Much of this week's controversy (now aborted, thanks to Senators Schumer and Feinstein) about the Attorney General-nominee's rather flaccid answers on the issue of whether waterboarding constitutes "torture" dwell on the legal predicament Mukasey would be placed in if he, as the chief law enforcement officer in the country, were to label the CIA's favorite tactic of the Spanish Inquisition as being beyond the pale. Now that he's not being forced, under penalty of Senate rejection, to take a position, the Bush Administration can go back to whatever it was doing before, and the "highly trained professionals," as the President calls them, need not worry about having to answer in a U.S. court for practicing their arts.

But another alternative exists, notwithstanding any evasions that may play out in the American judicial system. The Hague Convention has criminal courts precisely designed to investigate and punish activities, such as war crimes, torture, genocide and other breaches of the Geneva Conventions, acts that may have been perfectly legal in the countries they were committed in, and although the Bush Administration refused initially to recognize the court, any future President will not be so bound.

Sending Bush or Cheney to the docket at the Hague may be tough for the American public to swallow, no matter how unpopular they may be, but I'm not certain they same will hold true for the torturers and mercs whose activities are currently held to be beyond the reach of American justice. It would have the added advantage of any mooting any last-second pardon that may come out of the White House in 2009. A presidential candidate (Hillary? Edwards? Obama?) who expresses a willingness to sign on to the International Criminal Court, and waive any injunction on Americans being charged as defendants, will be taking a more relevant position on ensuring that a war such as this one never be sought again. [link via Matt Yglesias]

A Peculiar Institution: Thank God someone is finally telling the truth about that most unfairly maligned of all American institutions, slavery. Who knew it wasn't "genocidal?"

DOG BITES MAN !!!

A few weeks back I noted how the ugly and racist use of the term "illegals" to describe a class of human beings was becoming increasingly routine, even in mainstream organs such as USA Today. Lawrence Downes makes a similar observation in the Sunday NY Times:

I am a human pileup of illegality. I am an illegal driver and an illegal parker and even an illegal walker, having at various times stretched or broken various laws and regulations that govern those parts of life. The offenses were trivial, and I feel sure I could endure the punishments — penalties and fines — and get on with my life. Nobody would deny me the chance to rehabilitate myself. Look at Martha Stewart, illegal stock trader, and George Steinbrenner, illegal campaign donor, to name two illegals whose crimes exceeded mine.

Good thing I am not an illegal immigrant. There is no way out of that trap. It’s the crime you can’t make amends for. Nothing short of deportation will free you from it, such is the mood of the country today. And that is a problem.

America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.

(snip)

So people who want to enact sensible immigration policies to help everybody — to make the roads safer, as Gov. Eliot Spitzer would with his driver’s license plan, or to allow immigrants’ children to go to college or serve in the military — face the inevitable incredulity and outrage. How dare you! They’re illegal.

Meanwhile, out on the edges of the debate — edges that are coming closer to the mainstream every day — bigots pour all their loathing of Spanish-speaking people into the word. Rant about “illegals” — call them congenital criminals, lepers, thieves, unclean — and people will nod and applaud. They will send money to your Web site and heed your calls to deluge lawmakers with phone calls and faxes. Your TV ratings will go way up.

This is not only ugly, it is counterproductive, paralyzing any effort toward immigration reform. Comprehensive legislation in Congress and sensible policies at the state and local level have all been stymied and will be forever, as long as anything positive can be branded as “amnesty for illegals.”

We are stuck with a bogus, deceptive strategy — a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border to stop a fraction of border crossers who are only 60 percent of the problem anyway, and scattershot raids to capture a few thousand members of a group of 12 million.

My solution to the problem, of course, is to deport anyone who uses, as a noun, the word "illegal," preferably to a country that I'm sure they would fit in more comfortably, like Iran or Burma. In the meantime, we keep the immigrants, legal, illegal or indifferent., and witness a better America.

Kevin Drum, on the Bushies' latest excuse to go to war:

I had a friend many years ago who was a friendly but obsessive fundamentalist Christian who spent his time searching for signs of the antichrist. For a while during the early Reagan era he was convinced it was Konstantin Chernenko. Then it switched to Moammar Qadafi. Then it was Saddam Hussein. (He actually wrote a book on the subject at that point, which in a weak moment I agreed to read.) We lost touch after that, but my guess is that during the 90s he migrated to Slobodan Milosevic, then Osama bin Laden, then back to Saddam Hussein, and perhaps is now on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bandwagon.

