READER COMMENTS ON
"Yeah, Though I Walk Through the Valley of Wingnuttery..."
(15 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 12/13/2005 @ 11:10 pm PT...
Brad, when Lars gets into that nonsensical strawman about 'government beauracracy can't build voting machines!' and mischaracterizes you as positing that elections cannot be subcontracted, you need to better explain the difference between privatizing elections vs. government commissioned voting machines that meet a federal standard, are transparent and auditable, and thus can be subcontracted to any manufacturer. Hey that was a long sentence. But you get the idea.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 12/13/2005 @ 11:54 pm PT...
Wow! I admire your stamina!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 2:40 am PT...
that was great. i happen to live in oregon where this guy broadcasts from, and cant stand his "last word" style of debating. i think that was the first time ive heard him completely at a loss of words and trying to go to a caller, who would then call you unamerican. thank u
i wish someone would ask him, for once, why his little trip to iraq never happened(the fox team was supposed to go last year and report all the good things happening). im so sick of how these pundits who have never worn a uniform, can spew such disinfo about a war, and then say "thank u for ur service" to all the veteran callers. they could thank me and my father for our service by broadcasting from iraq(not the green zone).
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 3:12 am PT...
congratulations brad. i caught you last time you were on Lars' show and posted a comment about it then. i trust you handed his ass to him again, but the truth is i haven't listened to the clip yet because i frankly can not stand lars larsen. i appreciate that he tries, and that he has had you and kvh on his show. but he is just one really stupid blockhead. i don't know how else to put it. i'm sure that at least once during your talk with him he presented as a rebuttal to a factual documented assertion you made a non-factual hypothetical about alleged democratic wrong doing. in other words presenting a non-factual hypothetical as the moral equivalent in fact of documented republican election fraud.
i guess my dislike for him stems on the one hand from his pervasive stupidity and on the other from his apparent sincerity - distinct from rush, hannity, o'reilly, et.al.- in holding the absurd views he does.
thanks for all your great work.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 5:51 am PT...
Brad brings up the vast "valley of Wingnuttery". It is a vast landscape these days.
One aspect of it that has caught my attention lately, is the propaganda the president is pushing in his latest neoCon designed movement to reverse the diminishing appreciation the American people have for neoCons. This effort the president is presenting is being done via his speeches.
They are saying that Iraq will be the first democracy in the area. WHAT?
They are forgetting that Isreal is a democracy. And that it has been there for a long time.
The big point they are attaching to the propaganda of the significance of the Iraqi democracy, is that "democracies bring peace".
Is it any wonder, then, why they are leaving out the democracy of Israel in the premise that democracy axiomatically brings peace to the region?
After all isn't it the democracy of Israel that is at the heart of much of the friction in the region? And isn't Israel planning an attack on Iran, another democracy in the region? Having a democracy there, then, is not an ipso facto source of peace. How can the neoCons place lies with such a straight face? Practice makes "perfect"?
And isn't the only war in the middle east a situation where a democracy invaded a non-democracy and now occupies it "so it will become a democracy and therefore become more peaceful"?
Yep, neoCon wingnuttery is a strange landscape devoid of logic, and full of lies that only the neoCons seem to believe. How faithful!
I fear they are doing significant damage to the notion of democracy with their idle banter.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 6:48 am PT...
>im so sick of how these pundits who have never worn a uniform, can spew such disinfo about a war,
Yeah, whatever. Check out michaelyon.blogspot.com for a former soldier that has been embedded with troops and writing about it instead of hiding in the green zone like the rest of the press. The progress in Iraq is real, not lies and disinformation.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 7:19 am PT...
Re the 30,000 # Bush pulled out of his ass, didn't McClellan say the next day in a clarification that it derived, not from official sources, but from estimates by journalists? How exactly did he put it?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 9:45 am PT...
Afternoon 6 or 7,
Day 3 of the 12 Days of Justice anti-Alito effort is now underway. Here is today's letter. Please take a moment of your time to send these to your Senators and members of the Senate Judiciary Committe.
For Justice: Day Three --- Alito and Judicial Ethics
by Steven D
Wed Dec 14th, 2005 at 07:23:01 AM EST
This diary is for For Justice: Day 3 regarding Alito's violations of judicial ethics.
The following letter is ready to send to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as other Senators. Feel free to adapt it as you see fit. Click here for Senate Judiciary Members and click here for for a list of all Senators.
(Letter follows after the break)
Justice Alito doesn't deserve to be rewarded with an appointment to the Supreme Court for lying to the Senate. Nor does he deserve to be rewarded with that appointment for his repeated violations of the laws and ethical codes that govern the conduct of federal judges.
In 1990, as a nominee seeking appointment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Alito, recognized that he had inherent conflicts of interest due to his ownership of mutual funds managed by Vanguard, and because of his dealings with the brokerage firm, Smith Barney. He promised that he would recuse himself from hearing any cases involving those two companies. He also promised to recuse himself from any cases involving his sister's law firm. Specifically, in his questionnaire, he stated:
"I would . . . disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney or the First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, N.Y."
Yet in 1996, he participated in a case in which one of the litigants was represented by his sister's law firm, without informing the other parties to the case of his possible conflict of interest. In 1996, he also heard a case involving Smith Barney, without informing the parties of his ongoing relationship with that brokerage firm. In neither case did he disqualify himself.
