The post 9/11 world has re-acquainted us with the truly unfortunate reality of American politics. The lowest common denominator wins out nearly every time. It's been this way for decades.

Back in the 1960's, when the biggest issue in American politics was the civil rights legislation pending in Congress, it was easy for conservative politicians of both major political parties to oppose equal rights for all. They knew that racism was rampant in American society and that the best way to win votes was to bash racial minorities. A book revew his month in the New York Review of Books reprints two quotations from prominent conservatives during the 1960's. One politician, who later went on to become President, said of the fair housing laws:

"If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so."

Ronald Reagan said that in the context of promising to repeal the fair housing laws as he ran for governor of California. It's impossible to imagine any American politician saying anything like this today.

Another prominent conservative, William F. Buckley, founder of the National Review, made a similar comment at the time:

"The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal— is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

In other words, according to the father of modern conservativism, whites have the right to suppress the advancement of blacks in order to maintain their control over American society, simply because whites are "the advanced race."

Again, its impossible to imagine any prominent conservative saying this and being taken seriously. Buckley is not like the flame-throwing right wingers of the new millenium, who make outrageous statements for the sake of selling books and television and radio ratings. He's regarded as a "reasonable" conservative. I doubt he feels that way about blacks today, but that he could make the above statement back then without any public outrage tells us a lot about the supposedly progressive 1960's.

There are fewer racists in American society today than during the 1960's. Instead, there are new outrages that pass for respectible public comment and which do not destroy political careers. There are new ways to peddle fear, and 9/11 provided American politicians all the cover they need.

Waterboarding is one of those words that's new to everyone; no one talked about waterboarding 10 years ago. We know about it now because its shorthand for the Bush administration's terror policies: fight terror with more terror. But what does waterboarding look like? Click here to see what waterboarding looks like.

Waterboarding is simulated drowning. The point is that the guy being waterboarded will tell all to avoid drowning. He'll tell us about the next terror attack, or where bin Ladin is hiding. Except that experts tell us that torture does not work. It creates false leads that waste resources as specialists try to confirm the prisoner's confession. It also creates blowback. We torture them, they torture our brothers and sisters in Iraq and elsewhere. Torture may sound good if you're angry about international terrorism. But it probably doesn't work. And anyone familiar with the months prior to 9/11 knows that old-fashioned detective work and administrative competence could have derailed the plot.

There is no question that waterboarding is torture. In a more enlightened time, students of history will wonder why we allowed politicians to endorse waterboarding or, at the least, refuse to rule it out. Not today. These days, a Republican candidate for President has to either endorse or remain neutral on waterboarding in order to satisfy the red-meat conservatives who think the Democrats are "weak on terror" traitors. No one ever won elected office in defending the rights of political and racial minorities. The Republicans cannot win over the faithful unless they pander to the lowest common denominator. According to the New York Times:

In recent weeks, three candidates, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred D. Thompson, have embraced some of the more controversial policies on the treatment of those suspected of supporting terrorism, backing harsh interrogation methods and refusing to rule out the use of waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique, on detainees.

The above link from Current TV shows what waterboarding is like. The prisoner will say anything to stop the torture. Waterboarding also makes mice out of men. The current nominee for Attorney General, a respected former Federal judge, Michael Mukasey, simply cannot bring himself to condemn waterboarding. It's nice to see that even some Republican Senators are aghast at Mukasey's refusal to condemn waterboarding, but it's not going to matter. The Republicans have the votes in the Senate to confirm Mukasey as Attorney General. Shocking as it was to have an outright racist like Ronald Reagan serve as governor of California during the 1960's and become President in 1980, future generations will wonder how a guy like Mukasey became Attorney General even after refusing to condemn a tactic deemed illegal under international law.

If you don't know who the Velvet Underground were, then you haven't been reading enough rock history. For the rest of us, who were reading the Rolling Stone Record Guide instead of doing our social studies homework in high school, the Velvet Underground was the greatest American band of the 1960's, and maybe of all-time. The Velvets hailed from New York City and produced gritty yet often pleasant bohemian music that defied all genres. Their albums represent a variety of styles which opened up doors in the 1960's which no one even knew existed.

The old cliche is that everyone who bought a Velvet Underground record started a band. That may be true. Modern alternative rock bands all owe the Velvets a royalty check as payback for the inspiration. No song from the Velvet Underground catalogue truly represents the band's artistic diversity, but the clip below was certainly an early favorite of mine.

. . . no matter how stupid they are. USA Today reports this morning that George H.W. Bush is defending his son, George W. Bush, and the Iraq war. George H.W. was the 41st President of the United States. George W. is number 43. W's fortunes have tanked over the Iraq war. He can blame his own father for the mess.

According to USA Today:

Former president George H.W. Bush forcefully defended his son's handling of the Iraq war Thursday, saying critics of the current president have forgotten the "extraordinary brutality" of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "Do they want to bring back Saddam Hussein, these critics?" the elder Bush told USA TODAY in a rare interview. "Do they want to go back to the status quo ante? I don't know what they are talking about here. Do they think life would be better in the Middle East if Saddam were still there?"

