ABC News Item this afternoon:
An outdoor news conference in perfect spring weather, with birds chirping loudly in the magnolia trees, is not without its hazards.
As President Bush took a question Thursday in the White House Rose Garden about scandals involving his Attorney General, he remarked, "I've got confidence in Al Gonzales doin' the job."
Simultaneously, a sparrow flew overhead and left a splash on the President's sleeve, which Bush tried several times to wipe off.
Deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino promptly put the incident through the proper spin cycle, telling ABC News, "It was his lucky day...everyone knows that's a sign of good luck."
***
"Can you not buy two sparrows for a penny? And yet not one falls to the ground without your Father knowing."
(Mt. 10:29)
"The gypsies say, and I know why,
A falling blossom only touches lips that lie."
("A Blossom Fell," 1955, popular song by Barnes, Cornelius, and John, sung by Nat King Cole)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Beautiful Weather, Rachel McAdams, and Barack Obama
We've had a run of sunny, dry (not humid) days: cloudless blue skies and clear air such that you can see the features of the terrain from a distance without the blue haze we are accustomed to in these parts.
I remember a letter from one brother's friend (who was a gun-totin' cowboy in Arizona -- an editor for some kind of NRA organ) in which he said that the summer weather here was "sticky, foggy..." (He'd been born and raised here and loved to lord it over us Easterners that he'd escaped from. Hoosiers transplanted to Arizona can be obnoxious.)
I think that was before my family and I moved to the West (Utah) for an eight-year sojourn where it was usually not sticky or foggy. I remember the time I was amazed when it started to rain there, complete with lightning and thunder, amazed because the air seemed so dry. I remarked to myself that the air between the raindrops was dry.
And I loved the dry air. It was marvelous. When the air is not saturated with water vapor, it can dry the sweat on you more quickly than wet air can. Sweat drying on your skin cools your body. One summer I worked in a junkyard and the temperature reached 95 one day. When somebody told me I said, "Really?" When the air is not so humid it heats up in the sun but is markedly cooler in the shade and especially at night. Our kids were sleeping in winter pajamas in June, I noted.
If Indiana had not been sticky and foggy as it is, as a rule, we might have been overrun by transplanted Arizonans and Utahans here. Indiana could be Californicated -- what the Oregonians don't want. We are infested, to a small degree. People come to Indiana and particularly to bucolic little towns like Madison as "urban refugees." Even the Hoosier capital, Nap Town, has freeways in and around it that are easy to travel on in contrast with the likes of the Santa Ana Freeway. In recent years the immigrants have been able to live luxuriously here because of the difference in real estate prices, trading a modest ranch somewhere for a "historic" house on tree-lined streets here.
I concluded long ago that Indiana, especially rural southern Indiana, is a kinder, gentler place to live. When we came back here from Utah several people said, "Welcome back to God's country." I don't know about that, but I recall that I liked some things: we didn't have a sales tax on food; righteous people drank coffee and thought nothing of it; and although a lot of people thought their religion was the one true one, their belief was contested by others (who of course thought their religion as the true one) and, most important, it did not have the force of law. And a lot of us liked David Letterman, worldly and irreverent as he was, because he was, like us, a Hoosier. It was a good life, and we soon enough acclimated once again to the humidity. And, the first summer back, the fleas! At least Amanda and I did (!) -- poor old Sophie, our dog, suffered terribly. And people here, I concluded were friendlier and not just plain mean, as too many of them are out West.
Saw a thriller the other night, Red Eye, starring Rachel McAdams. I hope I'm not being a spoiler by saying that the thing I liked about it best is that Rachel turns out not to be too big a wuss in dealing with the villain.
I'm reading The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama. As you know, Senator Obama is running for president. At first I thought that wasn't a good idea because he has so little experience. I thought he should wait until he is more seasoned. But why? Being "unqualified" didn't stop a number of people. It certainly didn't stop the commander guy who a little over half of us glibly reelected even though the disaster under his command had already happened.
