TO TORTURE OR NOT TO TORTURE ...

A day or two ago the head of the Iranian judiciary issued an order banning the use of torture and other abuses

"Any torture to extract a confession is banned and the confessions extracted through torture are not legitimate and legal," Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi's order to the police, judges and intelligence officials says. The 15-point directive says the "blindfolding, restraining, pestering and insulting of detainees must be avoided during arrest, interrogation and investigation".

Around the same time, President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. The Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.

Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?

The California Curmudgeon.

PRIORITIES BE DAMNED

I read this morning that the Senate put aside a defense bill of $491 billion dollars in troop funding to work an a really critical issue -- giving gun manufacturers and sellers sweeping immunity from lawsuits (this is something no other industry has).

In a speech to the Senate, Bill Frist said "Domestic gun industry might collapse under the weight of law suits and the nation would become dependent on foreign sources of weapons for our troops" He also said some other funny things.

I wonder if he is aware that the United States is the largest arms manufacturer and dealer in the world and we will sell these arms to anyone with a buck.

If the insurgents of Iraq want some new arms, check it out. We might not give them a big discount, but by golly we will sell them any arms they might need.

War profiteering is the name of the game, and the bottom line is the only thing.

The California Curmudgeon.

KARL ROVE: THE FIRES OF DAMNATION

It seems that Karl Rove has once again emerged from the "Cave of Darkness" this time to be seen as a possible felon for lying to the Grand Jury. As Alice, of another story, said "this gets curiouser and curiouser"

Not only has Karl Rove outed an undercover CIA agent, he has now lied to the Grand Jury (I know these are not fact yet, but neither was a lot of the shit they said about Clinton).

Regardless of what he said earlier, Bush is now reniging on his previous statement that he would fire anyone involved in the outing of Valerie Plame.

He now says that if anyone is proved to have outed the CIA agent and they are convicted of lying, and his spin doctors cannot reverse public opinion, then he might possibly look into the matter and make his decision then (or words to the effect). Hey, the Republicans can do this.

I always thought that Rove being fired would have little or no effect on the administration because I am sure he would be ruling from his "Cave of Darkness" somewhere deep within the confines of the White House.

Of course, that's just my opinion, but I am probably right.

The California Curmudgeon

THE TARNISHING OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

I know this is a little late, but I just heard about it. I must have had my head buried in the sand, but I did not know that George W. Bush had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for 2004 (along with Tony Blair). They were nominated for going to war with Iraq (I wonder if I kick the shit out of the little kid across the street if I can be nominated next year).

Here are one and a half of the architects of the Iraq war being nominated for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. They were nominated by Jan Simonsen, an independent member of Norway's Parliament who said "they got rid of a dictator and made the world more safe". He made no mention of the lack of WMD nor the many, many lies we were told to take us into the war, nor of soldiers and the untold number of civilians killed. Instead he said "Bush and Blair definitely still deserve it".

Other nominees included: Pope John Paul II; the European Union (to mark its expansion to include former East bloc states); the Salvation Army; former Czech president Vaclav Havel; former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and former Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler;

Incidently, the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize was won by Wangari Maathai of Kenya "for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace"

I guess smarter heads did prevail.

The California Curmudgeon

THE YOUNG AND THE OLD

Here are two quotes from my local newspaper. I don't think I have to say much more except that I'll bet this STILL doesn't include the Bush twins or anyone else connected to the administration or Congress.


"KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Fierce fighting in recent months has devastated the ranks of the Taliban, prompting the rebels to recruit children and force some families to provide one son to fight with them, a U.S. commander said Saturday."

"The U.S. Army, stung by recruiting shortfalls caused by the Iraq war, has raised the maximum age for new recruits for the part-time Army Reserve and National Guard by five years to 39, officials said on Monday. The Army said the move, a three-year experiment, will add about 22 million people to the pool of those eligible to serve, from about 60 million now."


The California Curmudgeon

SHIFTING THE COURT TO THE RIGHT

Bush met with a few of the Democrats recently supposedly to get their input about their choice of the next justice of the Supreme Court. Once again he had a chance to prove to the citizens of United States that he was, as he promised during his campaign, a uniter, not a divider. We are still waiting for that miracle as he has now nominated John G. Roberts, a staunch conservative to sit on the bench, with no regard to the minority's request of seeking a person more in the middle.

I both heard and read that Bush was shifting the court to the right. Am I the only one who thinks the court is now so far to the right that if it were tilted any more, all the justices'would slide off the right end?

The California Curmudgeon

JUSTICE FOR LIFE

Why are Supreme Court justices appointed to the bench for life? The president doesn't even get that long of a term (thank God for that!).

Where else could you find a better deal than a lifetime appointment to a job? You wouldn't have to worry about ever being fired. You wouldn't have to worry about doing your job to the best of your abilities. You wouldn't even have to try and please your boss. All you would have to do is show up and not die.

