brainrow

Andy Rooney on Memorial Day:

For too many Americans, Memorial Day has become just another day off. There’s only so much time any of us can spend remembering those we loved who have died, but the men, boys really, who died in our wars deserve at least a few moments of reflection during which we consider what they did for us.

They died.

We use the phrase “gave their lives,” but they didn’t give their lives. Their lives were taken from them.

There is more bravery at war than in peace, and it seems wrong that we have so often saved this virtue to use for our least noble activity – war. The goal of war is to cause death to other people.

…

Remembering doesn’t do the remembered any good, of course. It’s for ourselves, the living. I wish we could dedicate Memorial Day, not to the memory of those who have died at war, but to the idea of saving the lives of the young people who are going to die in the future if we don’t find some new way – some new religion maybe – that takes war out of our lives.

That would be a Memorial Day worth celebrating.

At the end of the U.S. Civil War, a 71-year-old Virginia secessionist named Edmund Ruffin shot himself, proclaiming in his final diary entry his hatred for “the perfidious, malignant and vile Yankee race” and his wish that all future generations of southerners would feel just the same.

What was he thinking — “I don’t want to live in a world without slavery?”

I thought about old Mr. Ruffin when I saw this story:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, and senior officials and career prosecutors at the Justice Department told associates this week that they were prepared to quit if the White House directed them to relinquish evidence seized in a bitterly disputed search of a House member’s office, government officials said Friday.

Mr. Gonzales was joined in raising the possibility of resignation by the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the officials said. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty told associates that they had an obligation to protect evidence in a criminal case and would be unwilling to carry out any White House order to return the material to Congress.

The U.S. Constitution was written at a time when kings routinely disbanded legislatures and arrested troublesome legislators. No legislator can be above the law, but as an elected representative of the people, each member of the legislative branch has certain protections against overreaching by the executive branch.

If Rep. William Jefferson is a crook, he’s not the first crook ever to sit in Congress. But never before in the nation’s history has the executive branch broken into and searched a legislator’s office in this way. There’s an established procedure for situations like this — a procedure that may seem like a hopelessly formal and arcane dance. But the dance is designed to protect the legislative branch from a kingly executive. It’s important.

Attorney General Gonzales has been extremely zealous in protecting the powers and privileges of the executive branch from any encroachment by legislature or courts. With his legal advice, the Bush Administration has claimed that the president can order warrantless searches, hold citizens indefinitely without access to attorneys or courts, and ignore laws that don’t suit him.

His devotion to the constitutional separation of powers is a selective thing, however. He sees an executive branch with powers reminiscent of the old days of the Divine Right of Kings, and a legislative branch with no special protections at all. And if that view doesn’t prevail, then, by golly, Gonzales threatens to quit.

Go! Go, Alberto! Resign, please! Go, McNulty! Shoo! Go, Mueller! Get out of here, all of you. Give us a parting curse, and fall on your swords. Resign already, and good riddance to all of you.

A progressive political group called Georgia for Democracy is selling this button. Sure to be a big hit among idealists with the quaint pre-Dubya notion that voting should count for something.

Jonathan Alter has written The Defining Moment, a new book about Franklin Roosevelt’s first 100 days as president. Last night on The Colbert Report, he talked about Roosevelt and George W. Bush:

Alter: Before they were president, they actually had a lot in common. They both came from these aristocratic families, famous names, relatives who were president. They were both derided with the exact same epithet: lightweight. That’s what they called FDR: Feather Duster Roosevelt. But when they got to office, they responded very differently.

Colbert: Why’d they call him that? Why’d they call him the Feather Duster?

Alter: Because they thought that he didn’t have much upstairs, amazingly enough. We think of him as this marbleized…

Colbert: That’s the first thing I’ve liked about this guy. So you’re saying he didn’t overthink problems?

Alter: No. He absolutely did not overthink them.

Colbert: He went from the gut?

Alter: He went from a combination of the gut — he was very instinctive — but he also was like a vacuum cleaner of information. Unlike Bush, he really wanted to know a lot — he was extremely open-minded, and he was constantly picking people’s brains — that’s what they called the Brain Trust — and finding out whether they could help him make better decisions. The other thing is that, you know, FDR put performance ahead of loyalty, and I think one of President Bush’s problems is he puts loyalty ahead of performance.

