bustardblog

Toilet Stuffing as Cause Celebre

Readers have made it clear, both through comments and even more so through e-mails, that they do not like my position on  Stanislav Shmulevich.  He is the fellow who stole a Koran from Pace University, stuffed it in a toilet, and defecated on it.  He then stole another one, and simply stuffed it in the toilet.

I have been told that somehow this is a free speech issue, but I don't get it.  A regular commenter, Rick, is someone who probably has a bible in his house.  If I were to enter his house, take the bible off the shelf, stick it in his toilet, and then defecate - I don't think he would see it as a free speech issue at all.

Pace University is a private school.  The Korans he destroyed were not his property.  He stole them. As I understand it, he was not even a student at the school when he did this. If I were to buy an American Flag, take it to a public square, and burn it in a safe manner; one that poses no risk to anyone else's private property- we're talking free speech.  If I sneak into your house, steal your American flag and set it ablaze in the bedroom where your child is sleeping, we're no longer talking about free speech.

While some of the anger by the likes of Johnson and Malkin is typically and clearly phony, others have problems with the "hate crime" aspect of the case. I can understand disliking a law that relies so heavily on 'intent'. Even though much of our legal system does depend on an analysis of the intent of the accused, it is important that we not become a country where having certain thoughts could be a crime.  But whether or not you like the law, it is the law in New York, and Stanislav was no doubt aware of its existence. He was not merely stealing a book or jamming a toilet, he was doing so because of his hatred of a group of people.  I don't know his position on hate crime law, but I do know that many Jewish groups have fought for such laws.

Among the Jewish signatories are the American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; Hadassah: the Women's Zionist Organization of America; Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A; Jewish Women International; Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Labor Committee; Na'amat U.S.A.; National Council of Jewish Women; National Jewish Democratic Council; Union of American Hebrew Congregations and Women of Reform Judaism.
(source)

(thanks to memeorandum)

Chris Hitchens Should Shut the Valve

Christopher Hitchens has donned the faux outrage du jour, and he looks just as silly as Little Green Footballs or Michelle Malkin, to who's level he has now descended.

Paying a penny for a thought from Mr. Hitchens has been a bad bargain for a long time now, but seeing him in a shlock jock from his head to his toe, is still depressing.  Defending a guy who twice stuffed a Koran in a toilet at Pace University here in New York, Hitchens writes:

When I check into a hotel room and send my free and unsolicited copy of the Gideon Bible or the Book of Mormon spinning out of the window, I infringe no law, except perhaps the one concerning litter.

Hitchens cites no evidence that the Koran had been placed "free and unsolicited" onto the property of the book flusher.  Hitchens is just writing crap.  If Hitchens were to throw said book out the window of his room on the 53rd floor of the Hotel Mandarin in in New York, he could expect a visit from the police.  If he did it again, he could expect an arrest.

But Hitchens wants to wear his outrage on his sleeve:

This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States.

There is no concession to Sharia Law here. There is only a recognition that Pace has a right to unclogged toilets.

(h/t memeorandum, Hot Air)

Defining Deviance Down, Way, Way Down

Definition of Desperation: Defending One's Right to Dump Books in Toilets. Little Green Footballs, Allah Pundit are in the hilarious position of trying to ignite outrage by defending dumping in toilets - of books, that is.

Because a young man dumped the Koran in the toilet, the right finally has something to write about. They're unable to find a spokesman to defend Abu Gonzalez -  even on Fox TV; so they are starting a legal defense fund for toilet stuffers.

How people who are so full of it themselves can defend plugging up toilets is beyond me.

(memeorandum)

Pater Fred,

In which Digby continues a brilliant conversation of the Republican Party's seemingly infantile need for a Daddy figure. It seems that the ultimate Daddy might be Fred Thompson, even as some democrats were doing a pretty good job of skewering him the other day.

The thing is, Fred Thompson is actually a pretty useful Dad. His PAC, set up to raise money for Republican candidates and to donate to Republican campaigns, shows us Pater Fred at his best.   Since 2003 his PAC has given $83,650 to Republican causes. In the same period, it has paid $196,260 in consulting fees to Fred Thompson's son.

While the Republicans search for the richest Daddy to take care of them,we have to remember that one of  their favorite causes is the elimination of the inheritance tax.

(memeorandum)

(Details on the PAC from Harper's Index, Aug '07)

The Captain Sold his Soul

Captain's Quarters was often the spot on the dial to go if you wanted to listen to an independent, intelligent, conservative blogger.

The Captain declared his personal independence from that awesome position today, when he organized a group of fellow wing-nuts to telephone the White House and plead for more talking points on the case of Abu and the Fired Eight.  I don't fault the good Cap'n for failing to come up with his own justifications for the White House's absurd claim of executive privilege. There are none.

