“WE NEED TO FLIP FLOP ON FLIP FLOPPING”

Or, Why Are We Such Doctrinaire Idiots About Changing Positions?

What is with the remarkable obsession everyone, particularly political junkies and punky pundits, seems to have regarding altering political positions or "flip flopping" as it is derogatorily known in the popular parlance? The question should not be whether a politician has changed position, but what exactly is his or her new position and why did he or she change.

It is not as if Moses brought down our political positions carved on stone tablets. We were not born with political positions. They evolve over time for almost everyone, normally slowly, albeit occasionally fast as when wars and personal frights warp judgments sometimes overnight. Normally, such evolution and change is a good thing (so long as it is not hormonal or adrenalin driven). Change usually demonstrates the person is a mentally healthy, intelligent adult, one showing the ability to adapt to new evidence and information as it is revealed.

In fact, never changing positions is the mark of either a liar or someone likely anal retentive, mentally deficient and unable to properly evaluate changing circumstances. By the same token, constantly changing positions from day to day suggests a frightened individual, incapable of making a decision even when needed, an equally scary person to put in office. Both are symptoms of mental illness of one degree or another, certainly not someone to elect.

But, considered change based upon carefully considered information to the extent then available is not automatically to be condemned. That is the essence of the Scientific Method that has served us so well most of the time.

Of course, if the person cravenly changed positions just to curry favor with a particular group of voters, that demonstrates someone not to be trusted. That is the moral equivalent of lying to everyone.

Consequently, suppose a candidate has proclaimed in the past that, say, the leader of a specific religious group is a biased lunatic who spouts hatred against others. Yet now, the same candidate embraces the same religious leader. Is there anything to support the theory that such hatred is no longer being broadcast by that religious leader? If so, good for everyone and the “flip flop” is a good thing. We should reward conversions when someone comes to their senses. Conversely however, if there is nothing to suggest the religious leader is doing anything different to merit the embrace, then the switch by the politician is suspicious and deserves condemnation. Not for the fact he flipped, but for his purpose in doing so.

We need the full facts, something the media steadfastly fails to deliver with the 30 second sound bites that pass for reporting “news” these days. We need more than just the fact that a supposed “flip flop” has occurred. What and why are more important.

For instance, I, for one, am willing to change my disgusted and low opinion about most so-called “journalists.” If only they would give me a reason. Please give me a reason. They can start with stop reporting so-called flip flops unless they give more information to go with it.

“THE LUNATIC ZONE”

Or, The Press Insistence That Only Black Preachers Are Nuts

Why does Rev. Wright automatically have to be labeled "left wing" by the press?

Can't we, as physicists do with "string theory," recognize that there might be other dimensions at "right angles," so to speak, to the normal left-right, up-down, forward-back plus time dimensions we normal folk perceive? In other words, dimensions outside reality?

Surely all the self styled holders of supposed religious "truths" like Wright, Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, ad infinitum, are so contrary to common sense that their minds must work, if "work" is an accurate term to use in connection with them, in totally different dimensions from the rest of us. Perhaps we should label them all as existing solely in the Lunatic Dimension.

They all have a Rod Sterling-isk quality to their rantings. It makes me feel like we are living in a bizarre episode of the “Twilight Zone.”

RAMBLING ABOUT ROVE'S RANTINGS

An open letter to the Editors and Owners of Newsweek Magazine Upon Learning Karl Rove Has Been Hired to Write for Them

Dear Newsweek Editors and Owners:

I have been a long standing subscriber to Newsweek, but your announcement that, of all people on earth, you plan to hire Karl Rove appalled me beyond belief.

Conservatives deserve a voice. I may not agree with all they say, but they have an important viewpoint that should be part of any debate. And, there are plenty of honest, moral, open, courageous Conservatives. There are intelligent, insightful, witty Conservatives capable of debating on the facts, the law and the issues rather than personalities and ego. In fact, there are even some genuinely conservative Conservatives left on the scene.

