballgame, they were cheering just as much or more for the United States of America: There's the President! Hooray United States of America! Conversely, the staging of "Barack!" is conducive to cheering for the wonderfulness of "Barack!"
The White House minders knew he would get booed. They knew he would throw worse than a girl. They did not want to hurt the "Barack!" brand*, so they heavily staged it.
He wore a White Sox jacket. They could blame the boos on the jacket, and they already have. The jacket was a boo-scuse.
He didn't carry a ball out of the dugout, as GWB used to. Instead, he made a special trip Stan Musial, who was sitting in a vehicle near home plate. Stan Musial handed him the ball. No Cardinal fan would boo Stan Musial. Stan was a boo-shield.
Standing just behind the plate, heartily endorsing Barack via body language and smiles: Bob Gibson, Ozzie Smith, Lou Brock, among a few other Cardinals greats. Boo-shields.
Catching the pitch: not a catcher, but Albert Pujols himself, the greatest Cardinal since Stan the Man, or maybe since Rogers Hornsby, or maybe ever. And also a wonderful human being. No Cardinals fan boos Albert Pujols.
Note: Pujols was not behind the plate, but rather straddling and slightly in front of the plate.
Then Barack threw his pitch worse than a girl. I have watched slo mo! He threw worse than an Iranian Policeman . The pitch landed exactly between the front-most chalk lines of the batters box, i.e. not the lines which run towards the pitcher's mound, but rather the lines which demarcate the front of the box. Had the pitch been 6 inches shorter, it would have landed in front of the entire chalked batters boxes. Pujols, in a crouch, had to step his left foot forward, and then lean forward and scoop it with the back of his webbing flat against the dirt. Pujols kind of flipped his glove down and flip-scooped it quickly, which gave the catch a kind of bounce, making it look like he might have caught it on the short hop, but he didn't. As he caught the ball, Pujols had to come forward out of his lean. He used his momentum to quickly stride towards Barack and hug him. It was a nice cover by Pujols.
Barack, naturally, then pumped his fist in satisfaction: Yes! I did soooo goood! Who you gonna believe? My fist pump or your own eyes? Obi Barack: This was not the weak pitch you think you saw. Supply side did not work for Reagan. Tax cuts did not work for JFK, Reagan, and GWB. Nuclear proliferation did not help bankrupt the USSR and win the Cold War. That was a coup in Honduras.
The next time someone catches a Barack pitch, you won't see a squat. The catcher will stand: perfectly balanced, in athletic position, on his toes, and ready to go in any direction. A squat is too risky.
And that was it. Barack glad handed a couple more people on his way mercifully out of there. He's less comfortable on a baseball field than a gay man at the Chicken Ranch. But the "Barack!" brand was protected, and that's the important thing.
A lot has been made of Fox Sports' weird camera close up of Barack: the close up prevented viewers from seeing Barack's toss. I suspect the White House demanded that camera shot. If Fox wanted the President on their telecast (and they got him in the booth for a half inning), then Fox had not much choice other than to go along. I've never seen that camera close-up for any first pitch, ever. Just as I've never seen an opposing team's jacket worn into a stadium for a first pitch. Just as I've never seen a first pitch person walk from the dugout towards home plate (to get the ball from Musial, then to schmooze awkwardly with Musial for 15 seconds), instead of directly towards the pitchers mound. Barack may as well have been teleprompted through each of the 90 seconds. The only thing he had to do on his own was throw the pitch. It, like much of his presidency and in fact much of his life, was weak.
Someone wrote that the guy driving Musial's vehicle hated Obama, and refused to look at him. That guy's probably Secret Service, and he doesn't know where to look. He can't look fully away from Obama and into the crowd, yet it's undignified for Secret Service to stare at POTUS. In all his training, he is taught to look away from POTUS.
OTOH, if that guy wasn't Secret Service, then that guy hates Obama's guts.
Yesterday, someone played a funny montage sequence of TV news types enthusiastically "reporting" Barack threw the pitch over the plate, and got the job done, and looked good out there. B/c I'm so accustomed to media covering for Barack, I'm surprised I got a laugh out of this montage, but I did.
It's not that it matters how Barack looked, and it's not that he was as uneasy as, well, if he were in a bowling alley. It is, rather, that I wish he would just act like a sportsman and like a leader. This is a national occasion. This is not a "Barack!" occasion. Ditch the boo-scuse Sox jacket, and ditch the boo-shield immediate visit with Stan Musial. Walk, or jog, like a sportsman, directly to the mound. Acknowledge the crowd. Throw the ball. Then shake hands all around. Shake hands with Stan Musial after - maybe share some popcorn. Stan's The Man.
Below, President Bush' first pitch at the 2001 World Series. Note, near the end, the chants of "USA!" That was a special night. In future, those who were not then adults will find it difficult to understand the adrenaline which was flowing through the nation during those weeks.
The adrenaline, I think, in addition to the grief and the shock, was heightened due to the unknown nature of the enemy. Why had they attacked us? Americans did not know, and it fueled our heightened adrenaline during those weeks. I did not know why they had attacked us, and I wanted to know. My search for the answer led me inexorably into the blogosphere. Today, most Americans have their own ideas about why the terrorists attacked us. On Sept. 11, 2001: the vast majority of Americans, including me, were perplexed.
"The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America...."
I commented, yesterday, at neo-neo's, and my comment fits in here:
Cinderella stories
Everyone likes Cinderella stories. I suspect your complaint has to do with a kind of sloppy sentimental retelling/exaggeration which detracts from the wonder of a story of accomplishment. Such wonder ought often be experienced by an audience member via a nod of the head, and a respectful comment to oneself of “Nice”, as in “Nice rise from where you rose from”, or “Nice job”. Respect for accomplishment.
