Andrew Sullivan on Bush and the Rule of Law

Andrew Sullivan sees the Libby sentence commutation as just the latest in a long string of Bush Administration disdain for and abuse of the Rule of Law. Sullivan writes:

We now have a clear and simple illustration of the arrogance of this president. Tell the American people the core narrative of this monarchical presidency: this president believes he is above the law in wiretapping citizens with no court oversight; he has innovated an explosive use of signing statements to declare himself above the law on a bewildering array of other matters, large and small; he has unilaterally declared himself above American law, international law, and U.N. Treaty obligations in secretly authorizing torture; he has claimed the right to seize anyone in the United States, detain them indefinitely without trial and torture them; his vice-president refuses to abide by the law that mandates securing classified documents; and when a court of law finds a friend of the president's guilty, he commutes the sentence.

People with any shred of conscience know the game. And it ain't likely to play too well in Peoria. In fact, as Sullivan also points out, it already isn't.

The Bush Amnesty Plan ...

For I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, that is. And it only took three short paragraphs on one single, solitary page! But, hey, it does make the light bulb go on, doesn't it? The Power of the Pardon. Hmmmmmm. If the regular legal process doesn't prevent the President from ramming amnesty down the throats of the American people for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, why not just apply it to all those 12-20 million "illegal" immigrants? Bush can get his "amnesty" for illegal immigrants after all!

UPDATE: Monday, July 2, 2007, 11:26PM -- Seriously, here's the situation in a nutshell. We have this thing called the Rule of Law. There is no better judicial system in the world than in the United States that preserves this Rule of Law. Or there was no better system. Libby was indicted, prosecuted, and convicted in strict accordance with this Rule of Law. Furthermore, if he, or anyone else, believes that there was a miscarraige of justice, then we have this thing called an appeals process that allows him, just like any citizen, to make absolutely sure that the Rule of Law applies. There are plenty of average joes who think they have gotten a raw deal from the judicial system (and some of them probably have). But their expectations for a Presidential Pardon are effectively zero. So, when Bush issues a Pardon in a case like this, for one of his cronies, which is his right, he diminishes the Rule of Law. But it's of a piece with the whole Bush Administration's politicization of the Judicial system in the U.S., so it shouldn't come as any surprise. Think of it like this: if the person facing jail time were Harry Reid's Chief of Staff under exactly the same charges, do you think Bush would be issuing a pardon? Any honest person would have to say, "No." For commuting Libby's sentence, Bush perhaps might get a bit of an uptick in his approval ratings from the relatively small percentage of the American public that constitutes the conservative base (but even that is questionable, because many of these folk are complaining that Bush didn't go the full nine yards and pardon Libby outright.) But I think that Bush, and by extension the GOP, will actually lose even more support among Rule of Law minded moderates and independents, and has just fired up the Democratic base even more. A smart Democratic presidential candidate will know how to massage this issue to keep the Democratic base fired up over the next year-and-a-half as well as to lure into the fold the moderates and independents wearying of Bush's ever more clear cavalier dismissiveness of the Rule of Law for purely political reasons. Mark my words. Watch how this plays in the polls over the next few weeks and into the 2008 election campaign. Watch particularly how it plays among the average, apolitical or moderately politically-engaged voter. These folks may not pay much attention to politics, but they certainly are attuned to the Rule of Law. And Bush did not do the GOP any favors with this commutation with regard to respect for the Rule of Law. You just watch. No matter how the conservative pundits spin this as a matter of rectifying an injustice, it's going to smack like preferential cronyism because it involves conservatives unravelling and undoing for conservatives what conservatives always generally tell folks shouldn't be unravelled and undone for anyone.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: Has John Hawkins Made RWN a Conservative Echo Chamber?

Well, who am I to say? But some of the RWN stormtroopers are wondering if there's a Stalinist purge of sorts underway at RWN. Check out the commentary in this posting by a guest blogger. Here are some of the comments:

******************************
Is it just me, or is there a conspicuous lack of moonbats (or even regular liberals for that matter) on this thread? Does this indicate that there's universal dislike for Hillary?
You know, as amazing as it sounds, she could actually turn out to be a unifying force in America... just not the way she'd hoped for.

Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
July 2, 2007 12:01 PM
******************************

*******************************

Is it just me, or is there a conspicuous lack of moonbats

and

...lack of liberal antagonists.

I've noticed that too...did John ban all the moonbats and we're actually out of them?

Posted by simulacre
July 2, 2007 12:34 PM
******************************

******************************
OK I will say it IF we have no opposing view point to prove wrong it is not much fun. There is no fun in having a bunch of yeah I agree. Where is the challenge in that..... We need to moonbats to show there are wrong.

Posted by ninerdog
July 2, 2007 12:39 PM
******************************

******************************
"...did John ban all the moonbats and we're actually out of them?"

I seriously doubt that he banned them all. And even if he did, S_S_T has proven time and again how easy it is to get back in.
I don't know what's up. Maybe they've all gotten sick of taking the daily smack-down that RWN posters deliver so well.
You know, not to sound paranoid or anything, but it's kind of creepy not knowing where all of those nutters are lurking. Especially with our nation's most patriotic holiday right around the corner.

Posted by Good_Ol_Boy
July 2, 2007 12:45 PM
******************************

Well, Good_Ol_Boy, I don't know about all of them, but I can tell you that he banned at least one of them for sure.