Why then have you chosen a proven ethics-abusive, narrow minded, dismissive, dishonorable, even vicious partisan who is a self avowed antagonist to many of our most precious Constitutional principles? Why have you given a formerly respectable outlet to someone who has been systematically attacking our way of life? Mr. Rove has not only been proven consistently wrong on most of the important issues (other than getting Bush elected), but probably should have been indicted in one or more of the scandals deservedly plaguing his boss’s administration.

Frankly, you have done enormous harm to Journalism. Your judgments are not longer to be trusted or given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, please cancel my subscription with the first issue of your magazine that gives Rove a new forum for lies.

I doubt anyone other than one of your interns will ever read this, but God help America. Surely, Newsweek no longer will.

"EXECUTIVE DISORDER"

Or, Bush's latest Surge against the Constitution

You are not going to believe it. Go to the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html# and read the July 17, 2007 Executive Order in which Bush announces that he plans to give the Secretary of the Treasury power to, among other things, seize all assets of anyone in this country even suspected of posing a "significant risk" that they might disagree with any Iraq goals or policies of Bush. It supposedly will be confined to those suspected of undefined "acts of violence," but considering it extends to future suspected acts as well and considering Bush already has the Secret Service arrest even spectators at campaign event for merely wearing a contradictory t-shirt, not to mention he often conflates all dissenters and opposition as traitors, there is good reason to fear how he will interpret the possibility those he does not happen to like or trust might commit supposedly violent acts.

Executive Orders have the force of law and this one is scary as hell in its implications. Unfortunately, except through the Ron Paul website, no one in Congress or running for office seems to have even mentioned it.

Frankly, I would not want any President to hold such power, no matter how much I might agree with the Chief Executive on other things. And, my by now well justified lack of trust in the Bush Administration not capriciously exercising such total power is infinite.

My guess is not even the most rabid right winger on the Republican Supreme Court would uphold it when tested, but in the years it would take you to fight it through the courts, you could be without access to a dime of your assets the entire time. It gives the power to seize your home, your paychecks, your car simply because of suspicion, not proof or conviction.

If this particular Executive Order is not a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" against the Constitution as well as a violation of the President's Oath of Office, what the hell is? This is exactly what the impeachment remedy was designed by the Founding Fathers to protect against. What does it take to get our elected representatives and senators off their rear ends and convene for the process?

The only saving grace in this whole frightening effort by Bush and Cheney to apparently grant themselves essentially unrestricted control is that they have so broken our military, our domestic law enforcement agencies and our obviously ironically named "justice" department, is that they might not be able to accomplish their hoped for effective abolishment of the Constitution's ideals.

"BUSH'S GUILTY PLEASURES ABOUT THE GUILTY'

Or, Commuting the Sentence of Guilty White House Leaker of National Security Secrets Doesn't Compute

Bush Junior apparently has decided that Libby, an Administration senior official found guilty of deliberately lying under oath while being questioned about his admitted leaks of a national security secret regarding CIA personnel, should do no jail time for his crimes.

Obviously, the Republican campaign ads had it wrong. Why should al-Qaida ever want Democrats to win when they can have a helpful fellow like Bush and his buddies in the White House? So much for the supposed promises of Republicans to safeguard our national security and keep convicted criminals behind bars. Frankly, King Bush routinely does more for terrorists in a month than a battalion of terrorists can do in a year.

Can you imagine what McCarthy and Goldwater would have said if a Democratic President had let the criminal go? Hell, can you imagine what Bush Senior would have said. After all, he got in office on the strength of his opponent supposedly letting convicted Willie Horton out of jail early.

It was a nice additional touch of irony that Bush Junior, who routinely ordered the torture of detainees and death sentences for the mentally ill, called the few months to be spent in a cushy US prison as "excessive."

"A VOCABULARY TEST"

Question: What is a synonym for gutless, spineless, fearful, weak-willed cowards?

Answer: Congressional Democrats!

I would call them chickens, but in actuality poultry is far more courageous than most elected Democrats. Perhaps the Democrats should trade in the jackass and adopt the amoeba as a symbol.

