On July 20th, a Pakistani man, Kamran Akhtar, was arrested in Charlotte after videotaping Charlotte skyscrapers. Authorities found later that he also had videotaped buildings in Dallas, Houston, and Las Vegas. Akhtar is charged with immigration violations, and authorities are investigating whether he also has ties to terrorism. (N&O details here)
But Vernon Robinson has decided mere suspicion will do, so he quickly got up a TV spot using Akhtar's photo and saying, "This is Pakistani terrorist Kamran Akhtar. He got arrested videotaping targets in Charlotte, North Carolina. He came here illegally, across our Mexican border. I'm Vernon Robinson and I approve this message because Akhtar didn't come here to live the American dream. He came here to kill you."
The American way, Vernon Robinson style. Getting arrested on suspicion is tantamount to being guilty. I certainly want this man in Washington representing the Fifth District! He'll blend right in.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Free America
Comes out this a.m. in the New York Times that teams of FBI agents have been "interviewing" (the interviewees say "intimidating") certain anti-war activists and other perceived "troublemakers" about their plans for public protests at the Republican National Convention in New York in two weeks.
You see, they have a little list (of people who won't be missed?): "F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence."
"They think." (And what does a "canvass" of the local community entail?)
And here I was all this time under the impression that in our democracy you actually had to be guilty of something before the agents came to get you. It's the Bush doctrine of preemption, applied domestically. As a caller on C-SPAN this morning said, "Well, it's fascism, is what it is."
"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' "
The NYTimes says there's been internal dissent at the FBI about this course of action, with some agents pointing out that this looks like an attempt to stifle free speech. But John Ashcroft's Justice Department whipped out a handy memo opining that no, that any possible "chilling" effect would be vastly outweighed by the good that will be bestowed on the Republic by the intimidation. Abu Ghraib again, about which the Justice Department also wrote a notorious legal opinion ... "a little torture in the interests of freedom is a-okay!"
Since we don't fly any more, we take it as true from people who do that travelers are now asked to answer a questionnaire that asks such gently probing questions as "Do you plan to blow up this plane?" Under the presumption, we assume, that terrorists will tell the truth. This same logic appears to be at work in the FBI "interviews" with anti-war activists: "Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information."
If you know the question you're asking is stupid, and if you know you'll never get an honest answer to such a question, especially if the interviewee really is planning violence, then the only possible therapeutic outcome from asking is the possibility of intimidation. It's what any honest person calls "a police state," where stupid questions presage the strong arm.
You see, they have a little list (of people who won't be missed?): "F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence."
"They think." (And what does a "canvass" of the local community entail?)
And here I was all this time under the impression that in our democracy you actually had to be guilty of something before the agents came to get you. It's the Bush doctrine of preemption, applied domestically. As a caller on C-SPAN this morning said, "Well, it's fascism, is what it is."
"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' "
The NYTimes says there's been internal dissent at the FBI about this course of action, with some agents pointing out that this looks like an attempt to stifle free speech. But John Ashcroft's Justice Department whipped out a handy memo opining that no, that any possible "chilling" effect would be vastly outweighed by the good that will be bestowed on the Republic by the intimidation. Abu Ghraib again, about which the Justice Department also wrote a notorious legal opinion ... "a little torture in the interests of freedom is a-okay!"
Since we don't fly any more, we take it as true from people who do that travelers are now asked to answer a questionnaire that asks such gently probing questions as "Do you plan to blow up this plane?" Under the presumption, we assume, that terrorists will tell the truth. This same logic appears to be at work in the FBI "interviews" with anti-war activists: "Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information."
If you know the question you're asking is stupid, and if you know you'll never get an honest answer to such a question, especially if the interviewee really is planning violence, then the only possible therapeutic outcome from asking is the possibility of intimidation. It's what any honest person calls "a police state," where stupid questions presage the strong arm.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Foxx "Pimping Off" the Forsyth D.A.
We published on this site a few days ago a report that the Forsyth County District Attorney was involved in a criminal investigation of Vernon Robinson's campaign finances. That information came out of a Raleigh News & Observer story, which, it now turns out (and why are we surprised?), was planted by the Foxx campaign.
And the Forsyth District Attorney Tom Keith is not amused to have his office "pimped off" in this fashion. That's a direct quote: see today's Winston-Salem Journal.
"He made the remarks at a news conference to deal with allegations by the campaign staff of Virginia Foxx .... Members of Foxx's staff said that Keith's office was investigating campaign contributions made to her opponent, Vernon Robinson .... Keith said that there is no such criminal investigation."