Congratulations to StanW

From the comments thread for this posting at RWN, I read this:

Gentle Posters of RWN.

At Noon on Saturday, my first grandson came into this world. Although he had to spend some time in NICU, he is now doing very well and is scheduled to come home tomorrow.

Mom and Boy are doing well.

Thanks to all those wishing us well.

Posted by StanW
July 1, 2007 10:51 PM

Through the course of our exchanges at RWN over the years, StanW and I have developed a respectful and friendly online relationship. Since I cannot reply to this news at RWN, and since I have no other way to contact StanW, I'd like to take this opportunity on my own blog to congratulate him on the birth of his first grandson. Cheers, StanW! May you and your new grandson have many years of life together, with lots of wonderful shared memories! (Don't spoil him too much!!) And I extend my well wishes to the little fellow's mom and to your entire family. There is nothing better than welcoming a new life into this world. God bless!

Jesus in the Slidell Courthouse

Looks like the ACLU and the City of Slidell are gearing up for an Establishment Clause battle in the courts.

It appears that a portrait of Jesus hanging in the Slidell City Court's lobby is the subject of contention. Of course, the ACLU is requesting that it be removed and is threatening a lawsuit if it is not. And Slidell City officials are refusing to remove it. We may, once again, be heading for the Supreme Court on the subject of Church/State separation.

You want a taste of some of what the principles are saying in this battle? Here's something from the City of Slidell officialdom:

Slidell Mayor Ben Morris condemned the ACLU in harsher tones, while invoking the memory of Hurricane Katrina. As he spoke, damage from the storm -- long watermarks and cracked plaster -- was clearly visible on the courthouse behind him.

"I fight daily with FEMA for the recovery of our city, and now we must fight these tyrants, this American Taliban, who seek to destroy our culture and our heritage," Morris said.

Now here's something from the ACLU:

Booth expressed frustration with Slidell officials' criticism of the ACLU for releasing its letter objecting to the Jesus picture to the news media at the same time it was sent to the court.

"I've never seen anything like this," he said. "This is established Supreme Court law. The ACLU isn't making this up. I would very much like to see more of a reasoned legal analysis than complaints about how we sent them the letter." ...

Booth said it was ironic that Morris would condemn a theocracy such as the Taliban rule of Afghanistan while defending a religious picture in a public building.

Now, my own evaluation of the situation? Well, at the personal level, I don't find the mere presence of the picture in the Court lobby to be so troublesome. It's not like the picture is being actively used to indoctrinate visitors to the court in a particular faith. So, in my mind, it's no big deal. But, that's just me. Now, that said, if it were a big deal to one of my fellow citizens, for whatever reason, I also would have no qualms about removing it. It's not like removing it is going to negatively affect my faith, so what's the big deal in taking it down? This is the question I ask: what does taking the picture down mean? All it means is a full secularization of the Court space. I can live with that because that has absolutely no bearing on my constitutional right to practice my faith. To me, that is the crux of the debate. As long as we live in a free society where I can go to Church on Sunday, and where I can both practice and live my faith freely, taking down a picture of Jesus in a courtroom is of no consequence. How others see this as an attack on one's right to practice a particular religious faith is beyond me; but that seems to be where the anger and frustration comes from. It strikes me as odd that Christians feel assaulted in our society, especially when Churches are full on Sunday and when nobody really bothers people in the actual practice of their faith. The usual over-the-top, angry, and defensive reaction by Christians to such things seems Pharisaical when one considers what this reaction really constitutes: making faith a political issue and forcing public conformity to even the most insignificant public references to it or expressions of it.

I ask: What is really the harm to faith in taking the picture down? My answer: none. In taking down the picture, what damage is done to the freedom of one's ability to practice any religion he or she chooses? My answer: none. I am neither more nor less likely to be a stronger and better Christian because there is a picture of Jesus in the lobby of the Slidell Courthouse. And I assume that the administration of justice in the Slidell courthouse is not affected one way or the other because there is a picture of Jesus in the lobby. So, given that, if taking the picture down removes a source of public contention among citizens, why not do it? In fact, I kinda see being willing to take down the picture as a gesture of Christian charity.

But, as usual, we'll have to let the angry ideologues on both sides yell at each other about it. And I guess we'll have to endure once again the spectacle of it.

The Warrantless Blogtapping Program

BLOG UNDER SURVEILLANCE: Right Wing News ...
Issue: The GOP Rapid Re-Education of John Hawkins.

When it comes to Comprehensive Immigration Reform, tough-talking John Hawkins, owner of the conservative blog Right Wing News is essentially no different than the Republican squishes in the Senate whom he pretends to despise. In the end, I conclude that he's a regular GOP party hack. What makes it worse, though, is that he pretends not to be. But don't believe me, read the following roller-coaster chain of commentary and decide for yourself.

At 7:30AM, on Monday, June 25th, 2007, Hawkins was in a state of apparent frenzy over the first cloture vote in the Senate on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill (S. 1639). This vote was scheduled for the following day, Tuesday, June 26th, 2007. Now let's remember that this particular cloture vote was simply to end debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the measure. It was NOT a cloture vote on the measure itself. But, Hawkins apparently considered this cloture vote to be of paramount importance. This is what he wrote about it:

In my book, there is no such thing as a "good" senator who supports this bill. Every decent thing these guys have done in their whole career is garbage compared to a vote for cloture on this immigration bill -- and I mean a vote for cloture. If they vote for cloture and then turn around and vote against the bill, that means nothing. In fact, it's an insult, because it means that they think their constituents are too stupid to understand that the cloture vote is where this bill will be stopped -- if it's going to be stopped at all.

