Political Song of the Day - Robin Hood in Reverse by Bad Religion

Bad Religion has always been the standard bearers for thinking man's punk rock.  They obviously frequently sing of religion, but this song hits upon the Supreme Court and the ridiculousness of the Citizens United decision.  That monumentally inconceivable ruling opened the floodgates of even more dark money into the already corrupt political process.  Despite his apparent love of his own voice, Antonin Scalia will not be looked up kindly by history.  In his eyes, money is free speech.  And the more money you have, the more speech you get.

Robin Hood in Reverse by Bad Religion

 Here is the church 
There is the steeple 
Open up the door 
Corporations are people 
Wait what did he say? 
What the fuck did he say? 

It couldn't last 
They had to crash 
Some parties are just made that way 
But when the bell rings 
The boys will sing 
Swing low sweet precariat 

Let's say we try to get this right 
Said the plutocrat to jesus christ 
And when the old fox fearing the worst 
Made his entrance in a hearse 
Then the nine in black robes all went berserk 
This is a tale of robin hood in reverse 

Citizens united 
I was excited 
When the kids are united they can never be divided 
But that was yesterday 
There's a brand new sham to today 

Let's say we try to get this right 
Said the plutocrat to jesus christ 
And when the old fox fearing the worst 
Made his entrance in a hearse 
Then the nine in black robes all went berserk 
This is a tale of robin hood in reverse

Scalia -- Worst Person in the World

With a complimentary nod to one of my heroes, Keith Olbermann, I give you my nomination for Worst Person in the World, Antonin Scalia. (ed. note -- after completing my blog entry, I noticed that Keith actually did choose Scalia as his worst person in the world today. Great minds think alike.)

In a recent interview with the BBC, Scalia gives us the specious ticking time bomb argument. This is a classic straw man argument. He's setting up an unrealistic situation that would never happen just so that he can justify torture. And he knows this. It's a high school rhetorical device that will convince a moron -- by moron, I mean any conservative that actually buys this bull. His words:

"Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about.

Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It’s not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.

... Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that."

I'll tell you what my definition of torture is -- having to listen to people who try to use this tired argument. Stop watching 24 and wake up to the real world.


It's odd that the right seems to rail against "judicial activism" by liberal judges, yet Scalia is the very definintion of judicial activism. His rulings are driven by his idealogy, not the constitution as he purports. If he was just some regular joe or some pundit that had these crazy ideas, I wouldn't care much. But he's on the frickin' Supreme Court!! Scalia and Clarence Thomas are right of Attila the Hun. And Roberts and Alito are barely better. This court was stacked by Republican presidents and will curse this country for the next 20 years. yay.

"The healthy man does not torture others - generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers." -- Carl Jung

Supreme Court

To all those who thought changing a few Supreme Court justices wasn't going to change the tone of the court much -- you've been taking a few too many hits off the bong.



'Bong hits' decision a step backwards for free speech
Oops! I guess that I can't say that. I'm only allowed to have free speech if I'm a rich special interest group:

At Supreme Court, two big GOP wins

... Five years ago, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Act, part of which banned preelection ads that mentioned a candidate's name if they were paid for with corporate or union money. The court's decision Monday went most of the way to striking down that ban.

The ads involve "core political speech" that is protected by the 1st Amendment, Roberts said. "We give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship."

... The second ruling will allow more federal money to flow to church groups and religious organizations that do charitable work or provide social services. Bush set up a special office in the White House to give seminars for "faith-based" groups to show them how to apply for federal grants ...

The contention that "money is free speech" is the most asinine thing that I've ever heard. These new Supreme Court justices and the tool that appointed them are nothing more than little bitches for big business. A judiciary that should be a check to the power of the executive branch is instead a rubber stamp. And how Roberts can say, "We give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.", with absolutely no sense of irony is unbelievable.

The second part of the ruling is yet another blast to the wall between church and state. Seemingly, those that should know the Constitution the best have conveniently forgotten one of it's most basic tenets.

Welcome to the modern conservative movement. It's a vacuous ideology that stands for nothing that can't be bought. What kind of convoluted logic says money is free speech but free speech isn't actually free speech?

Many think the enduring negative legacy of this administration will be the Iraq war. But we shouldn't forget that what this Bush-loaded Supreme Court is doing now could affect our country for an even longer time. It's ironic that those who most loudly complained of "judicial activism" are doing exactly what they criticized.

Quick Hits

• Is it just me, or is this really ironic? -- Bush's $500 Million Library
  From Huffington Post:
  

  "...The idea of Uncurious George building a $500 million shrine to his disastrous presidency is the political equivalent of a whoopee cushion; a veritable laff riot. The punchlines write themselves:
  
  A George W. Bush Library? What's it going to house, 100,000 copies of The Pet Goat -- with some Shakespeares and a Camus thrown in for good measure?"

==================================================

• Let me get this straight ... a silver-spoon in his mouth legacy who partied through his military service has the gall to define the terms in which a proud father can speak of his son serving in Iraq? Bush, Webb in testy exchange over Senator-elect's soldier son
  W, you pompous ass. That would have been sweet if Mr. Webb had popped W in the chops. Someone needs to.

==================================================


• Speaking of pompous asses: High Court Divided on Warming.
  

  "When is the predicted cataclysm?" Scalia asked with some sarcasm.

  
  Justice Scalia, you ignorant slut. The very definition of an activist judge. His limitless ego now seems to give him power to decide scientific principles.