Deeply, the LAST kind of person I’d take you for is an elitist snob. lol But I will thank you for that wonderful quote from The Simpsons, which I had NOT been aware of. On Montaigne, I have to confess to complete previous ignorance of. My comedy tastes tend to generally support the likes of Abbott & Costello, Laurel & Hardy, et al. You have broadened my horizons, Sir. My deepest thanks. And a very happy Friday to you as well.

USA A-OK,” the award-winning speech by Trong Van Din:
When my family arrived in this country four months ago, we spoke no English and had no money in our pockets. Today, we own a nationwide chain of wheel-balancing centers. Where else but in America, or possibly Canada, could our family find such opportunity? That’s why, whenever I see the Stars and Stripes, I will always be reminded of that wonderful word: flag!

the source:

http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=67

Happy Friday, Susan!

That being said, I still wish to see more politicians being cross-examined, if you will, on the air on critical issues, such as the refusal of our politicians to address what is torture. “How would such a ‘cross-examination’ go, you might wonder. Well, I had one or two ideas, and I’m more than happy to share them here. Remember, I’m just the writer, NOT the lawyer, so I’m not “practicing law.” But since I’m a writer, I can write a possible script, can’t I, JT?

Here’s my idea:

“Cross-Examination” of Stubborn Politicians

1. Interviewer: Senator/Attorney General, you have so far refused to state that waterboarding is torture, isn’t that true?
(Viewers watch politician squirm, trying to avoid answering yes or no)

2. Interviewer (casually): It’s a simple yes or no answer, [politician], isn’t that correct?
(Viewers see politician sqirming harder, still desperately trying to avoid answering directly)

3. Interviewer: All right, I can see you’re not going to answer to answer my question, so let’s move on. You and your panel have so far failed to open a criminal investigation against those who have either INFLICTED torture or ORDERED that torture to be inflicted, isn’t THAT true?
(Viewers watch politician struggle with this new, even tougher question. He has still failed to answer yes or no on either of the two questions previously posed)

4. Interviewer (sighing): I guess you’re not going to answer this question either, isn’t that right? Okay, we’ll go on, and see if my next question will be a little easier for you.
(Viewers carefully watch politician to see if he relaxes)

5. Interviewer: Given that neither you nor anyone else in charge over there, that being the Justice Department, has opened any kind of criminal investigation into the torturous practice of waterboarding on detainees, a reasonable person could easily conclude that you SUPPORT torture in any form it is applied, isn’t that correct? In fact, wouldn’t the term PRO-TORTURE be an accurate way to describe your failure to act on this matter?
(Viewers watch politician start to protest or accuse the interviewer at this point, still avoiding answering the question directly)

6. Interviewer: Well, [politician], you know the old saying, don’t you? You know, the one that goes “if the shoe fits….?”
FINAL QUESTION

(Viewers watch as the verbal fireworks begin to get intense)

Hmmmm…think that one will fly?

JT provides a service for us all. The humor of the posts is not unintentional..he is reminding us in his own way of how our human society is a strange mix of high seriousness and low comedy. And sometimes both at the same time! Hence the Simpsons:

“Can you name the truck with four wheel drive,
Smells like a steak, and seats thirty five?
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Well, it goes real slow with the hammer down
It’s the country-fried truck endorsed by a clown
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Hey, hey!
Twelve yards long, two lanes wide,
Sixty five tons of American pride!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!
Canyonero! Canyonero!
She blinds everybody with her super high beams
She’s a squirrel-squashin’, deer-smackin’ drivin’ machine
Canyonero! Canyonero! Canyonero!
Whoa, Canyonero! Whoa!”

This makes even a over-serious bloke like me smile!

I know I made a bad joke earlier, when this is really no laughing matter, for which I now humbly apologize, but I have to wonder whether those who have so far refused to open criminal investigations against such people would do so if the pro-torture label were to be continually applied to them in the media. If nothing else seems to work to light a metaphorical fire under these people to DO THEIR JOBS, maybe more bad press will. Just a thought, but probably another useless one. I REALLY despair at times, and this is one of them.

Oh, to be able to read the history books 300 years from now (assuming there is still something as quaint as a print media).

The noble Republic, brave experiment in high aspirations and constitutional safeguards.

Their Congress’s response to the perversion of the national character by official brutality?

Ignore it and investigate a minor character who played some obscure game with a cowhide sphere, hit with pieces of trees.

Look, when our Atlantic cousins were enjoying their empire in the 1850-1890’s and having all their little wars on the far-flung frontiers of the red-mapped globe; at least there was a tension between the jingoists and the moralists. At least the governments swapped between the Disraeli’s and the Gladstone’s.

Now that it is our turn, we don’t have the same dynamic. It’s take me out to the ballgame, and the devil with the battles on the frontiers of our new empire and the growing repression at home.

The Justice Department will “throw the book” at Clemens for hurting NO ONE, and yet refuse to even consider prosecution for the obviously violent crime of torture, which causes serious bodily injury to everyone torture is inflicted on. As Deeply (I think) said recently of another topic raised here, “words fail me.”

In the former cases, does the civil contempt mean that a grand jury can be convened, and if so, who convenes it? Why choose civil over criminal contempt–is it to sidestep a blocking tactic that would otherwise be available to Bush/Mukasey?

No reply necessary if you’re busy. Someone here will know!

If you are referring to the Bush officials, no. This is a federal contempt sanction.

If you are referring to Clemens, he is also being investigated not for steroid use but false statements. Steroid use is illegal in some states but notoriously difficult to prove and the statute of limitations has run.

We’re told Clemens is worth the trouble because he is a model for young American children and would be a bad example if unprosecuted.

Well isn’t advocating, commissioning, or covering up torture a bad example too!?!?

Crikeys!!