Coming from Johnny Citizen, a question like this might be appropriate. Coming from George H.W. Bush, a question like this is preposterous. When George H.W. Bush was Vice President under Ronald Reagan and then President from 1989 through 1993, the U.S. enjoyed warm and pleasant relations with Saddam's Iraq, at least until Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990. But Saddam did not just wake up that morning and decide to weak havoc. He was our bastard for years and years even as he gassed and tortured his own people and generally was out of his goddamned mind. So what the hell is George H.W. Bush talking about?

I wrote about the Reagan/Bush administration's scandalous relationship with Saddam Hussein here. An excellent summary of the Reagan/Bush relationship with Saddam Hussein is here. Another good summary is here. This is still "lost" history in that most people don't know that Saddam was our friend and that we loved him very much. Isn't it time that we started calling Bush Sr. on his past entanglements with Saddam? Huh?

In some ways, it's very easy to become President. First, get elected to a high-visibility position somewhere in the United States. Governor of a state is good, but it doesn't have to be a large state, as shown by Bill Clinton's apprenticeship in Arkansas. Or you can get elected to the U.S. Senate and become a high-profile legislator. That's Hillary Clinton's plan. Or you can become mayor of a large U.S. city and sell yourself as a leader. That's Rudy Guiliani.

Rudy has nothing else to run on, so he calls himself a leader, even calling his book "Leadership." The plan is that Americans who don't know any better will vote for a leader because America needs a leader, especially in these tough times. Tough times need a leader!

Some leader. A leader is a good judge of character. Rudy's close friend, the former police chief of New York City and his personal choice to lead the Department of Homeland Security, was just indicted on public corruption charges. According to Associated Press, "Prosecutors said Kerik received about $255,000 in renovations to his Riverdale, New York, apartment from a company seeking to do business with the city of New York and concealed the income from the Internal Revenue Service. The indictment also alleges Kerik made false statements to the White House and to federal officials." Pick me a winner, Rudy!

A leader avoids sleazy endorsements. Rudy was recently endorsed by Pat Robertson, the rightwing Christian leader, regarded by all as a lunatic. Rudy supports abortion rights and has gay friends, so in thowing a bone to the rightwing fringe of the Republican Party, he stood next to a man who said the following disgusting things over the years:

"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." –Pat Robertson, on the dangers of judicial activism."

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." –Pat Robertson

"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor." –Pat Robertson, on "gay days" at Disneyworld

"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." –Pat Robertson

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." --Pat Robertson, after the city of Dover, Pennsylvania voted to boot the current school board, which instituted an intelligent design policy that led to a federal trial.

Who in his right mind would accept a high-profile endorsement from Pat Robertson?

A leader does not betray his principles. Rudy is addicted to talking about 9/11. Without 9/11 he has no campaign at all. His achievement on 9/11 was that Rudy was mayor of New York City when the terror attacks took place. But at least we know that he suffered personally when 9/11 happened. He lost friends and saw the carnage close-up. Back to Pat Robertson. Rudy accepted a high-profile endorsement from this guy, who agreed with the following statement on televsion right after 9/11, basically blaming the United States for the terror attacks:

He agreed with Falwell when Falwell stated that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way." After public outcry regarding the dialog, which was conducted via television monitor and took place only days after the attacks, Robertson claimed that his earpiece was malfunctioning, and that he was unaware of what he was agreeing with at the time.

There is a strong undercurrent of protest about Rudy's rise in the Presidential sweepstakes. The rational view is that the Republican rank-and-file will learn about the real Rudy and turn against a total fraud who has concocted a bullshit "leadership" image that would allow the U.S. to rise above international terrorism. That rational view has not yet taken hold. Another reason why fear and loathing still carry the day in American politics.

In 1962, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that mandatory school prayer in public schools violates the constitutional prohibition against church and state. For many conservatives, that ruling triggered the start of the dreaded 1960's and all that came with it: free love, drugs, street crime, anti-war protests and God knows what else. The American right-wing has been trying to find ways to overcome that Supreme Court ruling ever since.

I would think that parents who want their kids praying to God would rather have them do it every morning before they get on the school bus. Who the hell wants a teacher to lead your kids in prayer? Don't conservatives want the government off our backs? Isn't a one-size-fits-all prayer inappropriate for some kids? And what about the Jewish kids?

The latest effort to bring prayer back into the public schools took place in Illinois, where the State legislature passed a law in October 2007 requiring a mandatory period of silence at the start of each school day. This was part of "The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act." Somebody thought this was a good idea. The court did not, and it struck down the law. Here's the decision.

The problem with the law, the court ruled, is that it gives students a choice between two options: silent reflection or prayer. We know this because the law mentions both options. By suggesting to students that they could use the moment of silence of prayer, the law violates the separation of church and state. The law is also vague in failing to outline how to implement its provisions, i.e., how long the period of silence and what happens to student who do not remain silent.