So, pick up that phone, write that email, send that fax and do it TODAY! Let these guys know that a vote for cloture is a vote against conservatism, against the Republican Party, and a vote against America -- and let them know how angry you'll be if they betray this country by voting for cloture.

Now, he couldn't have been any more forceful and clear. In fact, he made a point to distinguish between voting against the bill and voting for this particular cloture motion, and drew a line in the sand. And for emphasis, lest anyone be confused, he added: "and I mean a vote for cloture." He threw down the gauntlet and took off the gloves. This was serious business: if they vote for cloture, "their whole career is garbage."

So, what happened? On the next day, Tuesday, June 26, 2007, the cloture motion passed with a vote of 64 in favor and 35 againts. At 2:57PM on Tuesday, June 26, 2007, Hawkins posted an entry which he titled "Mexico 64 Vs. America 35." That's very telling in itself for a couple of reasons. First, it revealed that for Hawkins this really wasn't about legal vs. illegal immigration, but rather about Mexico vs. America. In other words, it wasn't simply a question of law enforcement and security (since not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans), but was also about preserving some kind of ethnic, linguistic, and cultural "purity." But that's a subject for another discussion. Second, and more relevant to what I'm trying to focus on now, is that the title of this blog entry also implied that those who voted for cloture, those among the 64, were essentially traitors to America and servants of Mexico. I mean, really, Hawkins created a clear dichotomy: if you weren't one of the 35 who voted against cloture, you weren't worthy of being considered a part of America. So, there's that. But Hawkins wasn't just content to end with the total tally. He went on in this posting to list the 64 traitors and the 35 patriots by name -- paying particular attention to the Republican Senators among the villainous 64. Now remember, Hawkins said just 31 hours previously that, by their vote for this particular cloture motion, "every decent thing these guys [the villainous 64] have done in their whole career is garbage compared to a vote for cloture on this immigration bill -- and I mean a vote for cloture." And remember he went even further and declared: "If they vote for cloture and then turn around and vote against the bill, that means nothing." There were 24 Republican Senators among the villainous, treasonous 64, one of whom was John Ensign (R-NV).

Of course, the next step the Senate took was to proceed to consider the measure, which allowed for debate and a slew of Amendments to the measure to be considered before moving along to the second cloture motion to end debate on the measure itself. This second cloture motion was schedule for Thursday morning, June 28, 2007. Hawkins had a series of posts leading up to this vote as well as some post-vote commentary. At 7:45AM on this Thursday morning, Hawkins put up a posting in which he discussed the upcoming cloture vote. In his third update on this post, he mentioned an email he received from Sen. John Ensign indicating that Ensign would vote against the second cloture motion. Now, because it was an update to an earlier posting, I do not have any idea at what specific moment before the cloture vote began when Hawkins received this communication; but it had to be within a few hours of the vote itself. In my book, that's cutting it pretty close. But listen to how Hawkins responded in this update:

Update #3: Yesterday, I wrote John Ensign's press secretary and complained that during his interview with me, he seemed to be indicating that he could not support the bill unless it had an exit visa in it, but yet, he voted for cloture on Tuesday, despite the fact it doesn't have that in the bill.

His press secretary wrote back that the first vote was to allow more debate, but he was also non-committal about what John Ensign would do today.

Well, just now, John Randall, the ePress Secretary for the RNSC just wrote me the following message,

"Sen. Ensign Will Vote No on today’s cloture vote."

Given how tight this thing is, having another definite "no" vote is very big -- especially since there are so many undecided senators. The more certain they become that this bill is going to fail, the less inclined they will be to climb out on a limb and vote for it.

All I can say is thank you, Senator Ensign! We're lucky to have this guy running the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

If you want to say thanks to him for standing up against amnesty when it counts, chipping in a few bucks to the NRSC would be a good way to do it.

The emphasis in the above citation is mine. Now tell me if I'm missing something here, but in a period of less than 72 hours, Hawkins went from considering Ensign's entire career to have been "garbage" for taking the side of Mexico against the U.S. in the first cloture vote, and considering a switch from a "YES" vote to a "NO" vote to be an "insult," to gushing over how lucky the GOP is to have such a stand-up guy running the NRSC!!! And then Hawkins asks people to throw a few bucks at the NRSC as a gesture of thanks to Ensign!!! What gives? It's rather schizophrenic behavior if you ask me.

But that's not all. In his post-second-cloture-vote victory gloat, which was posted a short few hours later at 10:44AM, the 72 hour "re-education" of Hawkins was nearly complete. And it didn't even have to come through a forced "re-education" camp either! Here are some of the things Hawkins had to say in this post:

Keep in mind that John Ensign, the head of the RNSC, voted for cloture when it counted -- and he let people know his decision before the vote started. So, he didn't just go with the flow once he saw the bill was going to lose, like Sam Brownback and some of the others. Tossing a few bucks the NRSC's way as a thank-you wouldn't be the worst idea in the world.

and

PS #3: Some people are complaining that I am, as promised, tabling the Payback Project. Well, ya know, that's just what I said I'd do. Think carrot and stick.