Via Buzzwire: This short Washington Post story includes a helpful chart that may make you feel a little better about Vegas, and a lot worse about Washington:

It’s easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania visiting professor Steve Freeman. That’s because Vegas slots are better monitored and regulated than America’s voting machines … Freeman has assembled comparisons that suggest Americans protect their vices more than they guard their rights…

How long will the U.S. military be in Iraq? How about forever?

Don’t count on the U.S. ever withdrawing completely from Iraq, a retired Marine general said Tuesday.

Anthony Zinni, the four-star who commanded U.S. Central Command before retiring in 2000, said when the U.S. commits forces to a country now, it means a long-term commitment. Iraq is no different.

“It isn’t World War I anymore; we don’t come home anymore,” he said.

This is a fairly old story:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Cartoonist Mark Fiore has a new animation showing how the Decider plays by his own rules.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was on The Colbert Report, promoting her new book, The Mighty and the Almighty:

Albright: When I started writing this book, I thought that George Bush was an anomaly — that he really was different than all of American history — and when I went back andf looked at it all again, you’re actually right. We’re a country that was started by people who wanted to escape religious persecution. They then — whole “Manifest Destiny” and takeover of this continent — forgetting, kind of, that there were some other people here before, and then President McKinley actually said that we had a duty to Christianize the Philippines. So what President Bush talks about is not totally out of character of the United States.

The problem, however, is that he is so certain that everything he believes is right. And the problem with that, when it’s translated into policy, means that if Plan A fails, you don’t have Plan B.

Colbert: But if God’s given you Plan A, do you need a Plan B?

Albright: But we also know that when on this earth, we don’t know everything. There’s some people who may think so, but we do not know everything. And as the Apostle Paul said, “I see through a glass, darkly,” which means you don’t see it all.

…

I think the real problem is, if you’re so sure, as President Bush is, that you know everything, then you don’t listen to alternate plans. Which may explain a little bit of why we’re in such a mess in Iraq.

Welcome to the Alberto Gonzales School of Criminal Justice. Do you have what it takes for a rewarding career in law enforcement? Answer this quick and simple question to find out:

Q: You have been assigned to investigate alleged illegal activity. Some suspects refuse to cooperate with your investigation. What do you do?

A: You abandon the investigation.

The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax Wednesday to Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York saying it was closing its inquiry because without clearance it could not examine department lawyers’ role in the program.

Sorry, if you thought you should continue to pursue the investigation, you just don’t fit in here at the Alberto Gonzales School of Criminal Justice — where Justice is truly Criminal.

If you haven’t read George Orwell’s novel 1984, go read it now. Go to the library, go to the bookstore, go to Amazon.com, go to this website — but read Orwell’s nightmarish vision of a world without privacy, thinking, while you read, about the world we live in today.

From USA Today:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

…

The NSA’s domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA’s efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. “In other words,” Bush explained, “one end of the communication must be outside the United States.”

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers’ names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA’s domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

…

One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest’s CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA’s assertion that Qwest didn’t need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers’ information and how that information might be used.

…

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA’s explanation did little to satisfy Qwest’s lawyers. “They told (Qwest) they didn’t want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,” one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest’s suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general’s office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

Bush responded:

President Bush today defended his administration’s decision to collect information on tens of millions of domestic phone calls, saying the National Security Agency program was legal, protects the privacy of Americans and helps guard the nation against terrorist attacks.

“We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans,” he said. Instead, the NSA’s efforts “strictly target al-Qaeda and their known affiliates.”

When George W. Bush says “Trust me,” the only appropriate answer is a loud and unambiguous “No!” Emphatic epithets are optional.

Via Backup Brain: Here’s a performance of Hail to the Chief to pay George W. Bush all the honor and respect he truly deserves.

A friend and I were talking about the 1960s — not the ten years on the calendar, but the era of social and political upheaval. The sixties began, I declared, not on January 1, 1960, but on November 22, 1963, when John F. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas.

