A Letter To Rachel Maddow (With Apologies to Meg)

I really feel you're becoming the liberal Bill O'Reilly. I just don't appreciate the jumping on conservatives just because they're conservatives. If there is something specific that they are espousing and we, or you, or I, find it is despicable, jump on them for that belief, not just because they're conservative. That's what O'Reilly does. That's what Hannity does. That's what the blonde bimbi on Fox do.

In the third episode of "The West Wing" President Bartlett is making a speech. I dislike the discontinuity (just like it bothers me that Andy and Barney were cousins on their first episode but never again, but that's a rant for later), since as an economics student I don't know where he would have had a civil procedure professor, but in his speech he said:

"I had a civil procedure professor who said once...'When the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side, argue the facts...When you don't have the law on your side, when you don't have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.' Well, we've got the law on our side now, and we've got the facts on our side now..."

O'Reilly, et al bang their fists on the table. We've got the facts on our side, and we're getting the laws on our side, so Rachel, you've got to get your facts right, and you've got to do a little research and reflection on them. Unlike what you did last night.

In trying to do a gotcha thing with Scalia's quotes, you apparently didn't read the quotes, or understand them. You had me squirming, as apparently was Nina Totenberg, as you went on and on about Scalia's apple and Sotomayor's orange.

Scalia said that laws are made at the district court level. Sotomayor said it is done at the appellate level. There's a difference, all courts are not the same.

Scalia's point, and I disagree and will explain later, is that laws are "made" at the district court level, which is why you need so called strict constructionists at the higher levels to overturn them. Sotomayor's point, to which I disagree somewhat, is that those laws are not "made" at the district level, but at the higher levels. There's a difference.

I disagree with both of these legal scholars. Laws are made by the legislative branches, at all levels. However, as most of the legislators are not what we would call legal scholars, their attempts to enact laws may be in opposition to a previous law or precedent. More often, a party who is being impacted by the legislation will develop an interpretation that the new law is in violation of an existing law. These parties are rarely considered strict constructionists.

When this happens an action is taken, typically in a district court. This is where I find the quack Scalia to be wrong. Rarely is a decision made at this level where the district court judge will make a ruling that changes the new law. And even if he or she does, it rarely stops there. So I believe that Scalia is wrong in this interpretation.

Scalia's comments were made to rally the right against so called activist judges. Sotomayor's comments, which are more accurate in that changes to laws are more often made in the higher court, was to a group of law clerks. Her aim was to tell them that the more interesting clerk work is done at the higher levels, as it more often has more impact.

But laws are not made at any judicial level. Whether or not enacted laws are operable is determined in courts. And this often upsets people, as the judicial interpretation is different than their own. And those making those decisions are then labeled as activist judges. Not because they make an interpretation, all judges do that, but because they make one that somebody doesn't agree with.

My point is that facts are unique, words are special, they are important. In your occupation you need to be much more careful. Context is important, quotes cannot be paraphrased, nuance weighs in.

By the way, love your show.

PS to my dear friend Meg:

I know this screed will upset you, as you're a big fan. So am I. But to her this stuff is just a job. But its impact involves my life, my liberty, etc. I'm just saying what Phil Esterhaus would say, "Let's be careful out there."

Tennis Anyone?

I've got to stop watching TV. I was totally freaked out last night. It was part Bizarro world, part bizarre. I was screaming at Chris Matthews for being a putz, I was agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, and I was staring slack jawed at Dennis Miller. I really have to find a new hobby.

Matthews was trying to do a gotcha moment with the junior senator from my home state, Roland Burris. He had tape recording conversations between Burris and Robert Blagojevich, and had Burris on the line. Now I am hardly a fan of Burris, but I didn't hear anything in the conversation that was that untoward on Burris' part, the Blago brothers seem shady, but not so much Burris. But Chris thought he had him. Because of a huge, and rather stupid, leap by Matthews. Burris, in response to the pressure by Blago's brother, said " I might be able to get Wright to set something up.", referring to his partner. Matthews played the quote for him and Burris responded. Then a few minutes later Matthews says "but you promised to have your partner hold a fundraiser." I'd be in a lot of trouble if every time I said I might be able to do something and wound up being held to a promise.

Chris, when you play recorded conversations you don't get to edit the words. And the words matter.

Bill O'Reilly was doing a segment on some Canadian professor who is against any tightening up of regulations on Facebook, etc. about sharing pictures by young people. O'Reilly, though not even getting close to anything involving parental involvement, was upset with the concept, which is, especially for him, quite rational. I started questioning my own values when I realized this. But then he went on and on and eventually showed his true nature. He asked the question to his guest about who was the enemy here. In O'Reilly's world it's black and white, good and bad. No issue is complex. There has to be an enemy. I felt better.