The tellers of the stories of accomplishment - the networks (Olympics), the packagers of the Clinton Convention film and the Sotomayor story being lauded in the Senate hearing (advertisers/political operatives) - do not trust the natural wonder of a story of accomplishment (do not recognize, in the story, the natural glimmers of Divinity which require no elaboration). Rather than allowing the audience to experience a respectful realization, i.e. “Nice”, the tellers of the story attempt to wring more sentiment from the audience. In so doing, the tellers devalue the power and integrity of accomplishment. They devalue the wonder which is naturally infused into the story.
The marketing of just about any accomplishment as a sentimental Cinderella tear jerker is an affront to truth. If everything is Cinderella, then nothing is Cinderella. If many things prompt tears, then few things prompt tears. Wonder is dimmed, and we fail to recognize it.
I suspect such marketing of sentiment is often carried out by persons who don’t believe in objective truth; by persons for whom all truth is subjective opinion. Pope Benedict, in his recently released Caritas in Veritate, had something to say about subjective truth vs. objective truth:
“Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom and of the possibility of integral human development.” […] “Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived…Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love.”
Back at the link, back in Afghanistan: our heroine knows truth, and therefore is able to know love.
I don't want to take time to analyze it right now. I just want to get this off my chest: she is perjuring herself. She is lying.
Well, dang it, I have something which needs saying, so here goes a rant, and I don't plan to edit, b/c it's late at night. So, make some allowances, please.
Sotomayor has been disingenuous, i.e. has lied, in multiple areas. The one area I take special note of, b/c I studied it extensively, is the "Wise Latina" quote. Rather than defend the quote, Sotomayor is now lying about what she said (in 6 different speeches!) by hinting various innocuous misunderstandings, instances of her words being taken out of context, and, finally, that she was inartful in her language. Bull. Bull. And Bull. She said exactly what she meant all 6 times she said it.
Sotomayor is convinced Latinas have significantly been kept down and disadvantaged by prejudice amongst Americans who run business and government. I'm confident there is some truth to this sentiment.
Sotomayor's solution, however, is problematic: racial quotas will get enough Latinas into positions of power so that Latina numbers will counterbalance the numbers of prejudiced persons making decisions. What she said in "Wise Latina", what she does and says in many areas (including Ricci), must be understood in this context.
Sotomayor wants a rationale for racial quotas for judges. If all judges rule according to law, there is no rationale for racial quotas. Therefore, Sotomayor's rationale is that a wise Latina - based upon her life experiences - will rule more wisely than a white men. Do you see? If a Latina doesn't rule differently, then there is no justification for racial quotas. Sotomayor is committed to racial quotas. This is the key thing to always remember about her. Therefore, a Latina must rule differently, and better. Must. Otherwise, the justification for racial quotas falls apart, and Latinas continue to be unjustly oppressed, with no solution in sight. In Sonia Sotomayor's opinion.
Today, Sotomayor pointed to Justice O'Connor's statement: "A wise old man and a wise old woman will come to the same decision in a case." Sotomayor says: Justice O'Connor couldn't have meant that, b/c sometimes wise persons disagree. Sotomayor is twisting what Justice O'Connor meant.
Wisdom only occurs in the moment, and wise persons sometimes do foolish things. In a legal case, there is always a best way to rule: always a truth about how the case ought be ruled. An old man or old woman who fails to see the truth is not being wise enough in the moment of decision. Justice O'Connor was clearly arguing against gender making a difference in judicial decision-making. Sotomayor, in her 6 speeches, was arguing that gender and race make a difference, and that O'Connor was wrong.
It's easy for Sotomayor to do this, as she doesn't believe objective truth exists. She believes truth is an opinion. There is "her truth" and "your truth". Actual truth is a rumor. This is why Sotomayor can characterize O'Connor as she did.
Here's the thing Sotomayor doesn't understand, the thing Sandra Day O'Connor does understand, and a thing which is important for every human to understand: truth exists. In many situations, we humans may not be able to ascertain truth. Yet, truth does exist. It exists separately, on it's own terms, whether or not we understand it.
In any situation, there may be your opinion about what is true, and there may be my opinion about what is true. Yet, truth exists on it's own terms, and has nothing to do with our opinions. There is no "your truth" or "my truth". There is only truth. And there are only our weak human efforts to ascertain it.
Truth is not an opinion. An opinion is an opinion. Truth exists on its own terms, separate from opinion. That's what is important to understand, and that is my late night rant.
She's denying that there exists something called "theory of jurisprudence," which includes such doctrines as originalism, strict constructionism, and, of course, the ever-flexible and ever-expanding doctrine of the "Living Constitution." As she doesn't want to admit she's an adherent of the latter, she claims there's no such thing as judicial philosophy whatsoever. [...] On the other hand, someone like Sotomayor does not stop her inquiry simply because she finds that she has no authority whatsoever to make a ruling that binds anyone. She then looks to international law; the always-popular "changing social mores and norms;" "public policy considerations;" anagrams of Ricky Martin song titles; etc.
Thankfully palin steele, the non-partisan, states the stupidity for me:
Sotomayor can't be lying because only she knows the intent of her words. DrewM, don't you realize it doesn't matter what her words means prima facie. It only matters what she INTENDED, and you can't prove her intent beyond what she is now saying she meant. So you can't prove she is lying.
Posted by: palin steele (the only non-partisan on AoSHQ)
It is indeed difficult to prove someone is lying about what they meant. That does not, however, mean it's impossible, or mean that they're telling the truth even if you can't prove they're lying.
