General: August 2005 Archives

Kent sent me an interesting article over on FindLaw by John W. Dean. The article talks about the threat of assassination made by Marion “Pat” Robertson against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In essence, should Robertson be prosecuted based on federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats?

The cynical part of me (which admittedly is a very strong part of me these days) thinks that, in our current political environment (controlled by ultra-conservative neocon fascists), he's never going to see prosecution. No one will take an interest in this and the entire situation, while being an embarrassment for the right wing, will go away because no one will take this ball and run with it.

Why would they? That would be a blow to a symbol to their radical right political base; a base that basically owns the Republican Party at this point in time.

But that's just my opinion. What do you think?

On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion “Pat” Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

More specifically, Robertson said, “You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination,” referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, “but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.”

“We have the ability to take him out,” Robertson continued, “and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down:

“I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'” Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. “'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.”

No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney recently said this on an issue of Hardball, the Chris Matthews show. Romney started out saying that he would support equality and that he didn’t discriminate. Then, after full marriage became available in his state of Massachusetts, and he started traveling around the country in an effort to make his name known (presumably for a run for the presidency in 2008), his true colors came out. He wants neither gay marriage or civil unions for us. In other words, he wants nothing at all for us.

So what if we are denied hospital visitation rights, the right to even write an obituary for our partner (yes, that comes with marriage), the right to make funeral arrangements, survivor benefits... the list goes on and on. I myself didn’t fully understand all of this until we spoke to our lawyer about all the little things that marriage offers.

Romney would deny us all of that. He is nothing but a low life bigot. My hope is that people will see him for what he is - sooner than later. I usually don’t resort to name calling of this sort, but this man deserves it. He’s earned it. I hope he gets what he deserves - a complete defeat if he decides to run for governor again, and especially if he runs for president in 2008. If he were to become president, that would make him the first Mormon president in our history.

The news hopped from table to table on Sunday at an oceanside fund-raiser in this Long Island village: William F. Weld, the former Massachusetts governor who announced last week that he would join New York’s race for governor, would not be attending the party.

He owns a house next door, is friends with the hosts and promised a year ago to speak at the event, which raised money for Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth, organizers said. The absence came a few days after Mr. Weld, a Republican and longtime advocate of gay rights, said he did not support legalizing same-sex marriage outside Massachusetts. [...]

Some others took Mr. Weld’s absence from the fund-raiser as notice that he was distancing himself from gay men and lesbians out of political convenience.

Mr. Weld, a former United States attorney, ardently supported the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 2003 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. But in New York, even Democratic politicians dance carefully around the issue, many opting to support civil unions rather than delve into the moral battleground of same-sex marriage.

“Obviously, Governor Weld felt the extreme heat from his party and decided not to come,” said Teresa Hyndman, 42, who helped plan the event. “I’m very disappointed.” (source)

He’s neither a “friend” or a “back stabber”. He’s just a politician. It’s amusing to me, in a way. The Republicans have, by trying to appeal to their Right Wing constituency, have themselves become part of the Right Wing litmus test. It seems that it’s now impossible to support gay people in any way, shape, or form, and still have the support of the Republican Party.

So now, Ex-Governor Weld had a chance to show what he’s about and stand up for his principles. Unfortunately, he has no backbone. Either that, or he was lying when he said that he supported gay marriage.

Either way, he doesn’t look to be good governor material.

I am writing from the UK with regard to the recent article, “Desperately Sorry” by your writer Alan Bisbort [The World This Week, Aug. 4].

I am not qualified to comment on the U.S. political part of this, but it seems true from what is being reported over here. Yes, Bush seems like a war mongering prat in the pockets of the oil industry with an intense self-seeking desire to write his name into the history books. Above all, he comes across as borderline intelligent. You know the kind of guy who stacks shelves because this is the best job he can get. Yep. America is truly a great country -- where a shelf-stacker can become president. Although, given the choice available, maybe he was just the best person for the job. (source)

I personally wouldn’t even hire Bush to stack shelves. I don’t think he’s up to the job.