[ASIDE: The "Payback Project" was a threat made by Hawkins to carry out an organized and extensive retaliation against GOP Senators who supported the bill. But Hawkins always softened his threat by saying that he'd do it "if the bill passed." Just more evidence of his squishiness, if you ask me.]

I'll stop right there and let you decide about John Hawkins and whether he is a squish and a party hack. But, I'll end by pointing that I'm not the only one who thinks this. Here is what one of Hawkins' regular conservative commenters, memomachine, in one of the last comments in the comment thread on Hawkins post-cloture-victory-gloat posting had to say about the "re-education" of Hawkins:

Hmmmm.

Frankly this is ridiculous. Now that Republican senators have shown to your face how much they consider you to be irrelevant, now you're going to table the payback project?

What? Nobody deserves payback? Nobody deserves punishment for disregarding the will of the American people for weeks? Nobody deserves payback for calling conservatives "bigots"?

That's nonsense.

Personally my opinion of John Hawkins has just dropped to zero. All he is capable of is waking up at times to act but then he goes right back to sleep with the admonishment to support Republicans.

Good luck with that. But I'm sure not going to continue wasting my time here. ...

Posted by memomachine
June 29, 2007 10:16 AM

Hawkins is painting his "re-education" as a gesture of "magnanimity." I don't think there's any doubt that he's being magnanimous to folks like Ensign. But for those who complained about Hawkins "mothballing" the Payback Project, I wonder how "magnanimous" this Hawkins statement to the stormtroopers sounds:

PS #3: Some people are complaining that I am, as promised, tabling the Payback Project. Well, ya know, that's just what I said I'd do. Think carrot and stick.

Well, ya know, so you did. So you did. Be careful, though, lest your stormtroopers begin to think that you're giving Ensign the carrot, but giving them the stick.

Update on The Huck Upchuck

Well, since I haven't heard back yet from John Hawkins of Right Wing News about why he banned me from commenting on his site, and since Hawkins is about to go on vacation, presumably meaning I shouldn't expect a reply any time soon, I have no choice but to bring what would have been my comments there to my own blogsite here. Hawkins can ban me from commenting on his blog, but thanks to the freedoms of our great country, he can't ban me from commenting on my blog. In fact, I will be making use of the liberties afforded me under the Constitution and augmented by the Patriot Act to conduct warrantless surveillance of Right Wing News. As of now, I will resurrect my blog and, in doing so, will establish a new category of commentary for my blog that will exclusively follow with a sharp-edged, fine-tooth, critical comb the goings-on of conservative blogs, and particularly of Right Wing News. As a nod to the Patriotic intent of this new category, I am dubbing it the "The Warrantless Blogtapping Program." I know it's cheesy, but, hey, what the hell? It's my blog, right?

I actually throw this down as a challenge to Hawkins. I want to encourage him to visit and to respond and to comment. He is welcome to do so. And I promise I won't ban him, no matter what he says!

Now, I have to say that I like Hawkins. I think he is intelligent and I think he writes extremely well. I think his arguments are tightly constructed and have a clear logic. I even think he is right-on about about some things. But this latest episode of banning me from commenting on his site has shown me that there is also a bit of a petty, vindictive, and vulnerable side to Hawkins. I must have pushed some button that cracked his tough-guy veneer and gotten under his skin. Unfortunately, it has exposed a part of Hawkins that is not all that flattering and admirable. And though I would have never thought it about him until recently, the fact that his reaction is simply to ignore me and not even respond to my honest inquiry as to the reasons for my banning leads me to think that he is also a bit cowardly. I mean, how hard would it have been for him to write me back and simply say: "I banned you because you are a jerk and a liar" or "I banned you because you hurt my feelings" or "I banned you just because I wanted to," etc. He could even have a really legitimate reason for banning me, which I might acknowledge and even agree with. But how can I know that unless he tells me? But ... all this is lagniappe. What I am ultimately left with is my own blog where I can engage his thoughts and ideas on my own terms. And that's what I intend to do.

I won't exclusively be reacting to Right Wing News on this blog. I will also engage other topics that suit my fancy. And I welcome any and all to a vigorous duel of ideas in the blog comments section. But I will manage this dueling according to the following rules:

(1) I will not tolerate any vulgar or obscene language on my blog. I will delete any comments that use such language.

(2) I will not tolerate threats of any kind to anyone who posts here. I will delete any comments that make such threats.

If I find the need arises to address some other aspect of the exchanges that take place in the blog comments section, I reserve the right to establish other rules accordingly.

Well, that's it for now. Check back for what I hope will be a more active and engaging blog; but know that, although my sincere intention is to resuscitate and reinvigorate my blog, sometimes intentions don't always translate into reality. So, take this blog at face value. If I post one hundred entries over the next three months, or one entry, so be it.

Banned from Commenting on a Conservative Blog

Conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News has banned me from posting comments to any of his blog entries. I can log on under my userid "huckupchuck"; but I do not have access to the comments fields once I do so. And when I click on the preferences of my user account, I get a one-line, four-word message that says: "You have been banned." I have written to John Hawkins asking for an explanation, and I am waiting to hear back from him. If and when he does respond, I will update this entry.