Why the outburst of name calling you ask, particularly when Bush is obviously infinitely worse on all counts? Well, normally, calling an adult a derogatory name has little effect. It is, or should be, the old "sticks and stones" response once we are past kindergarten. But, apparently calling the Congressional Democrats names scares the hell out of them and goads them into action. Or, in the case of Bush calling them "surrender monkeys" on Iraq, cowers them into inaction.

Perhaps calling the Congressional Democrats names for knuckling under to Bush's vetoes and not taking the difficult course of finally getting out of that Middle East fiasco might counterbalance their fear accumulated from being falsely labeled by Republican war hawks as supposedly "not supporting the troops" or the biggest lie of all - "losing Iraq."

The Congressional Democrats seem to bend in the wind coming from blowhards in the White House. Perhaps if the wind blows hard enough the other way with countervailing accusations of the same specious type, they might finally stand up and stay standing up for long enough to do what is right and needed. Get us out of the folly overseas.

“THE NEW ‘IMPROVED’ OATH OF OFFICE FOR POLITICAL APPOINTEES”

From the Office of Attorney Generalissimo Alberto Gonzales

“I, (insert name of incompetent hack) , pledge undying personal loyalty to El Jefe, the glorious George Armstrong Custer Bush, and do solemnly swear exclusive allegiance to the current Republican Platform of military aggression, class warfare, religious indoctrination, arrogance, and intolerance for which it stands.

As to the quaint old Constitution, I promise to uphold at least the Second Amendment and whatever specific part gives sole power to the President to rule everyone else without question. I reserve the right however to invoke the Fifth Amendment when I am caught shafting the Constitution or a Congressional Page/Intern, whichever comes first. Oh yeah, I also promise to obey some of the Ten Commandments if they do not inconvenience me too much.

I understand that I serve to pleasure the President. I also understand I will be fired if ever my performance at torturing terrorists, traitors, illegal immigrants and Democrats (which are all often one and the same) fails to exceed the political aspirations of my boss because firing for lack of political zealotry and poor job performance are hereafter one and the same.

I swear this so help me God, God Jehovah of the Old Testament of course (not that wimpy liberal Jesus of the New Testament). And, except when the FCC can hear me, I will faithfully and fully swear at anyone who disagrees on anything.”

[Footnotes from the Federal Human Resources Department to all new Republican Appointees regarding oath taking: (1) “When do I get my Medal of Freedom?” should not to be the first question after giving the oath. (2) Once the oath is given, you can no longer lie to Congress until you have cleared the exact wording of the lie with Karl Rove. (3) promptly make an appointment with the Preventive Maintenance Department to have a computer specialist show you how to permanently delete embarrassing e-mails. And, (4) meetings with your future campaign exploratory committees and interviewing recruiters from K Street lobbyist firms for future jobs must be conducted after regular business hours or on weekends.]

[Special footnotes for appointees who have law degrees: (1) Be sure to turn in your ethics exemption cards before accepting bribes. (2) When taking calls from indicted Congressmen, please use only the red “scramble” phone to insure the conversations remain private. And, (3) If you have not already done so, please provide a copy for our files of your law school transcript confirming your grade in Constitutional Law 101 was a “D” or lower]

“IS EVERYONE BUSH SELECTS A WOODEN HEADED, LONG NOSED PINOCCIO?”

Or, Why the Disinformation from the Justice Dept and White House on Their Plans to Fire Local Attorney Generals

Apparently, the Bush crowd prevaricates out of mere force of habit. Its members, especially its leaders, can’t seem to bring themselves to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even when it is entirely pointless to mislead.

In the most recent instance, Bush was free to fire any (or even all) the attorneys that work for the Justice Department. It may have been highly unusual to do so, extremely wasteful, basically slimy and partisan motivated. But, it was legal. Such attorneys serve at the whim of Presidents, wilful or not, and can be canned, no matter how good they are. The reason behind such a firing is legally irrelevant (unless it is motivated by one of a very small list of expressly banned reasons such as firing them because of their sex or religion).