As for being the best person for the job... I voted for John Kerry last time (although I wouldn’t today because of his stance on marriage equality). If I had to guess though, if John Kerry had become President in the last elections, I would guess that the 1900 men who have died in Iraq would still be alive, we wouldn’t be at war, and Iraq wouldn’t be any worse off than it is today, which granted, isn’t saying a lot.

I’m feeling a bit better today. It’s amazing how sleep helps. I got almost 15 hours sleep last night (gotta love depression) and probably would have slept more if Kent hadn’t called at 9:30. It’s ok, I needed to get up and get going. It’s clinical depression - just something I have to deal with that happens to me once in awhile. Certain things trigger it. Sometime I can control it - sometimes not. Anyway, I’m coping at the moment and will go to bed early again tonight. I never thought I’d hear myself say this, but I’m happy tomorrow is Monday, just so I can go to work and keep busy. Enough about me...

I went to Charley’s this morning just like Kent and I always do. I miss him. I know, it’s only been two days, but it’s my routine. I was reading the Hartford Courant, and came across an interesting article.

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society where the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy. [...]

“We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic,” said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity.

What the hell did they expect? These people are morons. I suppose they were hoping for a “conservative democracy” like say, the U.S. State of Georgia or Virginia? Who knows. From day one, I’ve always said that we assumed a great deal when we stated that the people of Iraq want a democracy. Democracy is simply a definition, and there are as many definitions of that word as there are people.

So, did our boys die in Iraq so a new Islamic republic could be formed? Was it worth it? Will the people of Iraq be any better off after this is settled than they were under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Our government will say “yes”. What else can they say? To say otherwise is to show that this war was a complete sham. Will we ever know the real reason behind this war?

I suppose there’s not much else that can be said about it, except, Bring It On!

On another topic...

Last week, I forget the day, I was eating lunch at a sandwich shop not far from work. I enjoy reading the Hartford Advocate on occasion, and came across an interesting article from Alan Bisbort.

With his appointment, Bush has provided the impetus for his new nickname: the F.U. Kid. His middle finger extended to the U.N., the F.U. Kid goes on vacation. This, by the way, is his 49th vacation and, at five weeks, it’s the longest presidential vacation in 36 years -- this despite the fact that the nation is at war and has just suffered through one of our bloodiest weeks in Iraq. Today, Aug. 11, will be the 327th day that the F.U. Kid has vacationed on our dime. That’s nearly one year out of the five he’s been sheriff.

I was really taken back by that - 327 days of vacation. I didn’t realize that a U.S. President received that much vacation time.

President Bush Monday bypassed Congress and appointed John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations with the goal of helping “the U.N. reform itself.”

The new ambassador’s mission is “to help the U.N. reform itself to renew its founding promises for the 21st century,” Bush said, adding that Bolton “will make it clear that America values the potential of the United Nations to be a source of hope and dignity and peace. (source)

It’s no surprise that President Bush would take the fast easy way to get Bolton into the position of U.N. Ambassador to the United States. This is par for the course. If you don’t like what the courts say about something, alienate them by calling the judges on the court “activist judges” who are “legislating from the bench”. So what if their ruling is in accordance to the Constitution? Their decisions are unpopular and should not be allowed, damn it! And if we have to change the Constitution because it is getting in our way of doing what we damn well want to do, so be it! It’s a pain in the ass anyway.

And if the Congress gets in your way, simply wait for them to go on recess, then make your appointment. Simple.

I would say this to President Bush.

We need a President that has a goal of helping the United States reform itself. We need a President that will make it clear that America values every citizen equally in our nation, along with other people of the world, and will be an shining example of hope, dignity, and peace for all people. We need a President who will recognize the Constitution of the United States as a living document that has at it’s core the basis of human dignity. We need a President who will respect that.

“So today, I’ve used my constitutional authority to appoint John Bolton to serve as America’s ambassador to the United Nations.” - President Bush.

When the Constitution works for the President, he’s very willing to embrace the document. When it says something he doesn’t like, he wants to amend it. The Constitution of the United States should be bigger than being a pawn to a fool.

Other writings on Bolton
April 18, 2005 - “Ambassador” John Bolton
April 20, 2005 - White House Renews Support for Bolton