Speaking of pimps, "Tom Foxx, Virginia Foxx's husband and campaign manager, said that the campaign had never tried to involve the district attorney's office in the matter and that he was surprised that Keith held a news conference about it. 'It shocked the daylights out of us,' Tom Foxx said. No one in the campaign had spoken with anyone in Keith's office about the case, he said."
Ain't nobody in this henhouse but us chickens, said the Foxx.
"Keith, a Republican, would not say whom he planned to vote for Tuesday. He said that his favorite candidate lost in the primary."
And the Forsyth District Attorney Tom Keith is not amused to have his office "pimped off" in this fashion. That's a direct quote: see today's Winston-Salem Journal.
"He made the remarks at a news conference to deal with allegations by the campaign staff of Virginia Foxx .... Members of Foxx's staff said that Keith's office was investigating campaign contributions made to her opponent, Vernon Robinson .... Keith said that there is no such criminal investigation."
Speaking of pimps, "Tom Foxx, Virginia Foxx's husband and campaign manager, said that the campaign had never tried to involve the district attorney's office in the matter and that he was surprised that Keith held a news conference about it. 'It shocked the daylights out of us,' Tom Foxx said. No one in the campaign had spoken with anyone in Keith's office about the case, he said."
Ain't nobody in this henhouse but us chickens, said the Foxx.
"Keith, a Republican, would not say whom he planned to vote for Tuesday. He said that his favorite candidate lost in the primary."
Kerry to Be in "Charlotte Area" Friday
The Raleigh N&O commissioned a poll of 600 "likely voters statewide who vote regularly" (published today) which finds that Kerry has moved to within three percentage points of El Presidente (and that's well within the margin of error, sports fans!). Kerry in this new poll stands at 45 percent, to Bush's 48 percent. People are saying it's the presence of Edwards on the ticket that has made Kerry come up in their estimation (but we'll wager the presence of Bush on the opposing ticket also has something to do with making North Carolina a battleground state).
"Kerry, to show he is serious about competing here, plans to visit the Charlotte area Friday and discuss economic security, jobs and affordable health care...."
We heard just this morning that "the Charlotte area" might be as close as Lenoir.
"Kerry, to show he is serious about competing here, plans to visit the Charlotte area Friday and discuss economic security, jobs and affordable health care...."
We heard just this morning that "the Charlotte area" might be as close as Lenoir.
Friday, August 13, 2004
The Girly Men in the Bush Administration
Last night on "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart had the clip of Dick Cheney mocking John Kerry for using the "s" word (out of context, natch! but according to Cheney, Kerry is a "sensitive" little pussy!) and followed it with a clip of El Presidente saying we must be "sensitive" in the war on terror, which was delicious but made us all know there must be more, and I knew that by noon today someone would have compiled the full print record of this administration's rampant hypocrisy. So here 'tis, right on schedule.
Just a teaser, but the following official pussies in the Bush administration have called for "sensitivity" in the War on Terror: Prez Bush, Vice Prez Cheney (multiple times), Air Force special forces spokesperson Chief Master Sgt. Robert Martens, Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, General Tommy Franks, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Senator Trent Lott, Paul Wolfowitz ... you get the drift here?
Huge homos, all of them!
Just a teaser, but the following official pussies in the Bush administration have called for "sensitivity" in the War on Terror: Prez Bush, Vice Prez Cheney (multiple times), Air Force special forces spokesperson Chief Master Sgt. Robert Martens, Donald Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, General Tommy Franks, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Senator Trent Lott, Paul Wolfowitz ... you get the drift here?
Huge homos, all of them!
Like, We Didn't Already Know This?
"Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found." That, reported in this morning's WashPost.
It's probably not healthy to set one's blood a-boiling on a daily basis, so read on at your own risk: "...taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent."
The Congressional Budget Office, incidentally is a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. That will not stop the Rovians from spinning this as a Democrat plot to make El Presidente look bad.
It's probably not healthy to set one's blood a-boiling on a daily basis, so read on at your own risk: "...taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent."
The Congressional Budget Office, incidentally is a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. That will not stop the Rovians from spinning this as a Democrat plot to make El Presidente look bad.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
The Potential of the New York Protests
Eric Alterman, whose opinions I respect without necessarily agreeing with all of them, is VERY worried about the potential for the New York City protests at the Republican National Convention being turned to Bush's benefit. Like Alterman, I can remember the Democratic National Convention of 1968 and how those anti-war protests were used against Hubert Humphrey. But, here, let Alterman speak for himself: "Anarchists and idiots ruined the Seattle protests and the media -- loving conflict and hating context -- will eat any violence and property destruction, even bad language, to smear not only the protesters but also anyone and everyone who opposes Bush. Chicago '68 unquestionably helped elect Nixon. And the same thing could happen here. Second, as with Johnson, Nixon and Reagan, it hardly requires an act of imagination to prepare for the possibility that Republican conservative spies and thugs will infiltrate these protests and cause the violence themselves, with the knowledge that it will be blamed on the protesters and their cause."