That's why this form of perjury is so popular. See Hillary "I can't recall" Clinton lying about Whitewater (where she later "explained" that she'd said she'd never worked on Whitewater at all, despite billing records proving she worked on it for dozens of billable hours, because she didn't know the development was called Whitewater; she only knew it according to its three-letter billing code) and Bill Clinton, who didn't believe, he said, that he was "alone" with Monica Lewinsky while using her as a human humidor.
But one's intent is indeed a factual matter just as their actions are a factual matter. Almost every crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal had criminal intent. Intent is, indeed, defined as a fact of the crime which must be proved.
We can prove that Sonia Sotomayor is lying: She said the same thing at least six times and a simple familiarity with the English language and semantic logic tells us what she meant.
She is now telling us that everything she said previously was said in a made-up childhood language called "Opposite Talk," where everything she says means the precise opposite.
This is a lie.
If I were to be sued for libeling Sonia Sotomayor, I could attempt a defense that each time I called her a liar, I was not in fact calling her a liar and had no intention to do such a thing; indeed, when I called her a liar, I meant a "wise truth-teller."
I could attempt this defense, but I would lose, at it is absurd. Everyone knows what my words mean and therefore my intent in using them.
Honduras is facing something that has happened before, in many times and many places. But to recognize what’s been occurring there and what it signifies, one must know something about history, most particularly about how such power grabs occur. Then the patterns become clear. [...] The way is clear: tyrants very often use “democracy” as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
Barack doesn't know history. Worse, Barack "knows" a leftist view of history which doesn't jibe with reality. Samuel Clemens:
It ain’t what he don’t know, but what he does know that ain’t so.
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week. [...] One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said. [...] Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.
This story, which happened in recent days, seems appropriate:
In Houston, someone put up a billboard which said: "Martin Luther King was a Republican". Which is true. MLK detested the racist southern Democrats who vigilantly worked to keep negroes in their place.
Soon after the billboard went up, a person or persons climbed the billboard and tore and vandalized the sign so it could not be read. Control the narrative.
History doesn't matter so much as how history is written and understood. If Barack skews history in Egypt, skews history in Russia, and listens without complaint to 40 minutes of Daniel Ortega skewing the history of Central America ... well, not good. We have come to a bad place. An American President is promoting fantasy versions of history. This is not a small thing. Taking future action which is based upon fantasy is not a small thing. It will harm us in ways great and small.
Waking up at 2:00 AM is demoralizing. Too awake to sleep; too sleepy to begin the day.
Actually, rather than staying demoralized, I suddenly remember reading of first sleeps and second sleeps. Throughout history, peoples of various societies have awakened during the night - I'm guessing for an hour or so - and this time has been highly prized as a time of peacefulness, tranquility, and even creativity. And here it is, in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_sleep
My plan is to highly prize this as a time of ice cream. And as a time of Red Eye, with Greg Gutfeld, on Fox News Channel.
Update: Nelson Cruz finished in second place. A nice performance. Prince Fielder is a deserving champion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Opening Day, I predicted Nelson Cruz would win the MLB All Star Home Run Contest:
By July, when Nelson Cruz** wins the Home Run Contest: every knowledgeable baseball person and every unknowledgeable media hack will recount how they always knew Cruz would be a star. Every one of them. Watch for it. They knew it all along. They never doubted Cruz. They'll tell you, then, after the fact.
Well, tonight's the night for Nelson Cruz to fulfill his predicted destiny, and for media commentators to recall how THEY ALWAYS KNEW NELSON CRUZ WOULD BE A STAR. Heh. Meanwhile, pre-contest, I'm patting myself on the back like crazy. I have confidence. Unleash Nelson Cruz!
A thought on the Home Run Contest tending to ruin swings:
Nelson Cruz was born with a fly ball swing and preternatural power. Therefore, I doubt the Home Run contest will ruin him. He is pre-loaded with a Home Run Contest swing.
The Home Run contest ruins line drive hitters who try to muscle up and demonstrate their manhood. Nelson Cruz is like a lumberjack: strong all over. He doesn't have to demonstrate his manhood. He could pick up the other contestants and toss them halfway to the pitchers mound, and everyone already knows it (and thats why the players voted him to the cusp of the All-Star Roster, allowing him to make the team when Torii Hunter was injured). He could win Home Run Contest if he gives even a routine Nelson Cruz performance. He doesn't need to "step up". He only needs to control his adrenaline and his nerves, and perform to his normal level.
Andy McCarthy details. It's ugly for Dems. They put politics before national security. Here's how McCarthy begins:
"Had [President Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Program" been in place before the [9/11] attacks, hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located."
Another Friday night, another dump by the Obama administration of a report underscoring the vital importance of President Bush's post-9/11 national security tactics.
The above quote about Midhar and Hazmi and is from Gen. Michael Hayden, the former CIA director who was director of the NSA when that agency ran Bush's "Terrorist Surveillance Program." It is a bombshell mentioned in passing on page 31 of the 38-page report filed by five executive branch inspectors general (from DOJ, DOD, CIA, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) pursuant to Congress's 2008 overhaul of FISA (the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).
Sonia Sotomayor is not a bad human being. She is personable, and would be agreeable company at dinner, or when sharing a beer.
She is, to be sure, a blowhard in the mode of Joe Biden. I think of Sotomayor and Biden - both Obama choices, btw - as being quite similar. Both LOVE the sound of their own voices. Neither are good listeners. Neither are skilled at logical consistency. Both tend towards exaggeration, and towards understanding and reasoning which does not align with truth.
I sense, in both, an insecurity about their own intellectual heft. Both compensate with skillful bluster and massive chutzpah. Admirable, on own terms. Excellence, even at bluster and chutzpah, deserves acknowledgement.