We argued about that a little, and considered a few earlier dates, but there’s no denying that Kennedy’s assassination changed the way we thought about ourselves. So we moved on to the question, when did the sixties end?

December 14, 1972, the last time a man walked on the moon? August 9, 1974, the day Richard Nixon resigned the presidency?

I proposed May 4, 1970, when National Guardsmen fired a 13-second volley of gunfire into a crowd of student anti-war protesters at Kent State University, hitting thirteen students and killing four of them. The closest of the students killed was 265 feet from the gunmen.

Richard Nixon and Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes each put on a sad face, and each blamed the deaths on anti-war protesters themselves. Campus activism against the war — or about much of anything else — never again reached the same levels. Nixon remained as president for four more years. Rhodes served another eight years as governor. The Vietnam War continued for five more years and claimed thousands more lives.

For me, the Kent State killings changed the way I thought about everything. Every year on this date, I try to take a moment to remember those who were killed for speaking up against war here in the Land of the Free.

Allison Krause
Jeffrey Miller
Sandra Scheuer
William Schroeder

Freedom isn’t free.

In the days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there were all sorts of stories in the air. It was healthy to be skeptical.

One story I doubted was that hijacked United Airlines flight 93 crashed in a Pennsylvania field because the passengers had fought back and thwarted the terrorists’ plans. It might be true, but it seemed too convenient — it was just what we wanted to hear in those dark days. Where was the evidence?

The facts were pieced together over months. The evidence: phone calls from crew members and many passengers, made on cell phones and Airfones during the flight; the flight data recorder, and the cockpit voice recorder. The incredible story was true.

I just returned from a matinee showing of United 93, a new movie that tells this story as we’ve never seen it. The film was destined to be controversial. A few weeks ago, some theaters pulled previews for the film because audiences found the subject matter upsetting. To be honest, I didn’t know what to expect when I walked into the theater.

There were only four people in the audience. Which is a great shame. You need to see this movie.

It’s classified as a docudrama, but there is none of the soppy back-story that has been such a hallmark of that genre. You get to know the passengers and crew on the plane much as you would if you were flying with them. You can watch what they do, sometimes overhear what they say, and you never sense the heavy expository hand of the big Hollywood writer.

On the ground, you see civilian and military flight controllers and managers doing their everyday jobs, and gradually coming to understand that September 11, 2001 was not an ordinary day.

The story is told in something very close to real time. The fumbling and stumbling we’ve come to expect from the federal government in recent years is not in evidence here. Controllers make split-second decisions of life and death. Mistakes are made. As well as possible, the mistakes are fixed. When problems seem overwhelming, they adapt and carry on. No excuses, no finger-pointing.

It’s astonishing to see how quickly the passengers on flight 93 — ordinary people, strangers — make their decision, form a plan, and get together what they need to carry it out. Their courage, strength and ingenuity saved uncounted lives. It could not save their own.

This is a movie for grown-ups. It’s not exciting — at least not in the way other Hollywood movies are exciting. It’s not fun. There is violence, but the movie doesn’t revel in it. There’s no dramatic three-act structure. In the end, the plot is not tied up with a neat bow. In the Washington Post, reviewer Ann Hornaday wrote:

“United 93” is a great movie, and I hated every minute of it.

No kidding. You have to see this movie.

Every thinking person disbelieves Iran’s claims that their nuclear program doesn’t seek to develop nuclear weapons. Today, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Jews should leave Israel.

“We say that this fake regime [Israel] cannot … logically continue to live,” he said, according to a translator for The Associated Press.

Ahmadinejad, in a wide-ranging news conference that included international journalists for only the second time in his short term, said anti-Semitism drove Jews out of Europe into Israel.

“We believe that Jews like any other human beings have the right to live in happiness and prosperity and to benefit from security,” he said, according to a CNN translator. “Allow them to go back to their own fatherlands and countries.”

He reminds me of somebody, but who? That aggressive posturing, that religious fervor, that sense of certainty… Who? The squint, the dopey grin…

Uh oh. It’s George W. Bush. With a beard.

George W. Bush told Bob Woodward that he didn’t seek advice from his father. Nevertheless, cartoonist Ward Sutton suggests that Bush has been getting advice from a Republican elder statesman.

That would explain some things.