I also felt better when his Patriot award for the night went to Bill Clinton. For telling a self-deprecating joke. Patriotic? O'Reilly's a boob.

But then he went into his "Between Barack and a Hard Place" segment, for which he should pay royalties to Chicago's Second City troupe. This segment involves poor Fox lapdog Alan Colmes and the miserable twit, Monica Crowley. They each get to say a good thing that Obama has done and bad thing he has done, and then they argue about it. Crowley's bad thing was the President's handling of the North Korea situation. When Colmes tried to corner her with the facts that George Bush was guilty of the same actions, Crowley started veering off message. And then, in Bizarro world fashion, O'Reilly also tried to pin her down. But like all of the blond conservative talking heads, she will change the subject and when backed into a corner will just start spouting conservative buzzwords. And again I was scratching my head about O'Reilly.

Finally he helped me back into reality by putting Dennis Miller on. Miller starts out his segment by putting some type of flower in his mouth and doing some type of flamenco dance. It was an homage to Sonia Sotomayor. It was unbelievable. Only Fox would allow, hell pay for, an idiot to disrespect an entire ethnic class. And the Republicans wonder why they don't attract more of the Hispanic vote.

Since Judge Sotomayor's nomination there has been much outrage about that nomination vis a vis her gender and ethnicity. Most of that has come from old angry white men, though a lot of younger dumb blonds have chimed in. I understand why the white men are angry. They are losing the control of the situation that they achieved through their hard efforts in being born a white man. I am an old angry white man, and I feel a little concerned by making these comments, as the other white men may beat me up. That's one of the things they're good at, and their chief method of problem solving.

But heroically, or as O'Reilly might mislabel it patriotically, I will say that her life story is wonderful, and I believe that her life and how it has shaped her thinking is a valuable thing for the Supreme Court.

Gotta run. There's an angry mob of white guys looming.

It's Pat!

So I tried again to watch Fox and Friends in the Morning, but couldn't last very long. They had a guest blond bimbo, Carrie Prejean, the pro-opposite-marriage Miss California. It was kind of funny for a while, she mad the other dufi seem to be of average intelligence. Then she brought her preacher on, some former coked out football player, and I couldn't take it.

So I had to go, well I didn't but I did, watch Morning Joe. Of course the topic of the day was the new Supreme Court nominee. And it didn't take long for me to start throwing things at the TV.

Mike Barnicle started with his concerns about Judge Sotomayor. Of course it had to to with that vile discrimination case in New Haven. Though not specifically upset with the case, his concerns had to do with the one paragraph opinion she had written. How could she decide something so important in just one paragraph? Then he let on that he had not read the paragraph, if he had he maybe could answer his question. Or better yet not even ask it.

Then Joe went on a tirade about how Republicans always treat Democratic high court nominees with respect, and always vote to approve, a "favor" Democrats don't return. He then brings up Bork, Thomas, who the Democrats hated because he was a black conservative, and Alito, reminding us of how Alito's wife had left the room in tears.

Well Joe, the Democrats excoriated Bork because he was a true political hack. He, against all rules, fired the Watergate Special Prosecutor, something nobody in the Nixon Justice Department would do, as they had respect for the law. Someone who would violate rules for pure political purposes, does not sit on the Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas had almost no paper trail. That was the biggest objection to him, not that he was a black conservative. The sex stuff all came at the last minute, the paper trail was the biggest problem as there was no way to determine how he might work on the court. And since his elevation, there is still almost no paper trail. We have to rely on tell all books to see how he works with the other Justices.

But the one who got me really crazy was Pat Buchanan. He of course is also upset with the New Haven case. The man is so distraught at the end of a society ruled by rich white males. He's beside himself. He then also launches the whole activist judge blather. We need to have jurists who follow the Constitution.

Pat, bullshit.

No one wants a strict following of the Constitution. You want them to follow it as you interpret it. Just as you interpret the Bible to be God's law that homosexuality is an abomination, yet a few verses away when the Bible says not to eat pork, you interpret that differently. Just as you interpret the Bible to say that abortion is an abomination, even though it isn't even mentioned.

Take the Second Amendment: the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Timothy McVeigh was one of the people. A thermonuclear device is an arm. Not even you, Pat, would be willing to accept laws that would allow a homicidal maniac the right to possess a nuclear weapon. Yet that is what a strict interpretation of the Constitution would provide.

And thank heavens not everyone has the same interpretations that you do Pat. Some of us actually think Nixon was a jerk.