Were I to sit with Biden and Sotomayor over beer, I would fully enjoy their companionship. I would prefer their company over that of many other public personalities. I feel personal warmth towards them, even as their professional actions leave me cold and steely.
Regarding confirmation onto the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor does not believe justice is blind, and therefore ought not be confirmed.
If she is not rejected, no nominee ought ever be rejected, except in cases of outright corruption. "Consent of Congress" ought be a rubber stamp.
Sotomayor will spend this week explaining all the reasons she believes Justice truly is blind. She will be personable and charming, as she truly is in real life. Yet, the hearings will be one of those: Whom do we believe? Sonia Sotomayor or our own eyes? situations. Her actions and her record will hopefully speak louder than her words and her charm.
Yet, it seems highly likely she will be confirmed. Who knows, by the end of the week, she might have Repub Senators and America eating out of her affirmative action hands. Therefore, Repubs ought use her confirmation hearings to highlight the importance of original intent and of judicial modesty; ought use her confirmation hearings to highlight the hypocrisy of racial quotas; to highlight the costs and the victims of racial quotas.
Focus. The whole of the future of America rests on the decisions the next couple weeks. After this, President Obama will have spent his arsenal. Democrats are looking for reelection and need time and space between these votes because people are going to be furious when the reality of the taxes and reduced benefits hit their lives. [...] The people must rise up now and stop them....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ricci: bullying and intrigue
What motivated Judge Sotomayor's bullying action of trying to stealthily sweep Ricci under the rug; of trying to hide it where it would die a lonely death? Ignorance, maybe. Either conscious or unconscious malice, definitely.
Judge Sotomayor tried to hide Ricci v New Haven in a way which would preclude an en banc hearing by the full Second Circuit Court; tried to hide Ricci v New Haven in a way which would dissuade Ricci from appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court; in a way which would dissuade the U.S. Supreme Court from taking a close look at the issues of Ricci, and which would persuade the SCOTUS to deny Ricci an opportunity to be heard. Sotomayor tried to hide Ricci via
[issuing] an unsubstantiated summary judgment - reserved for situations wherein NO reasonable jury, properly applying the law, could find for the non-moving party. In essence, a summary judgment is saying that there is no issue of law, that no reasonable group of people could possibly disagree. It is a statement, in essence, that this one is a no-brainer. (link)
The reason is that by electing on Feb. 15, 2008, to dispose of the case by a cursory, unsigned summary order, Judges Sotomayor, Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack avoided circulating the decision in a way likely to bring it to the attention of other 2nd Circuit judges, including the six who later voted to rehear the case.
And if the Ricci case -- which ended up producing one of the Supreme Court's most important race decisions in many years -- had not come to the attention of those six judges, it would have been an unlikely candidate for Supreme Court review. The justices almost never review summary orders, which represent the unanimous judgment of three appellate judges that the case in question presents no important issues.
The 2nd Circuit and other appeals courts hear cases in three-judge panels, which almost always write full opinions in all significant cases. Those opinions, which are binding precedents, are routinely circulated to all other judges on the circuit, in part so that they can decide whether to request what is called a rehearing en banc by the entire appeals court.
Not so summary orders. They do not become binding precedents, and in the 2nd Circuit they are not routinely circulated to the judges except in regular e-mails containing only case names and docket numbers. Those e-mails routinely go unread, on the assumption that all significant cases are disposed of by full opinions, according to people familiar with 2nd Circuit practice.
In any event, any 2nd Circuit judge who had chanced to find and read the panel's summary order in Ricci would have found only the vaguest indication what the case was about.
But the case came to the attention of one judge, Jose Cabranes, anyway, through a report in the New Haven Register. It quoted a complaint by Karen Lee Torre, the firefighters' lawyer, that she had expected "'a reasoned legal opinion,' instead of an unpublished summary order, 'on what I saw as the most significant race case to come before the Circuit Court in 20 years.'"
According to 2nd Circuit sources, Cabranes, who lives in New Haven, saw the article and looked up the briefs and the earlier ruling against the firefighters by federal district judge Janet Arterton. He decided that this was a very important case indeed, and made a rare request for the full 2nd Circuit to hold an en banc rehearing. (In response to an e-mail from me, Cabranes declined to comment.)
Cabranes, like Sotomayor a Clinton appointee of Puerto Rican heritage -- and once a mentor to her -- was outvoted by 7-6, with the more liberal judges (including Sotomayor) in the majority. But by publishing a blistering June 12, 2008, dissent Cabranes brought the case forcefully to the attention of the Supreme Court.
By that time, Torre had filed a petition for certiorari with the court, a fairly unusual move in a case involving impecunious clients because of the long odds against success. Those odds seemed especially long in this case. Not only had the panel branded it as insignificant, but the justices usually review cases to resolve conflicts among precedents set by different appeals courts -- and a summary order sets no precedent.
Enter Judge Cabranes. In his dissent, he accused the Sotomayor panel of having "failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal," and he urged the Supreme Court to do so. He stressed that despite the unusually long and detailed briefs, arguments and factual record, the panel's "perfunctory disposition" oddly contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case." Cabranes also suggested that the case might involve "an unconstitutional racial quota or set-aside."
Some of the seven judges who voted to deny rehearing, including Sotomayor, responded that (among other things) the panel's decision had been dictated by past 2nd Circuit precedents. Cabranes disputed this.
"Short of writing 'get whitey,' it's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did."