Now, John Hawkins has the right to ban whomever he wants to ban; but there is absolutely nothing that I have posted as a comment on his blog that would constitute a bannable offense according to his own terms for posting comments. I truly have no idea why I have been banned. I can only possibly imagine three reasons. First, there is just some technical mistake or moderating oversight that can be easily rectified. I hope this is the case, but Hawkins generally runs a tight ship and I doubt a banning would happen randomly and without his knowledge. Second, being in Mexico, I have been using some public access computers. It is possible that I failed to log off one of these computers and that someone has posted some nasty comments under my name that would merit being banned. If that is the case, then I support the banning. But I have looked through all of the current threads and I can find no such misuse of my account. So I am inclined to rule that possibility out.

The third possible reason,and most worrisome to me, is that Hawkins has gotten fed up with my questions and my comments critical of some of the positions he has taken, particularly with regard to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill currently being debated in the Senate. I can´t imagine Hawkins getting so exorcised by this such that he would ban my entire account. That seems unlike Hawkins, who has been generally very respectful and tolerant of differing opinions; but if that is the case and he wants to ban me for that reason, that´s fine, too. If true, however, it places his whole pretense to be open to criticism from other ideological perspectives in question, at least in my mind. I never would have thought that, but I can´t help but think so now. Maybe this is all a mistake and it can be resolved soon. But, perhaps, in his mind, Hawkins considers that my recent critical commentary makes me "a jerk" -- and so he might justify my banning accordingly. But I have been posting comments there for a long time, and the regular visitors to RWN know that I can be prickly and snarky sometimes, but no more so than many of my rivals there. They would know, too, that I am generally respectful and try to be as civil as possible in our debates, discussions, and arguments. In fact, nothing that I have ever said or written in a comment there even approaches the kinds of bashing that I sometimes receive from some regular people who post there, and who still have active permission to continue posting there.

Let me give an example. Here is the first of three comments I wrote, before being banned, in a recent discussion thread on the current Immigration Reform bill, which was up for a cloture vote in the Senate. I presume that this comment is one of the ones that was the "straw that broke the camel´s back," so to say:

Why are you so opposed to ending debate and having a straight up/down vote on this matter? Why doesn't it matter if a Senator votes to end debate and then votes against the bill? Why is it an insult to conservatives. Why are you so afraid of this?

Posted by huckupchuck
June 25, 2007 10:31 AM

I asked these questions in a comment in response to the original posting made by John Hawkins. The next comment I wrote in this thread said the following:

Posted by Don_cos June 25, 2007 11:02 AM
All well and good, but how is voting for cloture yet then voting against the measure not doing what you want. It ends debate and puts an end to the bill once and for all. It would seem to me that voting to keep debate open merely allows for the continued lingering of this measure and its periodic reemergence and consumption of the Senate's business. End debate, vote against it, and put it to rest once and for all.

Posted by huckupchuck
June 25, 2007 11:14 AM

The final comment I posted in this thread, which was a response to another one of my respected rival´s comments, said:

Why do your comments to me almost always have to end with some demeaning remark about my mental capacity or my intelligence? Please, be a decent human being and keep the ad hominem slights to a minimum, CavalierX.

Now, to the subject ... Let's remember that Hawkins is saying that even those who vote for cloture and then vote against the bill are traitors to the cause and their votes mean nothing. How can a vote for cloture and then a vote against the bill be construed as a vote in support of the bill? And what about conservative disdain for the filibuster and the notion that presidential initiatives and nominees that come up in the senate deserve and up or down vote?

Posted by huckupchuck
June 25, 2007 12:08 PM

Now, compare these comments with one directed at me by one of my other opponents, who wrote later in this very same thread:

If you don't want to get your nails broken or pumps scuffed, best for you to stay at Barbra.com or some such place "kinder, gentler" place, Huck. You'll find few "compassionate" {said in a drippingly sarcastic tone} conservatives here.

Posted by Cartman
June 25, 2007 9:00 PM

And yet Cartman continues to have posting privileges while I am banned. Not that Cartman´s harmless post should be a bannable offense (and I don't think it should), but comparatively speaking, I think his posting would constitute more of a bannable offense than any of the three comments I posted previously, especially under Hawkins' own rules for posting comments.

This is just one of the many examples of the experiences I have when posting comments on this blog. Fine. I expect to take some tough hits and even some personal ribbing on a conservative blog; but there is the question of parity in terms of what kinds of comments merit wholesale banning from the site, and what kinds get passes.

Again, perhaps this is just some unfortunate mistake or some kind of technical issue. And if it is, I will most certainly update this posting to reflect that.

But if it does end up that I was banned for the content of my comments, then I ask you to check the full range of them out for yourself, come to your own conclusions, and suggest to me any rational explanation that does not call into question the claim that this website, Right Wing News, is different than those which seem to ban commenters randomly for nothing more than expressing a critical, opposition opinion.

UPDATE: 28 June 2007, 2:53 CST: I still have not heard back directly from John Hawkins, but I gather from the number of referring pages to my blog coming from a particular discussion thread at RWN that the offending passages may have been my comments in the discussion thread on a posting by Hawkins that addressed the subject of his running liberal ads on his blog. I did cynically question whether Hawkins´ rationalization for running such ads was a principled one. Personally, I believed it to be unprincipled behavior and I said as much, explaining my reasoning. But, that's me. You might think otherwise; so, I encourage you to click the link above and decide for yourself if anything I said there would merit wholesale banning.

