the gop finally settle on an impeachment strategy

reliving doonesbury's watergate

only the names have changed ...

original 1973 artwork © g.b. trudeau:

the smoking gun?

dominoes revisited

we've been here before, haven't we?

one year in

the trump retirement plan

yes, we have no collusion, part two

washington post:

a few days after the attack, the now-former secretary of state, rex tillerson, called the poisoning "a really egregious act" and linked it "clearly" to russia. by contrast, the president himself has said nothing so definitive. on his twitter account, where he comments regularly on islamist terrorism, he has not mentioned the use of a chemical poison in an english city. nor did he mention it during a telephone conversation with the russian president.

the headline practically writes itself ...

yes, we have no collusion

ripped from the headlines of tomorrow's soon-to-be-not-so-fake news: the name of the one country that the trump crime family™ most definitely has not been guilty of conspiring with:

torture works

the birther era

... cliff notes version:

a short quiz on big brother

1. if there were a clickbox labled "allow gov't surveillance", would you click "yes"?

2. do you believe anyone else would click "yes"?

3. if not, then why is there unlimited gov't surveillance?

"better guilty than impotent"

sometimes there is no third option to use, you can't get out of a situation without making yourself look bad. so your best option is basically to take the lesser of two evils.

the catch is that the options that gives you the least problems is also the ones that makes you look like you had no idea what you are doing. so instead you make yourself look guilty in an effort to keep up your reputation.

named from the film version of the sum of all fears, where the russian president takes responsibility for a military strike done by a general acting without orders so it doesn't seem like he was incompetent.

"better guilty than impotent", tvtropes.org

this trope's been rattling around in my head since obama's chosen to vigorously defend the wholesale rifling of all domestic messages by the nsa. in "the sum of all fears" (2002), newly minted and wholly innocent russian president nemerov, after ordering the rogue generals responsible "disappeared", defiantly defends the atrocity as a legitimate response to "a nation of criminals" attacking innocent russians, in order to not appear not in control of his own military. the hero, cia analyst jack ryan, to the derision of washington's defense and intelligence chairs, correctly surmises that nemerov isn't the hardliner he pretends to be and didn't order the attack — ultimately helping both countries avoid being manipulated into global thermonuclear war.

it's difficult to reconcile a constitutional scholar and government transparency proponent defending, much less overseeing, a massive ongoing violation of the fourth amendment. but it's not hard to imagine the nsa (with profiteer booz allen) doing what they're paid to do, in secret, and in the name of the war on terror, simply deciding they could and would eavesdrop on everyone. these are not revelations of new ambitions. so we're left to scratch our heads and wonder if obama chose the lesser of two evils rather than plead ignorance and admit that our intelligence agencies are out of control. or maybe a movie is just a movie. perhaps we'll find out in fifty years or so after the papers are finally declassified (or even sooner if wikileaks or anonymous ever gets hold of them).

carnival cruz

ain't i just the devilish thang?

CRUZ: Would [Senator Feinstein] deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?

FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for twenty years. I was a mayor for nine years, I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot by these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.

Look, there are other weapons. I've been up close — I'm not a lawyer, but after twenty years, I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war, and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I, you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here a long time, I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself, I'm reasonably well educated and I thank you for the lecture.

Incidentally, this does not prohibit. You used the word prohibit. It exempts 2271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so — so I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.

the venn of birthers

rotting away in jail for fraud? well, this could be your lucky day! birthers are once again fishing for clients and anyone convicted under any laws enacted under an illegal president can apply for a get-out-of-jail-free card — at least according to their latest sure-fire usurper-slaying scheme, passed along by birther debunker blog obama conspiracy theories:

dcist.com reports the story that sibley has created a motion template for people convicted under the 2009 fraud enforcement and recovery act (the act makes it easier to prosecute cases of mortgage fraud and predatory lending). they can petition the court to have their convictions overturned because obama isn’t really president, forcing, sibley believes, the courts to adjudicate the president’s eligibility.

wherein i made the following offhand remark:

finding plaintiffs should be rather straightforward since, as with tax protestors and sovereign citizens, one cannot toss a birfer across a citizen grand jury without hitting a convicted fraudster.

which prompted the reply:

someone should make a birther/lowlife venn diagram.

which got me thinking ...

this first one requires a bit of nuance since one can argue that many if not most birthers fall into all three categories.

in the wingnuttosphere, even those that reject birthers (breitbart, beck) still feed into their mania.