Michael Barone, on the backroom political machinations which resulted in Ricci vs. New Haven:
Such is [reverse discrimination] governance these days in a liberal university town. It may remind some of us old enough to remember of the machinations and contrivances of Southern white officials and agitators employed to prevent blacks from registering and voting. [...] Bazelon and Sotomayor, who voted to uphold the city's decertification of the promotion test, are typical of liberal elites who are ready to ratify squalid political deals -- and blatant racial discrimination -- in return for the political support and the votes that can be rallied by the likes of [local political activist] Kimber. You supply the numbers on Election Day, and we'll supply the verbiage to put a pretty label on your shenanigans.
Saturday's post: Honduras, Defendiendo nuestra Democracia!!!, inspired some bull in the comments, from "Bud". I'm replying here, and citing data which indicates that Mel Zelaya represented a serious threat against the freedom of the Honduran people.
Bud says: "Boy you guys sure relied on the 'Zelaya was trying to be president for life' line"
Bull. It's such bull that I wonder if you are a sock puppet doing damage control for David Axelrod. If you are not being paid to comment here, then your reading comprehension could not overcome the movie which was already playing in your head. Read again. Or, possibly: read the blogpost for the first time. I did not focus on "President for Life", but instead focused on legal justifications for the actions of the Honduran Government.
I pointed to Zelaya's burglary of the ballots. I pointed to Zelaya's flouting of the rulings of the Honduran Supreme Court - including Zelaya's conspiring to hold an illegal "poll". I pointed to Zelaya's escalation of a political disagreement into lawlessness and treason. I pointed to Zelaya's legally ousting himself from office, according to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. I pointed to Zelaya's available political/electoral means for achieving his goal: he could have led the Honduran Congress in ordering a national referendum on rewriting the Constitution. Instead, Zelaya chose extra-legal action. He deserved arrest.
Bud says: "[that Zelaya wants to be President for Life] has been repeatedly shown to be a lie"
Also bull.
First, name a Zelaya action which indicates he doesn't want to be President for an additional term. To my knowledge, no such Zelaya action has occurred. His only two stated justifications for rewriting the Constitution are not barred by the current Constitution. Honduras News, from May 25:
He has stated several times that the constitution has been repeatedly violated by politicians and that it needs to be adapted to the new “national reality.” Zelaya has not precisely spelled out what changes would be necessary to make in order to adapt the country’s social contract to that new national reality. Zelaya announced on May 22 that the new constitution would include direct democracy initiatives such as popular referendums and recall elections. However, the current constitution already contains provisions for popular referendums and does not expressly prohibit recall elections. Zelaya’s recent legal oversteps have led some to worry about what a new constitution would signify for the country and Zelaya’s fidelity to the concept of constitutionalism.
Second, data/evidence exist which show Zelaya wants to be President for at least one additional term.
Consider: Zelaya could have led the Honduran Congress in changing or eliminating 368 articles of the Honduran Constitution. The 27 year old Honduran Constitution has already had 121 of it’s articles lawfully changed or amended. There are only 7 articles of the Honduran Constitution which cannot be changed without rewriting the entire Constitution. One of those 7 unalterable articles is about Presidential term limit of only 1 term. Miguel Estrada explicates in this excellent L.A. Times piece.
Zelaya has not specified which of the 7 unalterable provisions he wanted changed, and why. If Zelaya wants to rewrite the entire Constitution for virtuous and just purposes, you'd think he would specify what those virtuous and just purposes are. All we get from Zelaya is: vagueness, misleading claims (as in excerpt from Honduras News), and trust me.
"The arrest order she [Honduran Supreme Court Justice Cruz] cited, approved unanimously by the court’s 15 justices, was released this afternoon along with documents pertaining to a secret investigation that went on for weeks under the high court’s supervision. [...] David Matamoros, a member of Honduras’ Supreme Electoral Tribunal, also defended the military’s action. He said Zelaya originally called the vote a plebiscite, then, when that was barred [the Honduran Supreme Court ruled that only the Honduran Congress could call such an election], shifted to describing it as a poll, creating uncertainty as to its legal standing and his intent. No government agency was willing to conduct the vote, he said. All the ballots and equipment for the illegal poll were flown in on a Venezuelan plane, he said. The court ordered the materials confiscated."
After the Honduran supreme court ruled that only the country’s congress could call such an election, Zelaya ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. (It would be ”non-binding,” he said.) When the head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the supreme court, refused, Zelaya fired him, then led a mob to break into a military base where the ballots were stored. His actions have been repudiated by the country’s supreme court, its congress, its attorney-general, its chief human-rights advocate, all its major churches, its main business association, his own political party (which recently began debating an inquiry into Zelaya’s sanity)
Honduran political analyst Juan Ramon Martinez [says] we are witnessing a concerted effort on Zelaya’s part to discredit some of the country’s key democratic institutions in order to possibly extend his rule. “There appears to be a set of tactics aimed at discrediting institutions…he has repeated on several occasions that democratic institutions are worthless and that democracy has not helped at all,” said Martinez.
Honduras is facing something that has happened before, in many times and many places. But to recognize what’s been occurring there and what it signifies, one must know something about history, most particularly about how such power grabs occur. Then the patterns become clear. [...] The way is clear: tyrants very often use “democracy” as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
Barack doesn't know history. Worse, Barack "knows" a leftist view of history which doesn't jibe with reality.* Samuel Clemens:
It ain’t what he don’t know, but what he does know that ain’t so.
Bud says: "Michiletti has broken more constitutional law in two weeks than Zelaya did in three and a half years"
A flat out lie. If you have evidence, show it. Sans evidence, your claim is a waste of cyberspace.
Bud says: "and yet you continue to support his coup"
"coup": is misguided terminology.