Anyhow, I'm learning from the book, because this guy knows what is going on and has a way of communicating it so that reading him, I think I know what is going on a little better. I'll vote for him if he's nominated. I trust him. As it stands right now, I wish we could have a triumvirate consisting of Barack, Hillary, and John Edwards. I think all three of them are presidential material. Compare these top three on the Democratic side to the top three contenders on the Republican side: Giuliani (give me a break!), Mitt Romney ("I think we should double Guantanamo"), and John McCain the Iraq shopper. But you never know what you're getting until the inauguration and the first days of celebration are over: every time we elect a president it's like buying a pig in a poke.
Anyhow, I like Barack. From his knowledge, intelligence, and ability to communicate, I think he would make a good president. So be it.
I remember a letter from one brother's friend (who was a gun-totin' cowboy in Arizona -- an editor for some kind of NRA organ) in which he said that the summer weather here was "sticky, foggy..." (He'd been born and raised here and loved to lord it over us Easterners that he'd escaped from. Hoosiers transplanted to Arizona can be obnoxious.)
I think that was before my family and I moved to the West (Utah) for an eight-year sojourn where it was usually not sticky or foggy. I remember the time I was amazed when it started to rain there, complete with lightning and thunder, amazed because the air seemed so dry. I remarked to myself that the air between the raindrops was dry.
And I loved the dry air. It was marvelous. When the air is not saturated with water vapor, it can dry the sweat on you more quickly than wet air can. Sweat drying on your skin cools your body. One summer I worked in a junkyard and the temperature reached 95 one day. When somebody told me I said, "Really?" When the air is not so humid it heats up in the sun but is markedly cooler in the shade and especially at night. Our kids were sleeping in winter pajamas in June, I noted.
If Indiana had not been sticky and foggy as it is, as a rule, we might have been overrun by transplanted Arizonans and Utahans here. Indiana could be Californicated -- what the Oregonians don't want. We are infested, to a small degree. People come to Indiana and particularly to bucolic little towns like Madison as "urban refugees." Even the Hoosier capital, Nap Town, has freeways in and around it that are easy to travel on in contrast with the likes of the Santa Ana Freeway. In recent years the immigrants have been able to live luxuriously here because of the difference in real estate prices, trading a modest ranch somewhere for a "historic" house on tree-lined streets here.
I concluded long ago that Indiana, especially rural southern Indiana, is a kinder, gentler place to live. When we came back here from Utah several people said, "Welcome back to God's country." I don't know about that, but I recall that I liked some things: we didn't have a sales tax on food; righteous people drank coffee and thought nothing of it; and although a lot of people thought their religion was the one true one, their belief was contested by others (who of course thought their religion as the true one) and, most important, it did not have the force of law. And a lot of us liked David Letterman, worldly and irreverent as he was, because he was, like us, a Hoosier. It was a good life, and we soon enough acclimated once again to the humidity. And, the first summer back, the fleas! At least Amanda and I did (!) -- poor old Sophie, our dog, suffered terribly. And people here, I concluded were friendlier and not just plain mean, as too many of them are out West.
Saw a thriller the other night, Red Eye, starring Rachel McAdams. I hope I'm not being a spoiler by saying that the thing I liked about it best is that Rachel turns out not to be too big a wuss in dealing with the villain.
I'm reading The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama. As you know, Senator Obama is running for president. At first I thought that wasn't a good idea because he has so little experience. I thought he should wait until he is more seasoned. But why? Being "unqualified" didn't stop a number of people. It certainly didn't stop the commander guy who a little over half of us glibly reelected even though the disaster under his command had already happened.
Anyhow, I'm learning from the book, because this guy knows what is going on and has a way of communicating it so that reading him, I think I know what is going on a little better. I'll vote for him if he's nominated. I trust him. As it stands right now, I wish we could have a triumvirate consisting of Barack, Hillary, and John Edwards. I think all three of them are presidential material. Compare these top three on the Democratic side to the top three contenders on the Republican side: Giuliani (give me a break!), Mitt Romney ("I think we should double Guantanamo"), and John McCain the Iraq shopper. But you never know what you're getting until the inauguration and the first days of celebration are over: every time we elect a president it's like buying a pig in a poke.