Words, Words, Words. (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2)

I followed Fox News the last few election cycles, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I was, for the most part, able to handle it. I've tried watching it recently and it's getting tougher. Maybe it's due to the regime change. Maybe because it's not an election cycle. Maybe I'm just getting older and crankier.

I'm seriously getting ticked at journalists, commentators, talking heads, etc. who can't properly use the English language. That's their job. That's the sole reason for their existence: to use words properly. And they can't handle it. Especially Fox.

I can pretty much deal with Bill O'Reilly. He's just a buffoon. I get a kick out of his new Platinum Service. Apparently if you throw him some money, you get some extras out of his web site. Exactly what I don't know, and I don't think he's going to see any of my money in the near future.

What bothers me is his use of the language. He has a new feature on his show, Pinheads and Patriots. He identifies and disparages a stupid person, that's the pinhead. And then he lauds another person and he calls that person a patriot. Last night he lauded Greta Van Susteren as the patriot. What had she done that was patriotic? She injected Ana Marie Cox with epinephrine after an apparent food allergy reaction. Patriotic? No, love of country had nothing to do with it. Heroic? No, Ms. Van Susteren was at no risk to herself. Christian? Very.

But if you want to see people being paid large amounts of money to ostensibly communicate, but who just don't understand communication, at all, you've got to watch Fox Friends in the Morning.

Some snippets from the last week:

The brown haired guy who's not Steve Doocy was talking about the Steelers linebacker who didn't join his team in visiting the White House. He referred to him as " a teammate of the team."

The dumb blond in the middle, when giving the tease about Judge Whats-His-Name, who is their "legal" analyst: "the judge will be here in a moment's notice to discuss it."

Glenn Beck was flabbergasted this morning about Democrats and foreign policy. He was dismissing them because of their current complaints, saying that they don't understand that the current policies are a direct extension of progressive policies from the early twentieth century.

Brown haired guy, he's either a teammate, or of the team. Blondie, it's in a moment. Glenn, what was progressive a century ago is no longer progressive. Some of us actually move with the times and react to changes.

Today was the best for blondie and the brown haired guy. They got very confused with their teleprompters. Brown haired guy was reading a viewer's comment about their important story about a dog laundry machine, and he read it as if the woman's last name was Tennessee. The group joked about that for a while and it was great fun.

A short time later, the blond was introducing the day's news poll, and in giving the answers to the question also indicated that your choice is hotels. The group then let her know that she had not realized that the poll was sponsored by Choice Hotels. They laughed over it, and then Hemingway punched them in the mouth.

Sorry Woody, I had to.

Brilliant!

I'm going to give away Nancy Pelosi's strategy. I don't think it will have any effect on those who oppose her, one because nobody reads this blog anyway, and even if the Republican leadership did, it's a fact that they don't read well or understand things. Their political bias gets in the way.

The reason I'm doing this is because I've had it up to here (I'm holding my hand real high right now) with so-called journalists and commentators. They don't take any time to do any research, to actually read statements, they're all in the gotcha game. The only real journalism going on now is being done by the Frontline folks. They do incredible work, but as what's need in any successful endeavor, it takes time.

Nancy Pelosi wants a truth commission. President Obama does not, at least not at this time. He has way to many things on his agenda, and he would like the help of some Republicans. Or at least not have them holding torches and pitch forks. And he doesn't want Congressional Democrats to call for one, as this would have almost the same effect. So Nancy Pelosi won't make the call for a truth commission.

So she gives some press conferences discussing the briefings by the CIA. She disagrees with what has been reported. What has been reported is a simple notation that the briefers discussed the ongoing EIT's. When questioned on this, she states that the information she was given was inaccurate and incomplete. When asked if the CIA lied she says "I believe they did."

Headlines across America then said that she called the CIA liars. She didn't. She thinks, she believes they have lied. She has no proof, it's a gut feeling. The CIA has lied in the past. Hell, part of their business plan involves lying.

If the so-called journalists had stopped to fully read her statements, had done some homework, they could have seen what she's trying to do. One of the other people in the room that September day was then Congressman Porter Goss. He did an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post. The so-called journalists and columnists say that this proves that what Pelosi said was wrong. However, if they read and understand what he said -

"Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned."

they should be able to get a clearer picture. Mr. Goss uses he words "actually to be employed." His take on the meeting then was that they had not been employed at that time. Exactly what Pelosi said.

But now the rabble is after Pelosi. And you know what, the only way they're going to be able to sort this out is with some sort of commission or investigation. The one Pelosi wants. The one that will shatter any credibility that the Republican Party has left.

Brilliant!

Sometimes When You Bite the Hand That Feeds You

So, I'm trying to wean myself from Morning Joe. I keep trying to watch Fox and Friends in the morning and it is really hard. Not because I can't take the right wing histrionics, but because they are so gosh darn stupid.