Huckupchuck in Thoth

Here I am, in the green mask, throwing my arm off to a large swath of friends on the ground in the picture below and handing down some highly-prized spears in the picture on the right. Notice the flag beads around my neck? Can you guess the country? [NOTE: Credit the pictures to colleague and friend, JW.]

Another friend and colleague has some actual video footage of me from the past three years. When I get access to them, I'll put them up for your viewing pleasure, too. It was a great Mardi Gras!

An Individual Republican's Smack-Down of the GOP

I have to say that, if I were RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, President Bush, or Karl Rove (and if I had a conscience) this, from Republican Frank Schaeffer, would sting like the dickens:

I'm a Christian, a writer, a military parent and a registered Republican.

On all those counts, I was disgusted by an e-mail I just received that's being circulated by campaign supporters of Republican George Allen, who's trying to retain his Senate seat in Virginia.

The message goes like this: "First, it was the Catholic priests, then it was Mark Foley, and now Jim Webb, whose sleazy novels discuss sex between very young teenagers. ... Hmmm, sounds like a perverted pedophile to me! Pass the word that we do not need any more pedophiles in office." Democrat James Webb is a war hero and former Marine, wounded in Vietnam and winner of the Navy Cross. He was writing about class and military issues long before me and has articulated the issue of how the elites have dropped the ball on military service in his classic novel Fields of Fire. By the way, that's a book Tom Wolfe calls "the greatest of the Vietnam novels."

Mr. Webb's son is a Marine in Iraq. That's an uncommon fact in this era in which most political leaders' children act as if it is only right and proper that it's someone else's war to fight.

Mr. Webb also happens to be running against a desperate opponent supported by people who circulated the stupid e-mail, something that reminds me of a 2000 smear campaign aimed at another war hero, John McCain.

I never served in the military. It was my son's unexpected volunteering that connects me to the military family and to my country. And I've been voting Republican for years. My late father – Dr. Francis Schaeffer – was an evangelical theologian, friend to Jerry Falwell and White House guest of Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and the first President Bush.

I have nice handwritten letters from various members of the Bush family, including Barbara, thanking me for my books on military service. So I have every reason to stay in the Republicans' good graces. (It's nice to be complimented on television by the First Lady.)

But enough is enough. I've had it with Republican smears.

The Webb e-mail is the embodiment of the cynical Republican strategists, some of whom must know the difference between fiction and nonfiction. Was Agatha Christie a murderer because she wrote about murder?

According to the Allen camp's logic, God would be a pedophile, too. After all, we Christians believe God inspired the Bible. And God-the-author chose to include the "sleazy" story about Lot offering to send out his young virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom.

The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and God's favorite man – King David – warming himself with a young virgin in his old age. He's the same man God tells us committed murder after he indulged his peeping Tom fantasies.

Lucky for God-the-author that He's not running against George Allen.

Ouch!

It's a Fact: Bush Lies

Remember when Republicans incessantly and relentlessly mocked John Kerry for his famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" flip-flop on a wartime spending bill? I sure do. You know, at least Kerry could point to the fact that he did vote differently on the same subject in two different moments. Regardless of what it says about Kerry's lack of convictions, or his inability to articulate what he was trying to say, it's at least a true statement in some measure: Kerry actually did vote for an $87 billion wartime spending measure that he supported before voting against another alternative $87 billion wartime spending measure that he did not support.

Then there's Bush ... who just out-and-out lies.

Notice the ghost-town silence among conservative bloggers when Bush lies.

This time, there's no equivocation about it; and Bush can't even articulate even a feeble defense of his position, as Kerry was able to.

Here's an explanation and a take-down of the duplicity and outright lies of Bush. Here's the relevant part of the transcript in a Bush interview with George Stephanopolous:

STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”

BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.

And Andrew Sullivan links to a YouTube clip of Jon Stewart who just blasts Bush on the point. Check it out and let me know who's worse: Flip-flop Kerry or Lying Bush.

Ba "Rock On!" Obama

This speech is so awesome and inspirational, I almost can't contain myself with a swelling and emotional pride that this man is a liberal and a Democrat. He represents precisely why I am a liberal Democrat. The whole speech is incredible, from start to finish; but I found his concluding segment to be humbling, utterly beautiful, and stunningly magnificent:

So let me end with another interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of President Bush's foreign policy.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." He went on to write:

"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

I checked my web-site and found the offending words. My staff had written them to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in reasonable terms - those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. [Emphasis is mine.]

Amen, brother! I will follow this incredible leader all the way to the White House, because that is most certainly where he is heading. He is the real deal.

COHA on WHINSEC: "Torture is Un-American"

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs comments on the legacy of the U.S.'s training of Latin American military officers at the WHINSEC (Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the SOA or School of the Americas). Combining the current anti-terrorist fears in the U.S. public, an administration policy that tends to ignore or dismiss torture as legitimate interrogation techniques, and border security concerns, one wonders if WHINSEC might not just stay open, but might also ramp up its old ways again.

Katrina's Forgotten Ones

For those of us paying attention to the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, we hear a lot of talk about who among the affected groups has been abandoned and forgotten, who is being left behind, and why. Well, let me tell you what I think about this whole debate ...