Anyhow, I like Barack. From his knowledge, intelligence, and ability to communicate, I think he would make a good president. So be it.
Monday, May 14, 2007
God Is Reconciliation?
This post by Stacy Parker Aab, titled "Obama's Way," caught my attention and I would like to pass it on to those who might care to read it. It seems to be about reconciliation, about resolving our differences and first trying to understand what is vital to the other person and looking for ways of connecting with him or her.
I want to quote the whole thing here, and I will quote liberally (Forgive me, conservatives!). For example, this:
"Every time I've heard the Senator speak, or have read his work, there seems to be food for everyone. I read Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope back-to-back, and I noticed a certain pattern emerge. [Senator Obama] would take a tough subject, such as immigration (as he does in the "Race" chapter in The Audacity of Hope), and allow all parties to sit at the table. He states one case, tells us why they have a point, moves on to the next party, tells us why they have a point, until he gets all the way around the table, without taking a stand that excludes or shames anyone seated.
"He does not say everybody is right. He lays out their arguments, giving validation in the process, so that hotheads can cool down and common ground can be sought.
...
"For those of us who feel passionately about one principle over the other, this can be maddening. We want someone to say that we're right and they're wrong. This may be soothing for the ego. But is this good for progress?
"Sen. Obama's way is how conflict gets diffused and consensus gets built. Sen. Obama was clear to say this morning on This Week that he is not naïve to think that he's going to get the whole country to hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'. Instead, these are the skills he needs if and when he brings warring DC parties to the table -- a table that, as things stand now, is practically burnt to the ground.
"I would argue that Sen. Obama's desire to damp-down difference is part of the peacemaker's way. The leader who brings adversaries to the negotiation table is smart to validate points of each argument, to give confidence that she or he knows opposing concerns are legitimate and worthy of discussion. The leader instills confidence that everyone will get a fair hearing. We've had six years of my-way-or-the-highway. A strong peacemaker stands the best chance of creating progress at home and salvaging what's left of our good name abroad."
Then I was caught unawares when I read these very personal disclosures:
"I am from Detroit, a northerner by birth. I remember my first trip to Mississippi two years ago. I spent a weekend in Jackson, often at tables of people I've never met before, people of deep religious faith and conservative belief. We told personal stories. The workings of God's love and spirit came into conversation often. I felt common ground, for I believe in a loving God and a sweetly responsive universe. When we talked like that, the best of our hearts was in communion. But the minute someone asked us to define our politics -- "yes, I'm a Democrat...yes, I'm a Catholic" -- then poof, there it went. I became "this" and they became "that" and suddenly our differences loomed larger than our commonalities and inside I could feel us retreating to our corners. (my italics)
"I've experienced this in my churchgoing as well. I think of myself as deeply spiritual, but I am not committed to any organized religion. I was raised Catholic, and I sometimes go to Mass. But if given the choice, I'd often prefer to spend Sunday in a loving Baptist or Pentecostal service, because among those worshipers I feel the Holy Spirit in a vibrant, passionate way that I don't often do at Mass. Now, if the pastor decided to use the sermon to go political, chances are I would grow anxious or angry. And I know if I sat down and talked belief structures with the worshipers, and we started talking about "I believe this but I don't believe that," -- well, the "don't believe that" is going to get us in trouble. But for that hour+ we were focused on love, on cooperation, on opening our hearts to something greater than ourselves, we were all connected. (my italics) We were all capable of working in concert. It is in that space -- the space a great leader can summon -- that we can make great changes in our own life and in the lives of others."