I just giggled this morning when they were running their poll as to whether or not Pelosi should resign. Sixty percent of their viewers believe so. I don't have a cell phone to text my vote, nor do I Twitter, so I couldn't vote.

I had to turn it off when they were talking with the real chubby Baldwin brother, I think it's Stephen. He was discussing Pelosi's problem and said "She got her big foot stuck in her mouth. Sometimes when you bite the hand that feeds you, it turns around and bites you in the ass." I'm still shaking my head thinking about the imagery. I guess he's better when someone writes the lines for him. Actually, I've seen him in a couple of movies and he's really not any better.

My cable system sucks. RCN. I've got something like a thousand channels, but half of them are HD and I don't have HD. Subtract the infomercials, radio stations, and such and I've got maybe a couple hundred. Take out the crap and we're starting to talk a reasonable number. But at any given time, dozens of the channels are "temporarily out of service" on my TV. So I'm limited as to what I can watch.

I'm rationalizing, I love to hate Joe Scarborough. Today he was in fine form. First, he was echoing that nut job Monica Crowley. Apparently they believe that President Obama is following the lead of Former President Bush. By keeping the torture photographs secret, and by continuing some military tribunals (and as Joe said, keeping Gitmo open indefinitely) Obama has learned that Bush was right and he was in error.

Obama is attempting to keep the photographs secret for fear of reprisals from the Arab world. A legitimate rationale. I mean, actually using a rationale, an involved thought process, is an improvement. Bush kept them secret because he was under orders from Cheney to keep everything secret.

As far as the military tribunals, I think Mr. Scarborough and Dr. Crowley really need to gain a perspective. The Bush Adminstration waylayed hundereds of people and shipped them to Gitmo. They started a few tribunals, and realized they had some legal issues. They probably should have invested in competent lawyers instead of trusting the law firm of Miers and Gonzales.

President Obama's plans are to continue with the military tribunals in about a dozen cases, where there is legal authority to do so. Which means that he is not continuing the Bush policies in about 95% of the cases. So Dr. Crowley, if you think about it, if you are capable of rational thought when it comes to a Democratic Administration, he really isn't following the Bush Administration policies.

Praise the Lord!

He Said, She Said, We Said, They Said, I Said, You Said . . . .

O for a muse of accurate reporting. Between the politicians and the talking heads one never knows what's going on. And then there are those damned bloggers, you can never believe anything they say.

So Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and echoing Cheney my buddy Joe Scarborough,insist that water boarding developed significant information that helped us find more al-Qaida members. There are memos that prove it. In other words, torture works. Yesterday a top FBI anti-terrorism agent, and an interrogator in the hunt for bin Laden, stated to a Congressional committee that they did not get any significant information and in fact the enhanced interrogation techniques were slow and burdensome. So who's not telling the truth.

Cheney has not always been totally truthful about his Haliburton pension, Saddam Hussein trying to obtain uranium, the link between Iraq and al-Qaida. Well actually about a whole lot of things. On the other hand Ali Soufan the ex-FBI agent was hiding behind a screen. And he's an Arab.

I was watching TV last night and saw a lot of commentary on the whole effectiveness of torture thing. Bernie Goldberg and O'Reilly were talking about it. Hardball had a segment on it. I got to thinking that all of these people who are talking about it have no experience with terrorists, what makes them tick, how they react in situations. None of the people talking on TV, almost no congressmen, no one in the Bush State Department, the Bush Administration. Ditto for knowledge of interrogation methods. So to the truly unschooled layman, the concept of doing what ever you need to get done while the bomb is ticking makes some sense. We all know what Jack Bauer would do. But the screenplays for "24" were not written by people with any more expertise in terrorism or interrogation methods. They were written by people with expertise in suspense.

So Goldberg and O'Reilly and the Cheneys and Scarborough, shut up. Listen to Ali Soufan. Wait until memos are declassified. Talk about evidence, not speculations.

Another area where we're hearing more and more and learning less and less is what was said to Nancy Pelosi about enhanced interrogation techniques. She is now insisting that she was not told specifically that waterboarding was in use. John Boehner is insisting that it was. But John Boehner was not in the room. The CIA agents who were in the room aren't talking. There is talk that their notes may be declassified, but up to now we only have a brief description of the topics discussed on a chart. Porter Goss was in the room but he's not saying much.

Again, stop the speculation. I understand that as a politician, Pelosi feels an obligation to answer charges. But until we have more information, I don't think John Boehner should be talking about the matter.

Then again, I don't think John Bohner should be doing much talking at all.