I think the whole notion that some gindividual or group is more "forgotten" than others is a pile of selfish b.s. Everyone feels that way. I felt that way because St. Bernard residents were allowed officially to come take a look-see before Orleans Parish residents were. I heard a black female professional from New Orleans East say she felt abandoned because only poor black people in the Superdome and Convention Center and rich white folk in Lakeview and uptown were getting all the attention and coverage from media and public officials. I heard numerous people from Slidell say they were the forgotten ones and that New Orleans was getting all the attention. Folks affected by the breach in the industrial canal thought that they were forgotten amidst all the attention given to the 17th street canal breach and the neighborhoods affected by it. Lakeview residents felt abandoned because they couldn't see their property until a week after the CBD and certain parts of Uptown were given the green light. All who were affected by this, who experienced grief and separation from their homes, feel as if nothing is soon enough and that everyone else has it better. This person's FEMA check came and mine didn't... That person got a $1500 cash debit card from the Red Cross and all I got was a case of bottled water... My next door neighbor got his power restored or his cable connected, but mine still doesn't work... That person's flood or homeowner's adjuster came and met with him at his property to assess his claim, and I can't even get my adjuster to call me back, and we're both insured by the same company, so on, ad infinitum.

It's perfectly understandable that when one feels a loss, it's a very solitary feeling for that person. And the fact is that we from the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama Gulf Coast are ALL in this boat to some degree or another. And when we each have a problem linked to the same source, it is natural that my problem is just as important as the next affected person's problem, so when my problem is not addressed but the next person's is, I feel "abandoned" - and lash out trying to understand why I'm being "dissed." Is it because I am white (as Lakeview's Mr. Forgotston and St. Bernard residents have charged)? Is it because I am black (as Jesse Jackson and Kayne West have charged)? Is it because I am poor? Is it because I live in Kenner and not in New Orleans? Is it because I am just a worker and not a business owner? Why am I being left behind? What is it about ME that causes my sufferings to go unaddressed when others are being taken care of.

But the rational person would know that the FACT is that emotion and not reason is driving these false charges of abandonment. The rational person has to know that there is not a concerted effort to discriminate against anyone for any particular reason. It's a friggin' catastrophic disaster and we're all hurt and we all want immediate attention from someone in authority who will listen to us grieve, who will lament our losses, and who will tell us everything will be all right in the midst of upheaval and chaos. So when someone makes the claim that they are Katrina's forgotten ones, I say "Puh-leeze! Join the club of everyone."

Post Katrina Update

Hi, all. It's been a while since I posted anything here. I've been busy with many other things, including running multiple blogs for my scattered office. In any case, I thought I'd give just a quick update on how I've fared.

First, I've managed to get to my home in New Orleans some 7-8 times now, as of at least a couple of weeks ago.

My home sustained some serious flood and wind damage. It took on 2-3 feet of water in the first (ground) floor level. Fortunately, it is more like a garage/basement area and our main living area is on the upper floor. Still, we had a guest bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom on the ground floor level; and our laundry room, hot water heater, tools, kid's play room, etc., were also on the ground level. Needless to say, we lost a good bit of stuff, not to mention the demolition and rebuilding of the walls we'll have to do and the mold we'll have to content with. But it's o.k. We have good flood insurance (though I am still waiting to meet with the adjuster, so who knows how it will turn out).

I also lost about 75% of my slate shingle roof. One part of the roof which was made of sheet metal (it was over a formerly enclosed exterior porch that had been remodeled and converted to an indoor room) blew off and water seeped down into the room causing the ceiling to collapse and bring with it some mold. But, I'm not all that worried about this, yet, because we have an old seal-tab shingle roof underneath the slate shingles that, although very compromised itself, has kept the water (except in a few isolated spots) out of the main living area of the house. And now that I have a blue tarp on the roof, I think we'll be o.k. in any other rain storms. And, we have good homeowners insurance coverage, too.

My family (wife and two daughters) have relocated for the time being to Chesapeake, VA, where they are staying with my wife's father and step-mother. I'm basically still in the New Orleans area and will plan to rejoin them when I can, at least for short visits if not for longer stretches of time.

We're committed to being a part of a renovated New Orleans. Already the City is showing signs of life, and though it won't ever be exactly the way it was, it's charm will still be around. I can already see it. Hell, the Maple Street Bar is now open again! That's a great sign. I'll try to keep giving regular updates, but I make no promises. Just check back every so often and maybe I'll have something new on there.

To my fellow Louisiana bloggers: hope you made out all right in these storms and I look forward to catching up with all of you via your blogs soon.

Long Live NOLA!

School Board: ISL Updates? - My daughter attended the Interntional School of Louisiana. I am looking for any contact information or websites that can give us current news on the school, its status, and its future plans. Also, I'm very anxious to find out how my daughter's friends fared during and after the storm. If you know anything, please post it in the comments section or send me an email. Thanks.

Lagniappe: Tulane Latin Americanists - I have set up a blog site for Tulane Latin Americanists in order to maintain some type of centralized communication among our Latin Americanist Community. I am calling the blog the RTS Center for Latin American Studies Blog.

On this blog, I will post any relevant information that passes my way. I will also maintain an email contact list there for those who might want quick reference to the non-Tulane email addresses of the Latin Americanist community.