Have you seen the ages and longevity of our current justices?

Rehnquist is 80 and has been there for 33 years.
Stevens is 84 and has been thee for 30 years.
Scalia is 68 and has been thee for 19 years.
Kennedy is 68 and has been thee for 17 years.
Souter is 65 and has been thee for 15 years.
Thomas is 56 and has been thee for 14 years.
Ginsburg is 71 and has been thee for 12 years.
Breyer is 66 and has been thee for 11 years.

I know you can't discriminate because of age, but would you honestly hire any one of these people if they came to you for a job? And yet they are making the laws of our country.

I'm sure it will never change, but I do wonder why not.

The California Curmudgeon.

PORK BARREL BABIES OF CONGRESS

In our Sunday paper there was a front page article about where the war money goes. This old cynic was completely astounded by the figures.

In 2003, $48.9 billion went to the military and $6.6 billion went to Reconstruction, Foreign assistance and Training. In 2004, $77.9 billion went to the military and $20.1 billion was used for RF&T. Now in 2005, we have $62.9 billion going to the military and $1.8 billion for RF&T.

My first thought, when I read these figures was Where in the hell is all the money for the military going? The administration certainly isn't breaking the budget providing proper equipment to our soldiers.

Most of the soldier's pay is accounted for in the regular budget(they are being paid whether they are in Iraq or Korea or here at home), so that shouldn't add anything additional cost to our Iraq "occupation". Certainly there are more bullets and bombs being used, but billions and billions of dollars worth? And still the tanks have no under armor.

Then tonight on "60 Minutes" I saw where some of this war money was going. It was going to Pork Barrel Projects of the Congress. While they are telling us to support the troops, they are bent over the war money trough and grabbing as much as they can without even a thought to the soldier overseas.

According to "60 Minutes", Congress routinely hides pet projects in defense bills and by law these cannot be cut from the bills.

So all this money that is needed to upgrade the equipment in Iraq is being spent by these flag-waving Congressional members for their projects such as: a biathlon jogging track in Alaska, a brown tree snake eradication program in Hawaii, a parade grounds maintenance contract for a military base closed many years ago and a Lewis and Clark Centennial Celebration. In Congress, it's Business as Usual.

I don't think that those pet projects are more important than providing our boys in Iraq with the proper equipment.

The California Curmudgeon

ROVE AND THE WORD "TREASON"

I don't expect much to come of it, but Karl Rove has definitely got his tit caught in a wringer. And I hope Bush is not far behind.

On February 10, 2004 Bush said "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is ... If the person has violated the law, that person will be taken care of."

And true to his word, Bush is indeed taking care of Rove. Just today he came out in full support of his Deputy Chief of Staff with the White House saying that President Bush continues to have confidence in Karl Rove.I guess that means that he won't be fired like Bush said in June of 2004 when he answered "Yes" to a question asking him if he would fire anyone who had leaked the agent's name. Rove says that he didn't leak Valerie Plame's name, he refered to her as the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV. (who knows how many people would fit that description?)

And while we are on the subject, what happened with Robert Novak? Judith Miller has been sent to jail, Matthew Cooper took the easy way out and once again Robert Novak is not mentioned.

In case you have had your head buried in the sand (which sometimes I think is the best way to get through the day) you will remember that Robert Novak was the one who outed Valerie Plame in his column. He outed her in print, yet no one is getting on his case. The proof that he did this is right there in his column. I think that's treason, but at the very least it has to be a felony.

Not only should both Rove and Novak be fired, but they should also be forceded to stand trial for the crime.


The California Curmudgeon

BLUE COLLAR WORKERS AND BUSH

Can anyone tell me why any blue collar worker, who is in his right mind, would support Bush?

I read letters from people in the "letters to the editor" section who defend Bush like he was their savior. Now I am not sure of these people's financial condition, but judging from the area the letters came from I believe I can safely conclude that these people are not in what Bush likes to call "his base", in fact, I would venture to say that these people don't have a pot or a window.

Why are these people who are not on Bushs' "A" list so steadfastly behind him? Bush takes from them to give to his cronies and they still love him.

I just cannot understand it.

The California Curmudgeon.

ARE A NOMINEE'S VIEWS FAIR GAME?

Are a Nominee's Views Fair Game?

That was the title of an article that I read today. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Are a Nominee's views really important when choosing a new justice? What else is there? It's the only thing they bring to the table.

True, their personal views wouldn't be important if they ruled only on the constitutionality of each issue brought before them, but we all know that is not how they rule. If that was the criteria they used, then it wouldn't make any difference if they were a hard-nosed neocon or a bleeding-heart liberal.