Thanks to an odious clause the Republicans snuck in the so-called “Patriot Act,” Bush no longer even has to let the replacement appointees be reviewed by Congress. Consequently, he can initially put in top notch lawyers for “show” purposes and then quietly replace them later with the party hacks and zealots of which he is so fond. Or, he could put in hacks and zealots from the start. Either way, it’s perfectly legal. Stupidly legal, but legal.

Moreover, tradition has long held that when new Presidents arrive, they get to have their own party members heading the various offices. Granted, Bush was trying something new with the late term “blanket” replacements and granted there have also been matching traditions that you try to get the best lawyers available for the job and that you should try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Those all go to help insure perceived fairness of the Department. Nevertheless, since it was only a “tradition,” Bush was free to stomp all over it and thumb his nose at the entire country and legal profession. It was legal to do so.

Why then did Bush and his boys apparently elect to lie about it? They got caught wilfully misrepresenting the reasons behind the firings. They also got caught misrepresenting the extent of the White House’s involvement. They ended up essentially lying to Congress, to the Press and to the People. They seem to be still playing “spin” or possibly outright lying further about the coverup.

Why when all they had to do was announce their usual “UP YOURS!” and proceed to do what they wanted? Unlike the searches without warrants, the violations of habeas corpus, the torturings and the other actual criminal acts for which they will hopefully have to pay in court, it was legal to do what they wanted in this instance. Yet, for some reason, they deliberately strategized in secret to mislead and deceive despite the fact that it would cost them little or no harm to be honest for once.

There is a lesson here for the rest of us. When anyone is found to be lying about even such little things, it strongly suggests they are probably lying on all the big things too, (not to mention operating our government at a level of incompetence that is truly mind boggling). Therefore, the next time a Republican tells you the sun will appear in the East in the morning, perhaps you should check an astronomical table before you rely on it and, while you’re at it, check your wallet too.

“TIPPING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE”

Or, a Few Thoughts Regarding the Peremptory Firing of Several Competent Federal Attorneys in Order to Replace Them with Political Hacks

Once upon a time, back when competence actually was valued and we preferred our bureaucrats to be as fair and non-partisan as possible regardless of who was in elected office, the local Bar Associations reviewed the backgrounds and performance records of proposed appointees for judgeships, attorney general and other key legal positions. It typically resulted in recommendations submitted to the President or Governors as to the relative qualifications, integrity and lack of bias of each individual being considered. The mutually agreed upon goal of all involved, at least regarding selecting individuals to manage our legal system, was to put the best person in office rather than merely the most zealous partisan available.

It wasn’t perfect, but since the Bar Associations tended to have vocal members from all parties, it worked pretty well. As members of a profession whose licenses were accountable to standards of ethics beyond mere politics and having experienced roughly the same basic law school education, there at least was a shared recognition the courts and enforcement of our Constitution were critical cornerstones of our democracy requiring principled people in charge who cherished those concepts more than the opinions of party bosses. Usually back then, the Governors or the President acquiesced by picking one of Bar recommended top candidates for the job. If nothing else, that method helped earn the consent of the governed (temporary voting minorities included), which is yet another central support for democracy.

Unfortunately, the efforts of the Bar to assist, along with many other customs and traditions which attempted to protect the justice system from petty politics, have been utterly trashed in recent years. The Bush Administration in particular for some reason seems to be interested in abandoning it altogether, converting (perhaps perverting) the judicial system to its own image. Which, if any of the stories regarding torturing those in custody, violating of habeas corpus, searching without warrants and other potential criminalities prove to be true, is not a very pretty picture.

Perhaps it’s understandable why those occupying the White House at the moment might want to insure their collective thumbs rest heavily on the Scales of Justice. But, it certainly seems like an extremely risky gambit to try. It’s akin to attempting a “shoot the moon” strategy in the card game called Hearts, where the consequences of failure to win it all incurs an extremely heavy penalty. Unless Bush manages to establish a permanent Republican majority or outright dictatorial control of the US, the attempt itself is likely to turn around and bite both him and anyone else running under the Republican banner.

Either way, the public should insist upon a return to a more non-partisan, more objective, method of researching, testing and selecting those individuals who want to be in charge of day-to-day justice in America.