In a way, he reminds of me of America. It's not enough for us to have countries out there that we don't like. Even countries that we really don't like. There always has to be someone who's basically the antichrist, and whoever it is is responsible for everything. When people who believe stuff like that are dressed in rags and yelling at passersby from street corners, we call them crackpots. When they dress in suits and, say, edit the Weekly Standard, we call them foreign policy analysts. Weird, huh?

Not a duet I would ever have imagined performing together, but it works !!! From 1970:

Malkin's Nightmare: That would be USC's new quarterback, Matt Sanchez. Por El Trojan todo, Fuera de El Trojan, nada.

If this is serious, it's refreshing to know our colleges still produce men such as these. [link via Deadspin]

Avedon Carol has a provocative post this morning about the false labeling of the anti-abortion movement as "Pro Life," especially since so many of them lose interest in the post-natal "life" of the fetus. "Pro Life" seems to have been given greater credence by the media as the name of a movement than it's opposition, "Pro Choice," but it's clear that the Anti's (my preferred term) have a clear rhetorical edge. By framing the debate as one over "life," they create a battle between defending the life of an innocent proto-child versus the sexual freedom of a young woman, and the Pro's usually get suckered into making the laughable claim that the fetus isn't really "alive."

A better argument, and one that doesn't get into theological musings about the life continuum, is the notion of the forced pregnancy; an abortion ban, or even any limitation of the practice, is tantamount to forcing a woman to giving birth. If the state has the power to forbid when a woman can make such a decision, it also has the inherent power to force her to make the same decision, as the sad history of China and Nazi Germany attest.

I'm sort of torn on the issue of what to call the two sides, since neither term is truly accurate. I prefer the "Pro's" vs. "Anti's" formulation noted above, but I also believe that a person should have the power to label himself, and I no more have the right to force the label of "anti-choice" upon someone as I would referring to Muhammed Ali as "Cassius Clay."

DrudgeGate? Is there no American institution that the Bushies haven't corrupted?

Some days it just pays to be a Democrat, and this is one of them. Senate Republicans just denied cloture to a bill that would enable the children of illegal immigrants to become citizens if they complete two years of military service or attend college for two years. Seems like an easy call, what with the "War on Terror" and all that, to let people who are putting themselves on the line to fight and die for the U.S. of A. (or, for that matter, staying in school to get an education) to become citizens. At least, I haven't heard anyone claim recently that this country has too many smart and courageous men and women.

Well, apparently in the GOP, and among the more conservative blogs, courage and education are vices of the lowest order. It's hard to imagine what they gain from the obstruction. On the scale of public outrage towards illegal immigrants, non-citizens who are nevertheless volunteering to fight in Iraq would be rather down on the list. Since there is a five-year residency requirement, the class of people eligible under this law encompasses immigrants who were taken over the border by their parents (who do not receive citizenship under the measure), and for which more draconian measures would have little effect.

If anything, these should be exactly the sort of immigrants America wants: hard-working people with families, willing to defy convention and authority (like any real American) to come to the promised land, with children committed to defending and improving our great nation. To put it another way, what sort of person is more likely to benefit our nation: someone who sits on their ass and waits years for a favor to be granted, or someone who seizes their opportunity? I think the answer is obvious. America has always valued the ambitious, whether it's a Greek or Italian worker docking at Ellis Island in 1900, the Filipino couple using a "work visa" so that their daughter could be born on these shores in 1970, or the Mexican day laborer crossing the Colorado River today.

And that's why this issue has proven to be such a bomb as a wedge issue for the GOP. The people who are most angered by the "illegals" are bigots and nativists who are already in their camp. The rest of the country just sees human beings working to improve their lot. And when it comes right down to it, the Republican caucus in the Senate simply revealed the hard, mean face of modern conservatism this afternoon.

Frankly, I've always enjoyed the Santa Anas: they're warm and they're breezy, so it's the best of both worlds. But then again, I live in the flats, like 85% of the rest of Los Angeles, not the hillside, like Joan Didion and the affluent crowd she writes about, so I don't connect the winds to that foreboding cleanser which is a brush fire. Still, even in Bel Air or Beverly Hills, I've never heard of school being cancelled because the wind picked up.