This was a close case, in my view. Schools are allowed to mandate a period of silence for reflection, whatever that means. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that periods of reflection do not necessarily require prayer. But that was nonsense. These "silent reflection" laws were passed only to get around the rules against school prayer. God knows what the kids are thinking during these silent moments, probably the math test they are about to fail.

The fine line between silent reflection and school prayer means that this story is not over. The school district will probably appeal the case, and it has Supreme Court written all over it. Its cases like this which could make a difference in a presidential election. Anyone taking bets on which presidential candidates will exploit this case in defending "traditional American values"?

Need someone to thank this Thanksgiving? Thank Bob Dylan. The below video is from 1965, a promo for the song "Subterranean Homesick Blues", from Dylan's album Bringing It All Back Home. In some ways, this song is the Missing Link, bridging all that came before it with all that came afterwards. Before this album, with very few exceptions, rock and roll was straightforward with lyrics that everyone could understand. When the rock Gods heard this album, and especially this song, everything changed. The lyrics got more complicated, and so did the music. No one had ever written a song like this before, and no one sure as hell had played music like this. Not to mention the video, unique even by today's standards. The 1960's had truly begun.

The New York Times ran an article over the weekend about the progress of the Iraq war and how it's affecting the presidential campaign. According to the article, things are improving in Iraq, which means that the Democrats running for president cannot run a strict anti-war campaign, which might offend the militarists among us who frown upon this negativity. The article reads:

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

I suspect that if the war ended in 2003, a few months after it started, it would already be forgotten by now. There is precedent for this belief. In 1991, the first President Bush went to war against Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. There was strong but minority opposition to that war premised on a true understanding of Iraq's relationship with Kuwait and our own government's complicity in Saddam's crimes. That opposition was swept under the carpet as the public cheered on its first real war since Vietnam, which had ended in the mid-1970's. The soldiers got a parade and everyone was happy. Then the war was forgotten about by the end of the year and poor George H.W. Bush couldn't even rely on the glory in his campaign for re-election. Bill Clinton won the 1992 election on a campaign premised on "change."

Iraq went on the back-burner during the 1990's as the American public moved on to other things, like the Internet boom, sex scandals and other crapola. But for Iraqis, the horrors continued. American sanctions against Iraq starved hundreds of thousands of people. The U.S. bombing campaign in the 1991 Iraq war brought that country back to the stone-age, according to a United Nations report. The human suffering in that country as a result of American foreign policy was noted among leftist intellectuals, but the general public had no idea any of this was going on.

The reason for that blissful ignorance is rooted in American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is the notion that Americans are special and mean well around the world, even when things go bad. American exceptionalism means that our government helps poor countries and only goes to war for the right reasons, to promote democracy and peace. The evidence is usually to the contrary, as any honest history book will tell you. But American exceptionalism sweeps that critique under the carpet and celebrates war presidents and soldiers as heroes and guardians of our freedom and liberty.

So, if by chance the situation in Iraq improves during the presidential campaign, the Iraq war ceases to be a campaign issue. Book after book has been published decrying the lead-up to war in Iraq and how the Bush administration lied and stretched the truth to justify war. But war is not a video game. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq as a result of this war, and thousands of American soldiers were killed and seriously wounded. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent in prosecuting this war, and God knows how much of our military expertise has been expended in fighting a country that did not attack us on 9/11 and posed no threat to us. Run for president on these themes, and you are called a crackpot who hates America. Celebrate any ill-gotten gains from an unjust military intervention and you are a statesman.

A lawyer spends his whole career working towards becoming a judge and what does he do? He jails half the courtroom when someone's cell phone goes off and no one takes the blame for it. He's removed from the bench and becomes a candidate for Asshole of the Year. He gets my vote.

The decision by the legal authorities to remove this guy from the bench is here. You should read it. It reads like something out of a bad movie. Or you can read the news article instead.

Judge Removed Over Cell Phone Jailing

November 27, 2007

NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y. (AP) — A sign in Niagara Falls' city court warns that cell phones and pagers must be turned off. Folks there believe it. On Tuesday, a judge was bounced from the bench for jailing 46 people after none would own up to a cell phone that began ringing during his court session.

Judge Robert Restaino "snapped" and "engaged in what can only be described as two hours of inexplicable madness" during the March 2005 session, Raoul Felder, chairman of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, wrote in the decision to remove the judge.

Restaino, who became a full-time judge in 2002 after serving part-time since 1996, was hearing domestic violence cases when a phone rang.

"Everyone is going to jail," the judge said. "Every single person is gong to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."

When no one came forward, the judge ordered the group into custody and they were taken by police to the city jail, where they were searched and packed into crowded cells. Fourteen people who could not post bail were shackled and bused to the Niagara County Jail in Lockport, a 30-minute drive away.

Later in the afternoon, after being told reporters were calling, the judge ordered the defendants released.

The judge told the state panel he was under stress in his personal life.