Two years ago, when Ken and I co-founded a group to discuss God's Politics by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, I had that "space" -- common ground, higher ground -- in mind. Although we ended up with a group of folks with common views who were a lot of fun, I was disappointed that we were not truly diverse, that the other end of the spectrum was not represented. (I give us credit for "going out into the highways and hedges and compelling them to come in," but they were not willing. They were afraid, I think.)
I am still disappointed. The forces of division are still reigning. Some might say that Satan is reigning. Have I allowed my opponents to drive me away, or have they retreated to their corners too? I know it's both. Bitterness and acrimony (I used that word a long time ago on this blog) prevail. May God dispel it. (If God is not "the booger man," as some of my ancestors seemed by their actions to believe.)
I've never remotely been able to practice what the dearest and best of the preachers (Bill Laws, David Smook et al.) have preached, but I know that the ideal still hangs there. Nancy Pelosi, our first "Madam Speaker," quoted the Sunday school song, "Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me." Francis of Assisi's prayer:
"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred -- let me sow love,
Where there is injury -- pardon,
Where there is doubt -- faith,
Where there is despair -- hope,
Where there is darkness -- light,
Where there is sadness -- joy.
"Divine Master,
grant that i may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
It is in dying that we are born to eternal life."
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." -- Mt.5:9
Amen.
I want to quote the whole thing here, and I will quote liberally (Forgive me, conservatives!). For example, this:
"Every time I've heard the Senator speak, or have read his work, there seems to be food for everyone. I read Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope back-to-back, and I noticed a certain pattern emerge. [Senator Obama] would take a tough subject, such as immigration (as he does in the "Race" chapter in The Audacity of Hope), and allow all parties to sit at the table. He states one case, tells us why they have a point, moves on to the next party, tells us why they have a point, until he gets all the way around the table, without taking a stand that excludes or shames anyone seated.
"He does not say everybody is right. He lays out their arguments, giving validation in the process, so that hotheads can cool down and common ground can be sought.
...
"For those of us who feel passionately about one principle over the other, this can be maddening. We want someone to say that we're right and they're wrong. This may be soothing for the ego. But is this good for progress?
"Sen. Obama's way is how conflict gets diffused and consensus gets built. Sen. Obama was clear to say this morning on This Week that he is not naïve to think that he's going to get the whole country to hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'. Instead, these are the skills he needs if and when he brings warring DC parties to the table -- a table that, as things stand now, is practically burnt to the ground.
"I would argue that Sen. Obama's desire to damp-down difference is part of the peacemaker's way. The leader who brings adversaries to the negotiation table is smart to validate points of each argument, to give confidence that she or he knows opposing concerns are legitimate and worthy of discussion. The leader instills confidence that everyone will get a fair hearing. We've had six years of my-way-or-the-highway. A strong peacemaker stands the best chance of creating progress at home and salvaging what's left of our good name abroad."
Then I was caught unawares when I read these very personal disclosures:
"I am from Detroit, a northerner by birth. I remember my first trip to Mississippi two years ago. I spent a weekend in Jackson, often at tables of people I've never met before, people of deep religious faith and conservative belief. We told personal stories. The workings of God's love and spirit came into conversation often. I felt common ground, for I believe in a loving God and a sweetly responsive universe. When we talked like that, the best of our hearts was in communion. But the minute someone asked us to define our politics -- "yes, I'm a Democrat...yes, I'm a Catholic" -- then poof, there it went. I became "this" and they became "that" and suddenly our differences loomed larger than our commonalities and inside I could feel us retreating to our corners. (my italics)
"I've experienced this in my churchgoing as well. I think of myself as deeply spiritual, but I am not committed to any organized religion. I was raised Catholic, and I sometimes go to Mass. But if given the choice, I'd often prefer to spend Sunday in a loving Baptist or Pentecostal service, because among those worshipers I feel the Holy Spirit in a vibrant, passionate way that I don't often do at Mass. Now, if the pastor decided to use the sermon to go political, chances are I would grow anxious or angry. And I know if I sat down and talked belief structures with the worshipers, and we started talking about "I believe this but I don't believe that," -- well, the "don't believe that" is going to get us in trouble. But for that hour+ we were focused on love, on cooperation, on opening our hearts to something greater than ourselves, we were all connected. (my italics) We were all capable of working in concert. It is in that space -- the space a great leader can summon -- that we can make great changes in our own life and in the lives of others."