As in ... Karl Rove will DO ANYTHING to win this election.
So now Alterman has me worried too (and his posting today on his blog "Altercation", about how wrong John Kerry is on the Iraq war, is right on!)
As in ... Karl Rove will DO ANYTHING to win this election.
So now Alterman has me worried too (and his posting today on his blog "Altercation", about how wrong John Kerry is on the Iraq war, is right on!)
Republicans Will Hide the Bible-Thumpers at Their Convention
Pat Robertson hasn't gotten his invitation to the Republican National Convention yet. Neither has Jerry Falwell. And neither has our own Franklin Graham. According to news posted today on the Drudge Report, the guys in charge of the convention seem intent on hiding the halo crowd from the general public. Robertson, for one, isn't particularly amused: "I've had no request from anybody to be there." Unlike Falwell, Robertson believes the GOP is deliberately keeping him and other evangelicals away. "In the last convention, the thought was to keep all the conservatives out of sight," said Robertson, who has attended every Republican convention since 1988, but said he won't go this year. "The general thrust will be to entice the so-called independent moderates, and I am not sure that there would be much reason for a conservative to be there."
Maybe Rev. Pat and Colin Powell, who also won't be attending but for slightly different reasons, can microwave some popcorn and watch the convention together at the 700 Clubhouse.
Republican spokesmen like Ralph Reed are rationalizing that it doesn't matter that such prominent evangelicals as Falwell, Robertson, and Franklin aren't being given prominent roles at the convention, since the Christian Right has infiltrated and taken over the Republican Party. The evangelicals don't need to be there on the podium. They're in most of the delegate seating.
As Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition, so aptly said, "We'll have a huge presence there. We have the president." Indeed they do. And he has them.
My Bible warns against that time when rulers own religion. Seems like the Constitution warns against that too, but I could be wrong about that.
Maybe Rev. Pat and Colin Powell, who also won't be attending but for slightly different reasons, can microwave some popcorn and watch the convention together at the 700 Clubhouse.
Republican spokesmen like Ralph Reed are rationalizing that it doesn't matter that such prominent evangelicals as Falwell, Robertson, and Franklin aren't being given prominent roles at the convention, since the Christian Right has infiltrated and taken over the Republican Party. The evangelicals don't need to be there on the podium. They're in most of the delegate seating.
As Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition, so aptly said, "We'll have a huge presence there. We have the president." Indeed they do. And he has them.
My Bible warns against that time when rulers own religion. Seems like the Constitution warns against that too, but I could be wrong about that.
Robinson, Foxx Under Investigation for Campaign Fund-Raising
The traded allegations from earlier this year, Vernon Robinson accusing Virginia Foxx of money-raising irregularities and vice versa (here and here), are coming to something of a head, especially in the case of Vernon Robinson (whose newest cable TV ad attacking Foxx could be used to strip oak furniture).
According to the N&O (scroll down), the State Board of Elections has subpoenaed bank records from Robinson's 2002 legislative campaign and from a federal committee called Black America's PAC. This subpoena came after consultation between the State Board and the Forsyth County district attorney, so something serious may be up with that.
Virginia Foxx, meanwhile, is dealing with the Federal Elections Commission and has hired a lawyer. (We always love it when Republicans say they have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong, yet hire lawyers. The ever "frugal" Virginia Foxx might have saved her money, if she's done nothing wrong.)
While the Robinson investigation seems to be gathering steam, the Foxx investigation is gathering cobwebs. The candidate's husband (and campaign manager) is quoted saying that the FEC has warned that their investigation could take two years. Virginia will be running for reelection to Congress by then.
According to the N&O (scroll down), the State Board of Elections has subpoenaed bank records from Robinson's 2002 legislative campaign and from a federal committee called Black America's PAC. This subpoena came after consultation between the State Board and the Forsyth County district attorney, so something serious may be up with that.
Virginia Foxx, meanwhile, is dealing with the Federal Elections Commission and has hired a lawyer. (We always love it when Republicans say they have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong, yet hire lawyers. The ever "frugal" Virginia Foxx might have saved her money, if she's done nothing wrong.)
While the Robinson investigation seems to be gathering steam, the Foxx investigation is gathering cobwebs. The candidate's husband (and campaign manager) is quoted saying that the FEC has warned that their investigation could take two years. Virginia will be running for reelection to Congress by then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)