Kentucky Blog

Because Kentucky Is Not Called the "REDgrass State"

Monday, August 29, 2005

Crazy Pat Robertson

The loony Pat Robertson:


Two years ago, I felt an urgent need for people to unite and pray for change in
the Supreme Court. So, in July of 2003, The 700 Club launched Operation Supreme
Court Freedom, a nationwide 21-day prayer campaign.
O'Connor announced her retirement this summer, so Robertson says his prayers are answered:
Tens of thousands of people responded to this massive prayer offensive and cried out to the Lord to change the court. And God heard those prayers!

So if I pray for rain today, and it rains tomorrow....

Anyway, the "prayer points" are just creepy:

Pray that those who oppose biblical truth would retire from the Supreme Court and be replaced by those who honor God's law.

Sandra Day O'Connor apparently opposed "biblical truth" (whatever the hell that means).

Pray that any plan of the enemy for the Senate confirmation hearing would be thwarted. Take authority over the schemes of Satan concerning the Supreme Court.

So people that think John Roberts ought to be questioned and held to account for his views, whether favorable or unfavorable is the "enemy" and minions of "Satan." That's about 61-64% of people overall while nearly 2/3 think he should state how he would rule on past cases. Since 2/3 also support the upholding of Roe v. Wade it appears that Robertson thinks a majority of Americans are the "enemy" or "Satan" (no surprise from someone that said federal judges are the biggest threat to America).

What ever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged"? Or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? The reason people think religious people are quacks is because religious people let Pat Robertson speak for them. Reject this lunatic's self-aggrandizing proclamation to speak for "people of faith" and you'll get the common courtesy you demand. Let Pat Robertson continue to speak for you and you'll get the ridicule you deserve.

Friday, August 26, 2005

Greenspan Has Jumped the Shark

Alan Greenspan should have a wax statue made of himself and put on display at Madame Tussaud's because there's nothing working upstairs:
"Developing protectionism regarding trade and our reluctance to place fiscal policy on a more sustainable path are threatening what may well be our most valued policy asset: the increased flexibility of our economy, which has fostered our extraordinary resilience to shocks," the Fed chief said in a speech to an economic conference here, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Words of wisdom brought to you by the stupid jackass that supported every deficit creating measure of this administration (as well as other Kool Aid induced policies).

The money quote? Try this:
"What they perceive as newly abundant liquidity can readily disappear," he said. "Whether the currently elevated level of wealth-to-income ratio will be sustained in the longer run remains to be seen."

See what's wrong with that statement? Here's a hint: tax cuts good, they grow the economy, they create wealth, growth covers revenue loss, too much wealth unsustainable, deficits created, can't cover paper investments (i.e., paper wealth such as "property deeds").

Make sense yet? Of fucking course it doesn't! That's the point. This dude has completely lost his marbels.

Oppose John Roberts

I've been largely disinterested in the John Roberts for SCOTUS debate. He's conservative and I oppose his views on the role of women (in the home only) and his apparent belief in their relative inequality. I generally oppose his view that there is no right to privacy - that really seems to strike at the heart of my vision of what basic tenets America was founded upon. I disagree with his generally held belief that the Executive Branch carries greater strength than the judiciary, which strikes at the heart of the separate but co-equal three branches of government established by the Constitution.

But he's a conservative, that's what they stand for, and that's the type of nominee we should expect when a conservative gets to pick the SCOTUS nominee. It's not a good pick by my way of thinking, but then again I don't think Jesus would suggest assassinating world leaders, that Jesus wouldn't con some Muslims into taking out the World Trade Center because women have the right to choose what health care they receive or because lesbians have the right to hug and kiss each other, that George Bush is not the second coming of Jesus, and wouldn't really approve of cutting social benefits for tired, poor, and hungry so multi-millionaires can afford just...one...more...fancy...car. I suppose I'm really out of touch with Jesus, and my now deceased Southern Baptist preacher grandfather would be quite unhappy with that (even though he never suggested assassinating anyone, preached charity, and treated everyone equal - maybe he was out of touch, too, now that I think about it).

But this kind of crap really pisses me off (from Think Progress):

In April, Judge John Roberts “heard arguments about the Bush administration’s [Guantanamo Bay] policy as he was discussing a Supreme Court appointment in private conversations with the White House.” On July 15, “when Judge Roberts met with President Bush for the job-clinching interview, he joined a ruling in favor of the defendants, who included Mr. Bush.” The White House claims Roberts didn’t do anything wrong. Bush spokesman Steve Schmitt said “there was no conflict whatsoever.”

John Roberts knows better and we have proof. In 1986, when John Roberts was working in the White House Counsel’s Office for President Reagan, he was asked to review a mundane request by an attorney named Lester Hyman. Roberts replied: I must recuse myself from this matter, in light of pending discussions with Mr. Hyman’s firm about future employment.