odd duck birther martyr and former army surgeon terry lakin doesn't fit into my standard model but i came up with this just for him and his fellow high stakes losers.

the killer inside

when did fresh-faced boy james holmes become crazed killer james holmes?

murderers, maniacs and movie myths

thanks probably to a steady diet of "chiller theater", i've been fascinated by sociopaths for a long time. thankfully, most of them don't fall into the well-worn hollywood trope, i.e.; the hannibal-lecter-style genius super-predator.

however, unlike most real life homicidal maniacs, james holmes comes closer to the movie myth than most, since, unless he's suffered a recent drastic personality change into sociopathy, he has somehow managed to suppress his homicidal tendencies while advancing to a high degree of intellectual accomplishment.

but until his manifesto is found and/or holmes starts talking, this is all i'm ready to say about him. it is probably too early even to assume he's a sociopath.

see also:

"almost famous"

ritual sacrifices

while there's no sense to be found in a senseless massacre, these tragedies do happen for a reason. they happen because americans have collectively decided that our way of life is worth at least one or two senseless massacres a year.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by further restricting which people can buy which guns, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by further restricting which manufacturers can sell which guns, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by further restricting which people can buy and sell body armor, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by better tracking the violence-prone and the unstable, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by building more mental health facilities, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by reducing the violent content of our media, we've decided that it's not worth it.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by tightening security in public spaces, well, we're in the eleventh year of an experiment in doing just that.

if it's possible to prevent another massacre by expanding the government's police powers, again, we're in the eleventh year of an experiment in doing that too.

the one thing that we've decided that's worth doing, in lieu of most of the above, is engaging in a well-practiced national ritual: the nonstop replay of the crime; the mourning of the victims; the dissection of the killer; lastly, the hollow demands and promises of action, before returning numbly to whatever it is we do between the massacres. the ritual is necessary because we refuse admit to ourselves that we won't do anything else. the victims are the necessary sacrifices that allow the rest of us to continue enjoying the american way of life. the ritual is the necessary trade-off that allows us to trade away the guilt.

it is of course possible that there is actually nothing we can do or agree upon that will prevent another massacre, but who really believes that? so if this latest tragedy goes by without our acting meaningfully to prevent the next, it's because we've decided that it's not worth it — or maybe we think that it's worth at least one more senseless massacre.

have you seen me?

it's 2012 ... do you know where your CEOs are?

the wrong boys

"the evidence shows that mr. paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from mr. paterno's," the report's conclusion reads.

"at the very least, mr. paterno could have alerted the entire football staff, in order to prevent sandusky from bringing another child into the lasch building. messrs. spanier, schultz, paterno and curley also failed to alert the board of trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against mr. sandusky. none of them even spoke to sandusky about his conduct.

"in short, nothing was done and sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity."

predictions

a mere twenty-four hours ago:

guess what is up for today?

first on the news will be: O-BOMB-A-CARE!

next on the news will be: holder won't be holding his job!

what a beautiful day this will be!!!:)

by seekthetruth

the whole law will get tossed because there is not enough pretzel logic on earth to find the mandate constitutional. and there is no severability clause. and there is no way in hell the court is going to wade through a 3000 page bill to try and create one.

the result will be much wailing, crying, and stamping of feet, culminating in a long-range leftist plan to undermine the supreme court (an FDR court packing scheme or something similar). it will become the bush v gore bloody shirt of the next decade.

electorally though it will actually help obama, as it will remove a huge unpopular albatross from around his neck. it will also get the catholic church to shut up about the mandate and many catholics will go back to voting democrat.

by buckeye mcfrog

SCOTUS will strike it down, POTUS will ignore the ruling.

by kosciusko51

by hotlanta mike

obama's responses usually have the flavor of vindictiveness, as in the arizona case. whatever his response, it will have to be an executive order, because most dems in congress just want this thing to go away.

of course, he will lash out verbally at both the republican party and the supreme court, but as to politically effective actions he could take, he may be boxed in. the most politically effective thing he could do would be to graciously accept the supremes' decision, but he won't do that. i hope he tries something, because it's just going to make it worse for his election chances.

by wayoverontheright

i predict there will be much sadness...

by vrwcArea51

me too, but not for us or this grand nation

by bornToBeAmerican

a constitutional crisis is about to be created, and obama, i hope, will be clapped in irons.

by candor7

and the rest, as they say, is history ...