The California Curmedgeon

THE WUSSIE DEMOCRATS

With Sandra Day O’Connor stepping down, I thought the Democrats would be making plans to block any extreme right-wing judge from taking the bench, but now I read that due to the compromise they made with the Republicans on May 23, they aren’t allowed to filibuster any undesirable nominee except for “Extreme Circumstances”.

According to the Repubs, being extremely right wing and standing against most things Americans hold dear, does not constitute “Extreme Circumstances”. A filibuster can only be justified on questions of personal ethics or character.

Senator Lindsey O. Graham R-S.C. said “Ideological attacks are not an ‘Extreme Circumstance’. To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent”.

David DiMartino, spokesman for Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, quickly responded with his own attack “(We) would agree that ideology is not an “Extreme Circumstance” unless you get to the extreme of either side”.

Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas said that he would not question a nominee about his views about abortion, affirmative action or similar matters.

If putting a judge with far-right leanings on the highest bench in the land where this judge will be handing down constitutional decisions for many years to come, isn’t “Extreme Circumstances”, I don’t know what is. But it looks like the Demos could once again roll over and play dead because they were told, by the Repubs, they couldn’t do anything.

When did the Democrats forget how to stand up and fight?

The California Curmudgeon.

PATRIOTISM

On this Fourth of July it seems fitting to address patriotism versus anti-patriotism. First of all I think we must define patriotism.

Is it blindly following the president no matter what he does and defending his actions against any and all critics? Is it being against anyone who does not fit in this patriotic mold that the administration has formed and calling them anti-American? Is it being in favor of an illegal war even though we were taken into it with lies on top of lies? Is it saying that you support the troops, but are in favor of not sending them enough armor-covered vehicles, or reducing their benefits for fighting in the war? Is it waving the flag?

Or is it standing up to the government against its war policies – against its power grab – against its uncontrollable greed? Is it wanting to put “bring the boys back home” as a top priority? Is it wanting to bring the Constitution back to life? Is it wanting a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” instead of one that shifts the cost of government onto the shoulders of the poor and middle class? Is it standing by silently, doing nothing while our beloved country becomes a bully to all the world, rejecting allies in favor of Empire building?

The Bush America of today bears little resemblance to the America of my youth. The America of my youth was a kinder and more loving America. Even then we had massive power, but we didn’t use it nor did we threaten to use it. Some called us the Sleeping Giant. We were an America that wanted to be liked by everyone.

The dictionary says patriotism is “devoted love, support and defense of one’s country; national loyalty”.

Back in those days of my youth, we ALL had that kind of patriotism. And when we were attacked in 1941 by the Japanese, we all went to war. Movie actors put their careers on hold and joined the service. Senators and their sons enlisted, as did the rest of America. Those who couldn’t serve did their share at home. Everyone was in that fight.

In that war we were all behind our government.

The California Curmudgeon.

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING

What ever happened to investigative reporting?

During the Watergate scandal, Bob Woodard and Carl Bernstein followed through on every lead and eventually brought down the corrupt "I am not a crook" President Nixon. But today there is no such thing as investigative reporting.

Apparently newspapers and radio and television now all seem to take the easy way out and report whatever the government wants them to report. There is no investigative reporting anymore.

How much ink (as they say in the biz) have you seen about the outing of the CIA, agent Valerie Plame or the many cases of Halliburton's scandalous overcharging of the U.S. government or Bush's pre-screened townhall meetings or the Downing Street Memos or the ongoing lack of armor on the vehicles in Iraq or whatever happened to Osama bin Laden or why doesn't the government seem to care about domestic policies or why the education of our children doesn't seem important anymore or why the country is being controlled by the religious right or why our jobs are being shipped overseas or why our dollar is falling faster than a rock tied to a stone or lying about the reasons for going to war or the fast count we got on both elections or why Bush wants to make more atomic bombs or why the administration disbelieves the studies on global warming or ...

There are smoking guns lying all around, but no one seems interested in following up on any of them.

But you must remember: President Clinton was impeached for kissing a girl and making her cry.

The California Curmudgeon

SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has resigned from the court, this gives Bush a great opportunity to show that he a uniter and not a divider. Will he pick someone who will please the right and still be acceptable to the left or will he "stay the course" and go to the right as far as possible? We all know which road he will take, don't we?

He will most certainly appoint someone who is to the right of O'Connor so there will be no danger of the new judge being a swing vote. And then with five of the nine judges backing him on everything, Bush will have all three branches of government in his pocket along with all the media. This will give him almost dictatorial powers.

Having five judges voting as one huge conservative monster, what will happen to abortion right, civil liberties and the government's regulatory powers?

I always thought the duty of the Supreme Court was to determine the constitutionality of each subject brought before them, deciding only on the basis of constitutionality without any regard to the political leanings of the judges.

With five right-leaning judges on the high bench, the only question will be "WWGD?" Indeed, what would George do?

The California Curmudgeon