…but I would be too if the Attorney General was trying his best not to answer a very simple question.
I just love Michael Mukasey trying to explain away George W. Bush’s violations of federal law under the guise of his authority as President under Article Two of the Constitution. I guess Arlen Specter asked him a question he couldn’t argue or dodge his way out of.
At the beginning of January, I asked the question, “What is torture?” in response to Charlie Sykes’ assertion that waterboarding isn’t really torture, or that maybe it is, but he’d support it as long as it worked, and so when I came across this little nugget on YouTube, I couldn’t help but be reminded of Charlie Sykes.
Now if Mike Mukasey would feel that waterboarding were torture if it were done to him, I can’t help but wonder what Charlie Sykes thinks.
Personally, I believe waterboarding is torture, because I believe in the definition of torture provided by the Geneva Convention:
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Now I know the United States hasn’t ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so an argument could be made that our use of waterboarding isn’t anything bad, but what’s truly telling is the list of nations who along with ours have signed - but not yet ratified - the UN Convention Against Torture, including such bastions of civil rights as Cuba, Nigeria, Sudan, and Sierra Leone. We’re in good company right there…
I wasn’t really surprised by Barack Obama’s win in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, but what did surprise me was his margin of victory, coupled with his better than expected showing among white voters. In the days leading up to the primary, some polls showed Obama likely to get only 10% of the white vote in South Carolina, but he ended up garnering roughly 25% of the white vote, not to mention roughly 80% of the African American vote.
However, what was most interesting to me was a story I’ve seen in a few different news sources, including CNN’s Political Ticker:
Bill Clinton’s aggressive campaigning in South Carolina in the days leading up to the state’s primary may have had a net negative effect among South Carolina’s Democratic primary voters….
Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton’s campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37 percent went for Hillary Clinton.
Now I’ve always counted myself as someone who admired Bill Clinton, so I’ve actually been sorely disappointed at how negative he’s gotten out on the campaign trail. I know he’s just trying to do what he can to help Hillary out, but I feel his acting as Hillary’s “attack dog” does nothing but taint his legacy, especially considering the racial undertones in some of his attacks. Considering how it was often joked that Bill Clinton was the first black president, it’s sad to see the damage he’s done within the African American community.
First of all, a tip of the hat to Michael Mathias at Pundit Nation for this story.
The race for Milwaukee County Executive between State Senator Lena Taylor and incumbent Scott Walker promises to be one of the most hotly contested races in Wisconsin in 2008, so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that both candidates are going to pull out all the stops in order to win the race. However, what is surprising is just how low Scott Walker’s most vocal supporters are willing to sink in order to see him re-elected. In an editorial written for GM Today, WISN radio host Mark Belling, one of Walker’s most vocal and reliable media surrogates pulls out all the stops and asserts that Lena Taylor is a gang member. Commenting on a bill that would raise the age at which some juvenile offenders could be charged as an adult, Belling noted:
t’s not surprising that the bill is sponsored by some Milwaukee County Democrats like Sen. Lena Taylor, as they are chronically soft on crime and sympathetic to their increasingly influential gang bosses.
As Michael Mathias noted, Belling’s choice of words is curious, given that Lena Taylor is the only lawmaker among those cited by name whom Belling chooses to associate with gang bosses, and she also happens to be the only lawmaker of those cited by name who is African American. Anyone who has paid attention to Belling’s bellicose squawking throughout the years knows he’s not afraid of a little race-baiting from time to time, but his assertion that Lena Taylor is somehow beholden to “gang bosses” is vile, despicable and simply uncalled for, and I’ll be curious to see how Scott Walker responds to Belling’s comments.
I know the right-wing squawk brigade here in Milwaukee makes their living on saying and writing things that most normal folks find to be objectionable - lest we forget Jessica McBride’s attempted comedy bit bringing up the murder of 4-year-old Jasmine Owens in a fake interview with Journal Sentinel columnist Eugene Kane or Mark Belling’s comments referring to hispanics as “wetbacks,” resulting in his suspension. It’ll be interesting to see Senator Taylor’s response to Belling’s comments, because I’m sure she’ll have something to say about being thrown in with gang members.
A bunch of folks across the blogosphere - including capper at Whallah!, Kay at Kay’s Blue Racine, folkbum, and Michael Mathias at Pundit Nation have been talking about Kevin Fischer, the aide to State Senator Mary Lazich, who has his own blog over at Franklin NOW. In his free time, Mr. Fischer seems to be fond of acting like a boor, which wouldn’t really be anything newsworthy, except for the fact that Fischer is one of Mary Lazich’s aides, and as such his behavior towards a constituent of hers is certainly uncalled for.
Perhaps Mr. Fischer should think before he types, or at the very least, he should try not to be such an outright ass (yeah, I said it), because in my mind his behavior in the blogging community most certainly reflects on his boss.