So Roberts understands it’s unethical to make professional decisions that impact a prospective employer. When it came to the prospect of a nomination to the Supreme Court, Roberts simply set ethics aside.

Maybe I've just gotten fed up dealing with judges that don't give a damn about what the law is. Maybe I'm just tired of the arbitrary manner in which some state court judges adhere to the "good old boy" system of dispensing justice - one friend at a time. Maybe I'm overly idealistic in hoping that at least when a judge reaches the highest plateau of the legal profession he or she should have the highest regard for the rule of law and respect for the inherent integrity that comes with the accolade. Whatever.

But this crap shows Roberts to be nothing more than a groveling ladder-climber. I won't begrudge his ideology too much, although I will disagree with it. As I said, he's a conservative and as long as we elect intellectual neanderthals we'll get nominees that share their beliefs that women should be perpetually pregnant and earn substandard wages, opposes the extension of civil rights, and generally thinks the government should decide what's best for a woman's health. Not to mention the belief that it's okay to torture a couple brown people, because...well, they're just no Christians and they look different and their names are hard to pronounce dammit.

But nominating a guy that has so little regard for the most basic ethical trappings that accompanies the authority to sit in judgment over the foundations of our civil liberties and the rule of law? This particular nominee truly befits the pathetic moral and ethical depravity of the person that nominated him.

I'm Back Bitches

Blogging is hard work. It ain't easy sitting at a keyboard, hurling biased and unsolicited commentary on everything from Iraq to Anne Northup to the merits of memorializing "big hair bands" in pretty bronze sculptures. It's been weeks since my last post, and if you've wandered by I'm sure it's because you meant to type something else in the "address" line of your internet browser. Anyway, while I've been gone I've managed to clear off my office desk, post a few entries over at Bluegrass Roots, and catch up on listening to some funky blues.

So I'm back, I'm glad, and I'm wearing stripes with plaid.

Fox News is the most f-ed up organization I've ever seen, and there really ought to be a law:
In what Fox News officials concede was a mistake, John Loftus, a former U.S. prosecutor, gave out the address [of the home of Randy and Ronnell Vorick] Aug. 7, saying it was the home of a Middle Eastern man, Iyad K. Hilal, who was the leader of a terrorist group with ties to those responsible for the July 7 bombings in London. [snip] ...A driver yelled a profanity at the family and called them terrorists as they barbecued on their patio Aug. 14. Some drivers have stopped and photographed the house, Randy Vorick said.Last weekend, someone spray-painted "Terrist" on their home. [snip] ...Loftus also apologized and told The Times last week that "mistakes
happen.""I'm terribly sorry about that. I had no idea. That was the best information we had at the time," he said.

The Rude Pundit explains life in "Gitmo America":
And Loftus, so plump with speaking fees, said that he gave out the information
based on "the best information we had at the time." Is that the unimpeachable excuse for every massive fuck-up now? You know, "the best information we had at the time" said that blacks were mentally inferior to whites who could be best served by being slaves. "The best information we had at the time" said that Native Americans were subhuman savages who needed to be slaughtered. "The best information we had at the time" told Colin Powell that Iraq had WMDs. If you tell your one-night stand that she can't catch your herpes from sucking you off, and then she does and does get your herpes, you can say you were working on the best information you had at the time. In other words, "the best information we had at the time" is the catch-all bullshit for every time you operate out of willful ignorance, outright lies, and stupidity. It's a cop-out. It's a way of saying that you're wrong now, but, shit, you weren't wrong then, when, really, and, c'mon, if you're wrong, you're fuckin' wrong, no matter when. [Because I can't post this stuff at Bluegrass Roots - it's a family blog, whereas mine isn't read by anyone.]

These people have 3 kids. What kind of world do we live in where a news outlet can subject an innocent family to psychological torment and threats of physical violence out of willful ignorance and a malicious disregard for the facts, and with no regard for common rules of discourse and decency? It's Gitmo America:
While Fox deserves even more scorn and pointing and laughing, let's not let the vigilantes who are attacking the Voricks off the hook. They are pathetic, worthless dungheaps, unable to articulate anything more than "Terrist bad" and rage at the full moon for daring to take away the shadows they cower in, piss bucket opportunists who only need to be told where to bring the mob so, hunched over and grunting, they can lynch and burn, lynch and burn, without the niceties of trial, the delays of due process, and cavort and cackle like crazed jackals over the carrion corpses of the dead. In this way, they are just like the Bush administration.This is Gitmo America, where guilt need only be implied for us to be willing to allow torture, psychological and otherwise, to be heaped upon the accused.

How un-American can you get?