Rule of Thumb for the rest of you: never pay attention to any sociological observations about SoCal from anyone who lives in the Santa Monica Mountains.

And now, for your musical enjoyment:

Heather Havrilesky, on TV's best hour:

The sad message of the show is that, in a world built on lies, ethics are a barrier to both success and happiness. Draper is trapped in a marriage that he doesn't feel connected to, partially because it grew from false pretenses (his wife doesn't know who he really is), but escape from it would be reckless and destructive for him and his family -- just see the single mom down the street from the Drapers, considered hopeless and sad by her neighbors.

The characters of "Mad Men" are thus resigned to live double lives, and the more comfortable they are with their deceit, the happier they'll be. But it makes sense that ad executives would be best served by experiencing the world as pure, delightful artifice: You are whoever and whatever you say you are, nothing more and nothing less. It's a testament to the intelligence of the writing that we, as the audience, find ourselves torn over these characters and their choices. In an oppressive, corrupt culture, their lies sometimes feel like acts of cowardice, and at other times feel like acts of liberation.

This is what a good dramatic work should do: ask important questions that have no easy answers. But that's not all we get from "Mad Men." We get weighty, nuanced scenes that we've never seen before, and that we can't predict as they're unfolding. We get fantastic acting, incredible art direction, and dynamic, fun storytelling with a wicked sense of humor. "Mad Men" is easily the best new show of the year, a true work of art grounded by sharp social commentary and poetic insights into the American experience.

For creating a show that has become one of the most talked-about, heatedly debated series in TV history, and for creating a look and ambience normally associated with Wong Kar-Wai films, Matthew Weiner deserves all the kudos he's received.

I'm not sure Colbert translates as well to the printed page as he does on late-night TV.

A Republican speaks, on illegal immigration:

Why shouldn't city employees turn undocumented immigrants over to the INS? Because if immigrants fear being caught and deported, they will avoid the police, hospitals and schools--to the detriment of the entire city. If the federal government fails to fulfill its responsibility to keep undocumented immigrants out of the U.S., then we must afford them certain protections to preserve the health and safety of all Americans.

A criminal who victimizes an undocumented immigrant might attack a legal resident next. Discouraging the reporting of crimes would make it more difficult for the police to track criminal activity. New York now leads the nation in crime reduction, but we cannot catch criminals, prevent crime and protect the public if we don't have accurate information about where and when crimes are occurring.

Immigrants who fail to seek medical care for fear of deportation also pose a substantial danger to the general public. The misguided new federal law could result in the spread of serious communicable diseases that might easily have been contained if diagnosed and treated early.

And parents who fear deportation might not send their children to public schools. If not in school, some 80,000 children of undocumented immigrants would be on the streets of New York or left alone in apartments. Not only would they suffer irreversible damage, but so many unsupervised children would endanger public safety in the entire city.

What's more, there is no indication that vastly increasing the number of names reported to the INS would even lead to substantially more deportations. The federal government seldom deports undocumented immigrants, even when the INS has established their identities. In New York City, which has an estimated 400,000 undocumented immigrants, only about 1,500 are deported each year. While the recently enacted illegal-immigration law provides new funding for deportation, still less than 1% of the undocumented immigrants already in New York would be deported each year. If the federal government wants to stop illegal immigration, it should work diplomatically with other governments and better secure our national borders, not endanger public safety by recklessly denying critical services to people already here.

--Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 1/9/97 [link via Rude Pundit]

"Even the conservative Wall Street Journal..." Another triumph for conservative bloggers.

In Defense of Americanism: Regardless of who (or what) he's sleeping with, there is evidence that John Edwards would be a terrific President, as this Glenn Greenwald piece shows. There are worse things than the occasional terrorist attack.

I would be more inclined to dis Kaus' take on the Edwards-Gluck affair allegations if one of the parties would, you know, actually deny that they had an affair, or better yet, deny that they had ever slept together, not just use Clintonian weasel words like "the story is false," or "I love my wife, therefore there's no truth to the allegations." Lefty bloggers would be doing our side more of a favor if we stopped being unpaid shills for Democratic politicians and subjected all sides to rigorous scrutiny. At the very least, our hearts won't be broken quite so often when they act like politicians.

The Democratic Party can't stop the damned war in Iraq, but at least they're trying to do something about the real public health menace our country faces from Talladega and Daytona.