Merriam Webster Online definition:
coup de’ etat: a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics ; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group
Was this truly: “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics”? Or, was this justified policing?
The sudden, decisive exercise of force occurred when Zelaya’s mob broke into the building and stole the ballots.
A decisive exercise of force was scheduled to occur if Zelaya and compatriots forcibly conducted his "poll" on June 29.
Does maintaining civil order in a volatile environment - i.e. rumors of imported Chavez-thugs from Venezuela plotting to vandalize - constitute “a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics”? I think not. The sudden decisive exercise of force in politics would be generated by the Chavez-thugs, and not by the police attempting to maintain civil order.
The entire characterization, “coup”, skews reality. The only change of power concerned exchanging Presidents. Honduras Democratic Republic continues forward, exactly as before. No group seized power. The Honduran people maintain the right of self-determination. The current President has announced he will not run for office in the November elections.
Bud says: "what was the big deal in allowing a lawful (it WAS lawful too) vote of the people to express their opinion?"
It was unlawful according to: the Honduran Attorney-General, the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran Congress (in a 123-5 vote).
It was only lawful according to Zelaya, his socialist friends (Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega), and certain misguided dupes and useful fools (including Barack Obama, and including you: "Bud McKinney").
Bud says: "Did it require a military takeover (and the military IS in charge now)"
Evidence, please. I see no evidence to support your assertion that the military is in charge. The new President and the old Congress continue governing the nation.
Ferdsblog makes in interesting argument about the strategic necessity for Honduras to deport Zelaya: had Zelaya remained in Honduras, Chavez would have had excuse to take military action inside Honduras, in order to rescue Zelaya, to rescue the Honduran people, and to rescue law and order. With Zelaya deported, with constitutional democracy continuing as before, Chavez has little justification for military action (unless he can import thugs to create "civil unrest").
Ferdsblog has argued that Chavez wants Honduras as a satellite of Venezuela, and that Chavez wants an American Air Force Base to be moved out of Honduras. Ferdsblog argues that the American base is focused on implementing the American war on drugs, and interferes with flights of illegal narcotics which Chavez benefits from.
Yet, irregardless of strategic necessity: Zelaya deserved arrest. Regarding deportation, the Honduran Military argues that Penal Code 24 covers imprisonment in event of possible civil unrest, and justifies their decision to deport him.
Bud says: "oh and by the way.....its was CNN that helped the coup leaders in the 2002 coup against Chavez....Chavez has his own network now, and it ain't CNN"
Can't imagine why those Hondurans believe CNN is Chavez News Network. Can't imagine why Jeff and I immediately laughed at the quip.
You are welcome to comment in future, IF you are not on Axelrod's payroll, and IF you read the blogpost before commenting.
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week. [...] One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said. [...] Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.
Ricci's testimony will not be attacked, as everything Ricci will say is already on the public record. Ricci will not allege personal wrongdoing on the part of Sotomayor; Ricci will not allege wrongdoing which only he was witness to.
Ricci will say: Here's who I am: male, Italian; and the Supreme Court believes Sonia Sotomayor did me wrong. Ricci will offer himself as a human face representing the individual citizens whom Sonia Sotomayor believes ought sacrifice their welfare (and the welfare of their families) in the cause of rectifying racial and gender wrongs.
To agree with Sotomayor, one must first agree with the premise that affirmative action is the solution to rectifying racial and gender wrongs. I do not agree with that premise. Second, one must stand for forcibly sacrificing Frank Ricci and his family to that cause. Even if I did agree with the affirmative action premise, I do not stand for forcibly sacrificing individual U.S. citizens to that cause.
"Get Ricci" is about assaulting Ricci's character. It's a message to media allies: here is our strategy; battlestations! Dozens of print media and TV media allies - having been cued - will now publicly question Frank Ricci's character (i.e. We're just asking questions! There's nothing wrong with that!). The substance of Ricci v. New Haven will be either ignored or skewed.
Attacking Ricci's character is like releasing military flak intended to distract a missile from it's intended target. Another example would be attacking Ken Starr (flak) as a method of distracting attention from Pres. Clinton's perjury in Jones v Clinton, and from President Clinton's use of the office of POTUS to influence Monica Lewinsky's testimony.
Will James Carville take to the air to just ask questions about Frank Ricci's character? I doubt it. James Carville has too much integrity to attack Ricci. It will be the compliant media - now given their cue about the decided-upon strategy - which will rush to battlestations and attack Ricci's character.
Hondurans protest against former President Mel Zelaya, and in favor of maintaining their 27 year old constitutional democracy. La Gringa comments and translates:
Don't let the first part put you off. If you only watch one Honduran video, watch this one.
If you don't read Spanish, the first part says,
"These are not Hondurans....if they are, they are not doing what true Hondurans do......Enough!"
"These are the true Hondurans and we want peace and to live in democracy...."
Near the end, the video states:
"We are a free and pacific country.
Let the world see us and listen to our voice and know the truth.
We are united defending the truth.
We will defend our democracy.
Honduras is free. Tell the whole world."
What is happening in Honduras?
The former President, Mel Zelaya, doesn't much like democracy, and wants to be installed as President for Life. He illegally attempted to garner support for rewriting the Honduran Constitution. The Honduran Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's arrest by the military. The arrest was carried out in the middle of the night. The military deported Zelaya to Costa Rica.
President Obama supports Zelaya's return to power. Is President Obama right? Was Zelaya's arrest illegal?
No. President Obama is wrong. Zelaya's arrest was legal. Here's why:
Zelaya wanted to call for a national vote on the question of whether or not the Honduran Constitution ought be completely rewritten. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that only the Honduran Congress could call for such a vote.