Two years ago, when Ken and I co-founded a group to discuss God's Politics by Jim Wallis of Sojourners, I had that "space" -- common ground, higher ground -- in mind. Although we ended up with a group of folks with common views who were a lot of fun, I was disappointed that we were not truly diverse, that the other end of the spectrum was not represented. (I give us credit for "going out into the highways and hedges and compelling them to come in," but they were not willing. They were afraid, I think.)
I am still disappointed. The forces of division are still reigning. Some might say that Satan is reigning. Have I allowed my opponents to drive me away, or have they retreated to their corners too? I know it's both. Bitterness and acrimony (I used that word a long time ago on this blog) prevail. May God dispel it. (If God is not "the booger man," as some of my ancestors seemed by their actions to believe.)
I've never remotely been able to practice what the dearest and best of the preachers (Bill Laws, David Smook et al.) have preached, but I know that the ideal still hangs there. Nancy Pelosi, our first "Madam Speaker," quoted the Sunday school song, "Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me." Francis of Assisi's prayer:
"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred -- let me sow love,
Where there is injury -- pardon,
Where there is doubt -- faith,
Where there is despair -- hope,
Where there is darkness -- light,
Where there is sadness -- joy.
"Divine Master,
grant that i may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
It is in dying that we are born to eternal life."
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." -- Mt.5:9
Amen.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Wow! We Could Have Had a V-8!
Today is the fourth anniversary of the "Mission Accomplished" speech by the Commander in Chief following his fighter jet landing on the USS Lincoln, way out there on the Pacific Ocean (uh, actually in the bay right next to San Diego -- just one of many staged illusions). The beginning of the end of innocence of even those enamored of the Noble Global War on Terror. Four years ago.
Keith Olbermann tonight did an excellent feature on the inconsistency of the statements on the "progress" of the war since then and concluded quite logically that we always seem to have made enough progress to warrant our staying the course, by whatever name you call it, but never enough to justify our coming home.
Visited friends Keith and Mary Ann in northern Indiana this weekend. One thing we always enjoy talking about is politics, at least in the misery-loves-company-enough-to- have-a-good-laugh-before-we-break-down-and-cry sort of way. I introduced them to the Stephen Colbert roast of the Commander in Chief (which, although the Washington press corps concluded it "fell flat," was popular enough with opponents that there have been over 4 million hits of it online). And they showed me an interview of Jon Stewart by Bill Moyers they'd taped.
I want to share some of that with folks. I guess I understood what was happening when Alberto Gonzales gave his disgraceful testimony before the Senate committee but Jon is brilliant and incisive in a way that I will never come close to being and I appreciate it when he cuts through the PR and BS and reveals to me what is going on.
From the Moyers-Stewart transcript:
JON: For instance, Alberto Gonzales, and you've been watching the hearings. He is either a perjurer, or a low-functioning pinhead. And he allowed himself to be portrayed in those hearings as a low-functioning pinhead, rather than give the Congressional Committee charged with oversight, any information as to his decision-making process at the Department of Justice.
And I used to think, "They're doing this based on a certain arrogance." And now, I realize that it's because they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you're done.
MOYERS: They're right, are they not?
STEWART: They're completely not right. The election moment is merely the American public saying, "We'd rather you be President than that guy." That's it. The next four years, though, you still have to abide by the oversight process that is there to prevent this kind of bizarre sort of cult-like atmosphere that falls along. I mean, I accept that kind of veil of secrecy around Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, but I don't accept that around our government.
BILL MOYERS: Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of words were written about Gonzales' testimony last week in Congress. And I still don't think a lot of people get it. And all of the sudden, there on THE DAILY SHOW that evening, you distilled the essence of it.
