Monday, July 10, 2006

The Supreme Court has no police

* tpm:
"The latest installment in the soap opera that is the Harris campaign finds Harris, burned by her connection to defense contractor MZM, trying to shift the focus by claiming that her opponent, Sen. Bill Nelson, accepted illegal campaign contributions several years ago.

The problem is Harris' former campaign manager was named as a co-conspirator in that case. Oops."
* nyt:
" In his most detailed comments to date on the Supreme Court's rejection of his decision to put detainees on trial before military commissions, President Bush said Friday that the court had tacitly approved his use of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."

* larisa was on laura flanders. she said that suskind made a mistake by putting the cyanide/metro plot in his book - 'parently there was no such plot. I think she was referring to this article.

* nation:
" On July 5 the US Army brought charges against First Lieut. Ehren Watada, an infantry officer stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, who has refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit because he believes the war there is illegal. Watada faces up to eight years in jail and a dishonorable discharge. But in trying the 28-year-old officer, the Army is really putting itself, the Iraq War and the Bush Administration on trial.
The Supreme Court has no police under its command. So the question is, How will the limits Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has set on executive power be implemented?"
Video of watada here

* digby:
"Same shit, different war. Maybe all wars. But this one is unique in the post war world. We did this one almost alone, based on lies and some hidden agenda which nobody has yet fully explained. Indeed, the consensus seems to be that these starry eyed neocon checkenhawk warriors each had their own reasons for wanting to invade, none of which were legal, moral or politically sellable."
(i'd argue that the was probably hasn't even been partially explained. i'm still at a loss.)

* billmon:
"In my darker moments, it sometimes seems as if the entire world is in the middle of a fierce backlash against the Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution and the ideological challenges they posed to the old belief systems. The forces of fundamentalism and obscurantism appear to be on the march everywhere – even as the moral and technological challenges posed by a global industrial civilization grow steadily more complex.

Climate change is only one of those challenges, and maybe not even the most urgent one – at the rate we’re going, civilization could collapse long before the Antarctic ice shelves do. Maybe as a species we really have reached the same evolutionary dead end as Australopithecus robustus – intelligent enough as a species to create problems we're not bright enough, or adaptable enough, to solve. I don’t know. But if extinction, or a return to the dark ages, is indeed our fate – or our grandchildren’s fate, anyway – I think it will be a Hobson’s choice as to which cultural tendency will bear the largest share of the blame: the arrogant empiricism that has made human society into an instrument of technological progress instead of the other way around, the ignorant prejudices of the masses, who are happy to consume the material benefits of the Enlightenment but unwilling to assume intellectual responsibility for them, or the cynical nihilism of corporate and political elites who are willing to play upon the latter in order to perpetuate the former, which is, after all is said and done, their ultimate claim to power."


rimone said...

about the billmon excerpt above, our country's going the way of the preznit: 'history...who cares? we'll all be dead.'

not for the first time this morning, i could scream.

lukery said...

being dead is such a luxury

i'm so torn between wanting to be dead - and the only thing that keeps me alive is the desire to save the planet...