Zelaya had ballots imported from Venezuela. The ballots were confiscated by Honduran Customs.
Zelaya then declared that he would still conduct the vote, but it would just be a "poll" on the question of whether or not the Honduran Constitution ought be completely rewritten. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that such a poll would violate the Honduran Constitution.
Zelaya went forth, anyway. He led a mob which broke into a Customs building and confiscated the ballots which were being stored there. He scheduled the "poll" for Monday, June 29.
When Zelaya burglarized the building and stole the ballots, he broke Honduran law. When Zelaya conspired to conduct the illegal "poll", he broke Honduran law. The Honduran Supreme Court thereafter issued a unanimous (15-0) arrest order to the Honduran Military, and the arrest was carried out in the early morning hours of June 29.
President Obama's argument is that the Honduran Supreme Court turned a political disagreement into an illegal usurpation of the Office of the Presidency. In actuality, President Zelaya escalated a political disagreement into criminal action which threatened Honduras' constitutional democracy. The Honduran SC ruled that the Honduran Congress could order a national election about whether or not the Honduran Constitution ought be rewritten. If Zelaya disagreed with the Honduran SC's ruling, he could have pursued his goals via either legal means in the Honduran Courts, or via political/electoral means in the Honduran Congress. Instead, Zelaya pursued his goals via extra-legal means. He deserved arrest.
Why was Zelaya deported?
The Honduran Military made the decision, based on their fear of rioting and property damage. The Honduran Military feared they would have to use deadly force against rioters. The Miami Herald quotes the Honduran Military's top legal advisor, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza:
''What was more beneficial, remove this gentleman from Honduras or present him to prosecutors and have a mob assault and burn and destroy and for us to have to shoot?'' he said. ``If we had left him here, right now we would be burying a pile of people.''
Military officials expect to be legally exonerated under Article 24 of the Honduran Penal Code, which they argue allows them to make such decisions for the safety of the nation and the populace.
If Zelaya had been jailed and arraigned, might he have received bail and returned to his Presidential duties?
Unlikely. Zelaya posed a grave threat: overthrow of the Honduran Democratic Republic. I see almost zero possibility of his being offered bail. He likely would have looked at the inside of a jail cell for many years, with the only variable being whether or not he was hanged for treason.
Besides, the Constitution says any President who even attempts to evade the Presidential Term Limit Provision immediately ceases to be President. In actuality, Zelaya ousted himself from office. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution:
“No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform[emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
Via proposing to change this law, Zelaya constitutionally and immediately ousted himself from office.
Side Notes: Estrada is Honduran, and was nominated to the U.S. Federal Bench by Pres. George W. Bush, before being blocked by Dems who feared his legal acumen and his Latin heritage would make him an unstoppable nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. After 18ish months of his nomination languishing, Estrada withdrew his name from consideration. The racially motivated blocking of Miguel Estrada from the Federal Bench was obscene.
Barack's actions, i.e. supporting Zelaya and undermining Honduran democracy, are indistinguishable from what a Manchurian Candidate would do in this situation. It's amazing we can say that a President is acting exactly as an American enemy would act.
The great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, commenting on President Jimmy Carter:
Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, he has essentially adopted our enemies' view of the world.
In his 4 major league starts this season, Tommy Hunter has given up: 3 runs, then 2 runs, then 1 run, then 0 runs.
I expect his next step will be to give up 0 runs in 7 innings instead of tonight's 6 innings, then 0 runs in 8 innings, then 0 runs in 9 innings.
Thereafter, I expect complete game shutouts which will include Tommy Hunter himself hitting homers:
first a solo homer in each game, then a two run homer in each game, et al
Once he reaches complete game shutouts which include him personally htting 4 Grand Slam HR's, I expect Pitcher Tommy Hunter to:
begin increasing his defensive assists, then begin increasing his "1 Unassisted" put outs, then begin increasing his strike-outs.
Beyond that, I expect Tommy Hunter to:
begin selling concessions during his pitching performances, followed by beginning to personally prepare concessions, followed by using napkins to wipe stray nacho cheese from the faces of fans.
At some point, I expect Tommy Hunter to:
begin transporting busloads of sweet old ladies (sweet, only) to the ballpark to watch him pitch; then begin transporting cancer kids to the ballpark; then dome the stadium and install A/C, for the comfort of sweet old ladies and cancer kids.
Oh, and be a role model! Ballplayers are so rarely role models these days...
Is it possible to dislike Sarah Palin for cause? Sure it is. This is about those persons who go beyond cause, and into hateful territory.
Many oh-so-virtuous leftists are actually filled with hatred for a group. Examples of such a group might be conservatives, or Christians, or Americans who love traditional, middle American values. Problem is, the oh-so-virtuous leftists cannot admit (sometimes even to themselves) they hate such a group, b/c such hatred equates to unseemly prejudicial hatred such as racial hatred, or religious hatred, or misogyny. So they keep it bottled up.
Until a Sarah Palin cames along.
In their way of thinking, they get to hate ONE person. That is okay. That is justifiable. That is not unseemly or prejudicial. They hate her so much b/c they have so much pent-up, repressed hatred being held down under pressure. Their hatred needs release. She is the excuse. She is the person they can hate while rationalizing that they remain oh-so-virtuous.
Update:
What of the rampant lies about Sarah Palin?
"People don't hate Sarah Palin because of the lies. The lies exist to justify the hate."