In 2002, he again failed to disqualify himself from a case involving the Vanguard companies, at a time when he held investments with Vanguard valued between $390,000 and $975,000. In the Vanguard case, the plaintiff, a widow, challenged Justice Alito's participation immediately upon learning of his interest in Vanguard funds, but after the three-judge panel of which Alito was a member had dismissed her appeal. Once again, Justice Alito failed to inform the parties to the litigation of his potential conflict of interest. It was only after being confronted with that inherent conflict by the plaintiff that Justice Alito disqualified himself, albeit with great reluctance.
At first, Justice Alito blamed a computer glitch for assigning him a case he shouldn't have heard, which begs the question: Why, when he saw Vanguard was a party, didn't he immediately recuse himself as he had previously promised he would? It's difficult to believe he simply forgot he had a six figure investment in Vanguard funds, after all.
Now he says he had been "unduly restrictive" in promising the Senate back in 1990 that he would remove himself in cases involving Vanguard Group Inc. and Smith Barney Inc. One can argue whether the "I changed my mind" defense invalidates a prior pledge made under oath to the Senate. What cannot be argued however, is that his conduct in each of these cases failed to meet the standard required under the applicable ethical canons applicable to federal judges, the "Code of Conduct for United States Judges" ("Code"), as well as the applicable federal law regarding judicial disqualification , Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code (28 USC Sect. 455).
Canon 1 of the Code states that "A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved." The official comment to Canon 1 spells out what this obligation entails in greater detail:
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. . . . Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be imposed, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the violation, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system.
Canon 2 provides in part: "A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Its commentary states:
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. . . . The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.
Clearly in this instance, Judge Alito's pattern of deception and/or inattention regarding his possible conflicts of interest in cases that appear before him degrades public confidence in the integrity and independence of all federal judges, and violated his obligation to avoid the appearance of impropriety.. First, he violated his promise to the Senate that he would disqualify himself from cases involving Vanguard, Smith Barney and his sister's law firm. At the very least, that in itself bespeaks an arrogance that ill becomes a man who would be a Supreme Court Justice.
Second, and more importantly from the standpoint of judicial ethics, each time a case involving these parties was brought before him, he failed to disclose his conflict of interest to the other litigants. By keeping these conflicts hidden, he denied them the right to challenge his participation in those cases, except for the one instance in which where the plaintiff discovered his investments in Vanguard on her own.
I can think of nothing that would impugn the integrity of the judiciary more than conduct such as this by a judicial officer. To deliberately, or through neglect, fail to disclose to litigants that a judge may have an interest in a case causes severe damage to the public's faith in an independent and impartial federal judiciary. How can we trust the fairness of the decisions reached by our federal courts when the Judges ruling in those cases are hiding their own potential conflicts from parties to those lawsuits? How can we believe that a potential Supreme Court Justice will act appropriately and impartially in cases brought before him, when we know he has deceived the Senate in his prior nomination proceeding for appointment to the Third Circuit?
More at the link
12 Days of Justice, Day 3
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 12/14/2005 @ 11:18 am PT...
"WASHINGTON, [Date X] --- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in [Nation X's] election despite a [terrorist] campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from [Nation X], 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the [terrorists].
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the [terrorists] to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
Pending more detailed reports, neither the State Department nor the White House would comment on the balloting or the victory of the [Candidate X], who was running for president, and [Candidate Y], the candidate for vice president.
A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in [President X's] policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in [Nation X]."
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967)
Note: Nation X is South Vietnam, and Date X is Sept 3, 1967 (link here).
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
Charles and Barbara Irby
said on 12/14/2005 @ 1:43 pm PT...
We just wanted to congratulate you on the great job you did on the Lars Larsen show. You did not fall into his usual traps. You rolled right over his misrepresentations and called him on them. Thanks.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 5:32 am PT...
Brad, your poise, content, patience, and message deserve high praise indeed! I don't know how you can stand it - you always seem to keep the importance of your role in perspective in this, the greatest crisis our country has ever faced, and your good humor is contagious. Thank you, and kudos!
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 12/15/2005 @ 12:31 pm PT...
Thanks for listening and speaking up, C&B!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 12/16/2005 @ 7:54 am PT...
What is next, torture of Brad while he is being spied upon?
One white house lawyer says that torture, which is a form of spying (getting information against the will of the one being spied upon), which this admin has advocated, is the lowpoint of all american political history!
"Indeed, not even Franklin Roosevelt's horrific internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II is, in my view, as low a point as President Bush and Vice President Cheney's call for the unrestricted, unreviewable power to torture. It seems the precedent for Bush and Cheney's thinking resides in the Dark Ages, or Stalin's Russia."
And those neoCons are trying to spread that around the world in our name. They are going down!
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 12/16/2005 @ 12:40 pm PT...
Brad you handled yourself in an extremely professional manner and your "just the facts" - non partisan style makes it difficult for the Cons to simply write you off as a "pissed off liberal"
I thoroughly enjoyed the healty debate from two different sides of the political spectrum that did not turn into a name calling affair.......
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 12/16/2005 @ 7:39 pm PT...
Re: War on Christmas
It is so apparent that this "war on Christmas" nonsense is a red herring thrown in during this rough patch for the administration. We saw the same thing a year or so ago with the "terror alerts"to shore up Bush's support. We have seen "family values" ad infinitem to take the heat off of Bush's National Guard records. Then Terry Sciavo meant to rally the Christian Right (that didn't quite work so well). Its all just more red meat to get the base worked up about something. Bait and switch--Karl Rove's bag of tricks. I wish people would confront these hypocritcal goof balls instead of playing defense. They will accept any defensive mouthings as long as it takes some of the heat off of the untruthful and unethical things happening in the WH and Congress.