His abject need to support the Bush administration's every illegality clearly drove him to the point of giving up any claim to being anything but a mouthpiece.

After selling his soul, I'm sure that he hoped for something special in return. He didn't get it.  Instead he received the following:

A senior official called Congress' action an extraordinary act. Congress has never attempted a contempt citation against a president's staff in our history.

They did not advise the poor Captain of other things that have never happened in our history. No President has ever been arrested for attempted arson in the White House.  No First Lady has (yet) been  found guilty of being a child molester.  The fact is that no contempt citation was attempted, because every other administration in our history has submitted to subpoenas.   Clinton's White House counsel,  Beth Nolan, testified before Congress four times.  In fact since 1944, 74 Executive Branch employees have testified before Congress - including Bush appointees, like Condi Rice and Tom Ridge. 

This is not about executive privilege, as anyone who saw Abu Gonzalez refuse to answer questions asked by Senator Schumer. He cited no privilege, but simply refused to answer. In order to cite a privilege, the official must show up and request it. Miers did not even bother to do this.

And in the end all the talk of privilege is blather. Captain Ed  and his friends are well aware that the Bush Justice Department is the most politicized ever. In the Bush White House there have been 711 (seven hundred and eleven) White House officials  who have been "authorized to discuss pending criminal matters with the Justice Department)"  In the Clinton administration there were four (4) such officials. So if the good Captain really believes that all federal prosecutions should be based on politics, let him at least have the decency to say so. At least it would be honest.

(memeorandum)

In Which the Bustard Apologizes

Mr Bustard apologizes for the very uneven quantity and quality of his blogging in recent weeks. He's been fortunate to reconnect and spend time with bears and other family members at weddings summer.  The marriages are between those of the next generation, and I must say it is a lot less fraught than at an earlier time of life.

GO Fish, Bush

When the history of Iraq is written, it's clearly not a very important moment. But in understanding how deeply our President, and our Press, have failed us, it's a very illustrative moment.

Peter Galbraith wrote in the August 16th N.Y. Review of Books of a ceremony held on May 30 in Erbil, Kurdistan, turning the three Kurdish provinces over to Baghdad. The ceremony was utterly phony.  "Kurdistan" is not being turned over to anyone. No "Iraqi" national flags were flown.  This was an utterly fraudulent photo-op kind of event, meant to be grist for the right wing's production of propaganda about progress in Iraq. 

The harm done by this administration's constantly trying to pull such crap over our eyes is enormous.  There's no way to have the debate we so badly need about our next move in Iraq, when one side of the debate simply lies.

In the kids' card game, "Go Fish," you can let your nephew get away with lying about what he's got in his hand, for a while.. But when it becomes obvious that he's lying -the game's over.

There's just no point.

A Reality-Based Punditry

I'm no economist. Neither is David Brooks. He tries to play one in the N.Y.T., and it's not pretty. Think Pat Sajak as King Lear.

Brooks is not an economist, but he is lazy:

• "between 1991 and 2005, 'the bottom fifth increased its earnings by 8-percent, compared with around 50 percent for the highest-income group.'"
• "recent rises in inequality have less to do with...globalization... than hard work."
• "Inequality is obviously increasing"

But the first point would indicate that there are decreases in inequality - not increases.

• "Seventh, it's not at all clear that the big winners in this economy are self-dealing corporate greedheads who are bilking shareholders." His proof is the assertion that the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earned more than "all the 500 S&P 500 C.E.O.'s combined."

Because there are others (25 individuals) who earn even more than the C.E.O.'s, we are supposed to think the CEO's are not bilking shareholders?

• "Globalization boosts each American household's income by about $10,000.00 a year"
• "There's evidence that global trade is producing more losers."

Dear Mr, Brooks, which is it?

He reaches the apex of incoherence in his last paragraph.  He believes that the voting public will not be able to see the reality, the one that he sees, of our booming economy, despite how far away the elections are.

(memeorandum)

Althouse, Again

Memeorandum linked to another blog bro-ha-ha that shows the small mindedness of Ann Althouse, still on the subject of the racist Rudy Giuliani. The poor little mouse is upset that TPM did not provide sufficient context for a short video showing Rudy shouting the words "Bull Shit" to a crowd of drunken cops.

If you were unfamiliar with the story of that near riot, and Rudy's rant before the "demonstrators"  that encouraged it, you would not understand the significance of the clip. This is a detail that Althouse has right. 

It is also of no importance. Althouse has no interest in the reality, only the technicality. It would be O.K. for her to give TPM a slap on the wrist, IF she went on to point out the despicable behavior of Giuliani. But she didn't. She is just not interested in Rudy's racist devisiveness, nor in the fact that racial anger was less in the years before Rudy, and in the years after Rudy.

As always, Althouse is the victim. Pity Poor Ann.