Exactly (link). The hatred needs release; the haters need rationalization of their own virtue(i.e. need some rationalization other than that they are storing massive pent up hatred which needs release). Viola! The lies emerge ... to justify the hate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just as Neda Agha-Soltan personalizes Iranian oppression:
so Sarah Palin personalizes conservatives for insecure leftists who hate and fear conservatives;
so Sarah Palin personalizes Middle American values for insecure leftists and for professional women who have rejected those values, and who both hate and fear those values(fear they have made the wrong choice via rejecting those values);
so Sarah Palin personalizes the detested underclass who do not have the right education, do not speak the right way, yet have the GALL to believe they are just as smart and just as wise and just as capable;
so Sarah Palin personalizes the ethics of abortion for women who have had abortions and whom are insecure about the virtuousness of their choice;
so Sarah Palin personalizes Christianity for insecure nonbelievers who have rejected Christianity and whom are worried they might live empty lives and then go to Hell;
so Sarah Palin - with her damnable hot husband and well adjusted kids and successful career, personalizes the envy for those who tend towards insecurity and envy.
Stephen Pressfield says the opposite of love is fear. I say hatred is closely tied to fear. People who tend to be insecure, envious, ungrounded, fearful, guilty: Sarah Palin personalizes everything for them, and they direct all their “stuff” at her. Sarah really is a “designated hate receptacle”, as the God sneering chick* who bans consideration of neurological differences between males and females said - and brilliantly said. Sarah Palin really is (as neo commenter Mike O’Malley pointed to) a subconscious scapegoat which hearkens to early and ancient human traditions (that’s my paraphrase of Mr. O’Malley’s words) - especially for those who have never studied the Christian gospels, and have never been exposed to the radical message of love in the Sermon on the Mount. Sarah Palin really is, as neo says “the perfect storm, the confluence of flashpoints regarding class, education, beauty, sexuality, Christianity …, and female ambition.”
Many on the left consider themselves too virtuous to hate an entire large group of people. Such is unseemly. However, they get to hate HER. To them, it is not unseemly to hate a specific individual. She personalizes it for them, and their bile spews as if from a wide open sewage pipe which has been closed up and storing it’s contents under pressure. Sweet release. And all the @#$% shoots forth: insecurity, envy, guilt, fear, hatred, and plenty more. Stinky. And they don’t know it. They think it smells like flowers.
*I so love calling her a chick, b/c she is super attenuated to gender insult, and I enjoy imagining it might rile her. But, I am just being playful. The important thing is she wrote one gat-danged outstanding examination of Palin hate. It is worth clicking the link and reading.
Daniela, now 42, has been called Brazil's Madonna, but her work as a singer and dancer is far broader and more eclectic than Madonna's. Her folkloric aesthetic was shaped by Salvador's colossal Carnival celebration, where the entire city turns out to sing and dance around huge amplified trucks (trio élétricos). A typical performance on the elevated platforms can last seven hours straight. (Here's Daniela in full carnival drag getting charmingly teary on the catwalk before singing "Swing Da Cor" to the vast crowd below.)
Though her professional career began in nightclubs, Daniela achieved stardom in the 1990s as "Queen of Axé," a Salvador-based Afro-Brazilian fusion pop sometimes called samba-reggae. Her extensive repertoire ranges from torch songs to Portuguese rap. Through it all runs her attunement to deep emotion as well as her fascination with the infinitely complex rhythms of Africanized Bahia. Her stated master principle is "alegria" (joy), which she calls the essence of life and which she visibly transmits to her surging sea of fans.
Watching Daniela Mercury in action, I realized just how bored and disillusioned I have become by American popular entertainment over the past 15 years.... [...] I heartily recommend Daniela Mercury's DVD, "Eletrodoméstico," to every aspiring young performer or to anyone who longs to see the performing arts in magnificent full flower. (That bewitching cover image
gives a taste of Daniela's staggering variety of swirling, cutaway leather costumes, intricate jewelry and raffish gaucho armbands.) "Eletrodoméstico" is a marathon, high-octane 2003 performance for Brazilian MTV where Daniela tirelessly sings and dances through 25 songs. There are also several spirited song-and-dance duets with guest stars. One can't imagine Madonna graciously sharing the stage with anyone (as Judy Garland did with the young Barbra Streisand, for example, when the variety-show format was still thriving in the U.S.).
Similarly, one can't imagine Daniela, with her relaxed, fluid body language and sleek, golden silhouette, cultivating the grotesquely sinewy arms and sallow, claw-like hands that have to be minutely erased from workaholic Madonna's magazine photos. Stressed-out, wired, over-conceptualized Anglo-American womanhood, currently on display in the hit film of "Sex and the City," is causing cultural dyspepsia. Is it any wonder that so many interesting, talented young men are reluctant to marry or have turned gay in droves? Exactly what do young professional women have to offer these days, aside from hyper office talk over a business lunch?
Reconnection to nature would obviously be easier in lushly tropical Bahia than in the stony grid of Manhattan. But this is where art comes in -- the medium of expanded imagination, which dissolves time and space. Full circle to feminism: Sexism, where it exists, is a political barrier that must be removed. But life is an organic principle and a cosmic skyscape, far vaster and more eternal than politics.
I recommend this Paglia column, which gives a flavor of Daniela's hometown of Salvador, Brazil, with its African inspired culture, it's overflow of 365 churches, it's beach culture, and it's open air Carnaval celebration which draws approx 1 million revelers.
Video of Salvador Carnaval: Daniela's performance truck, "Crocodilo" approaches at approx 1:45. Paglia says it takes up to 7 hours for Daniela's truck to move along the entire Carnaval route. Daniela tirelessly performs along the entire route. Bruce Springsteen is a punk. Daniela is the woman.
The Russian Grandmaster and 2008 Women's World Chess Champion is displaying irreverence. Were she also balancing a luscious Dr Pepper on her knee, she would be irresistible.
Posts