If you want to send me an email, please send it to me here: rtsclasblog@hotmail.com

Hope you and yours are well. My wife, Michele, and my two daughters, Daisy and Ella Rose, are out of state with relatives. I'm waiting around for a week or two more to see what develops with the situation and particularly with Tulane, before I head out to join them. I am still sticking it out in Abita Springs on the Northshore at my parents house. If for some reason you want or need to reach me by phone, send me an email and I'll reply with the phone number.

Lagniappe: Confidential to my Tulane Colleagues - I can be contacted by telephone by ground line service at my parents' house in Abita Springs. I cannot call out to any 504 area code numbers, including cell phone numbers. If any of you have a functional cell phone or access to ground line services, please send me an email to my hotmail account: huckupchuck@hotmail.com and I will make contact with you or give you my parents phone number. Take care and hope all is well for all of you.

Lagniappe: Katrina Recovery - First off, we are all fine in the immediate Huck family. We have also heard from most of the extended family, and everyone appears to be fine. Once my wife and I realized that the storm track wasn't likely to change and that Katrina was growing in intensity, we prepared the house for the worst, packed up what we could of valuables, secured what we could, and left for my parents house across the lake in Abita Springs.

At my parents house were my family (wife and two daughters), my brother's family (wife and two children), my two sisters and their families (husbands and children), my paternal grandmother, and a family friend whose husband was away overseas.

One of my brothers who is a Jesuit stayed in New Orleans at the Jesuit residence at Jesuit High School, a solid structure with four floors. We have heard from him and he is fine. He is now out of New Orleans and is being bussed to his community residence in Grand Coteaux, Louisiana, which is near to Lafayette.

Being in Abita Springs was not much better than being on the southshore given that we were about 15 miles west of the eye wall of the hurricane. We spent a very scary couple of hours during the storm's worst; but my parents' house and the convoy of vehicles as well as all of the vital equipment necessary for survival were unscathed.

We prayed about 5 rosaries as a family over a period of 12-18 hours and we are all convinced that God had a hand in keeping us safe.

Thank God my dad is a self-sufficient type, because his house was well prepared. Even though we lost power, phone service, and cell phone service, we turned out all right. My parents house has a 20KW generator fueled by a large propane tank, which had almost 75 gallons of propane fuel in it. It wasn't filled to capacity, but it was more than enough for what we needed.

As for running water, my parents have their own well system, the pump of which runs as long as we have generated power. The house is also equipped with a septic tank and waste disposal system which means that we are able to flush toilets and drain sinks and tubs. And we are stocked with plenty of food. We also have a couple of 5KW gas generators which we use to keep the refrigerator on when we turn off the main generator to conserve our propane fuel.

We have five vehichles at our disposal: two cars and three pickup trucks. All the gass tanks are full and we have about 40 gallons of gasoline in containers in reserve.

Today, Thursday, our ground telephone service has been restored, which allows us to call out anywhere except in the Greater New Orleans area. For this reason, I am also able to make this posting.

Once we realized the extent of the damage and the long time for the recovery, we sent the wives and kids up to family and relatives in various parts of the country. For my family's part, the wife and kids are safely in South Carolina at my Mother-in-Law's house. I was able to speak with them this morning and we are thinking about an intermediate term plan for survival there -- schools for the kids, insurance claims, temporary jobs, etc.

I have still not seen my house in New Orleans and I have yet to see any aerial photographs of my neighborhood. I live in the Fountainbleau area of New Orleans -- very near to the Notre Dame seminary about a half mile off of Carrollton Ave. on Pine Street. If anyone knows what the situation on the ground is in that area, please leave me a note in the comments section.

My area generally does not flood during normal circumstances. We didn't get any water during Hurricane Lily, for instance. In fact, it didn't even rise above the curb suring that srorm. But Katrina is another thing altogether. And I suspect that a part of my house is underwater.

Providing that there has been minimal damage to the house from the winds and falling trees (which is a big assumption since my house was surrounded by some very big, heavy trees), we should be o.k. as far as the flooding is concerned. The good thing about my house is that the main living area was about 9 feet off the ground. Our bottom floor, which served as a basement of sorts, is probably flooded, but I have no idea how high. Even the bottom floor is about 2-3 feet up from the street level, but that probably means very little.

I don't know quite what to say anymore. It is just so emotionally draining and overwhelming. And to hear the stories of looting is almost enough to turn me into a "shoot-to-kill" vigilante justice advocate. (Just kidding!!). Seriously, though, it has been very disheartening to hear of the looting.

But it is true. The devastation is immense. Orders of magnitude above anything anyone anywhere could ever conceive of. And the emotional and psychological trauma done to people, even people from New Orleans who are watching the scenes from a comfortable hotel room or relative/friend's home far away, will require attention and care.

It is just unbelievably sad and stressful.

But, we aren't giving up. We have hope.

I said in my previous post that we were ready for Katrina and that she should bring it on. Well, she brought it on and it brought us to our knees; but I stand by my positive, challenging tone. We'll beat her yet! Thanks for your prayers. I'll keep you updated as I can.

Lagniappe: Katrina! - Open letter to Hurricane Katrina: Bring it on, baby! We're ready for you!

Details and damage reports after the storm. For now, over and out!