CLIP: THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART
JON STEWART: So there it was today, the big fight. Gonzalez v Senate. Are you ready to bumble!
SENATOR: Who's [whose] idea was this?
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I don't recall specifically
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I don't recall the-the contents.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I have no recollection.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I-I don't have any recollection.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I have searched my memory.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I don't recall remembering…
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I can only testify as to what I recall.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I don't recall…
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I don't recall…
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I firmly believe that nothing improper occurred.
JON STEWART: After weeks of mock testimony, there you have it, Alberto Gonzales does not know what happened, but he assures you what he doesn't remember was handled properly.
END CLIP: THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART
JON STEWART: And by the way, that was all just — that was a game, and he knew it, and the guys on the committee knew it. And for the President to come out after that and say, "Everything I saw there gave me more confidence in him," that solidified my notion that, "Oh, it's because what he expected of Gonzalez was" it's sort of like, do you remember in GOODFELLAS? When Henry Hill got arrested for the first time and Robert DeNiro met him at the courthouse and Henry Hill was really upset, 'cause he thought Robert DeNiro would be really mad at him. And DeNiro comes up to him and he gives him a $100 and he goes, "You got pinched. We all get pinched, but you did it right, you didn't say nothing."
BILL MOYERS: Gonzales said nothing.
JON STEWART: Right. And "you went up there and said nothing. You gave them no legal recourse against you, and you made yourself, a smart man, a self-made man, look like an utter pinhead on national television, and you did it for me."
[My italics.]
Get it? Get the contempt? The utter contempt that this gang -- this cult, indeed -- these WISE GUYS!!! have for us the people?
An old saying: "There is honor among thieves." "Honor" meaning they have loyalty to one another: they don't rat one another out. And these particular thieves run this country; they rob us blind and we have no power to resist it.
Yet.
Deliver us, O Lord.
Keith Olbermann tonight did an excellent feature on the inconsistency of the statements on the "progress" of the war since then and concluded quite logically that we always seem to have made enough progress to warrant our staying the course, by whatever name you call it, but never enough to justify our coming home.
Visited friends Keith and Mary Ann in northern Indiana this weekend. One thing we always enjoy talking about is politics, at least in the misery-loves-company-enough-to- have-a-good-laugh-before-we-break-down-and-cry sort of way. I introduced them to the Stephen Colbert roast of the Commander in Chief (which, although the Washington press corps concluded it "fell flat," was popular enough with opponents that there have been over 4 million hits of it online). And they showed me an interview of Jon Stewart by Bill Moyers they'd taped.
I want to share some of that with folks. I guess I understood what was happening when Alberto Gonzales gave his disgraceful testimony before the Senate committee but Jon is brilliant and incisive in a way that I will never come close to being and I appreciate it when he cuts through the PR and BS and reveals to me what is going on.
From the Moyers-Stewart transcript:
JON: For instance, Alberto Gonzales, and you've been watching the hearings. He is either a perjurer, or a low-functioning pinhead. And he allowed himself to be portrayed in those hearings as a low-functioning pinhead, rather than give the Congressional Committee charged with oversight, any information as to his decision-making process at the Department of Justice.
And I used to think, "They're doing this based on a certain arrogance." And now, I realize that it's because they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you're done.
MOYERS: They're right, are they not?
STEWART: They're completely not right. The election moment is merely the American public saying, "We'd rather you be President than that guy." That's it. The next four years, though, you still have to abide by the oversight process that is there to prevent this kind of bizarre sort of cult-like atmosphere that falls along. I mean, I accept that kind of veil of secrecy around Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, but I don't accept that around our government.
BILL MOYERS: Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of words were written about Gonzales' testimony last week in Congress. And I still don't think a lot of people get it. And all of the sudden, there on THE DAILY SHOW that evening, you distilled the essence of it.
CLIP: THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART
JON STEWART: So there it was today, the big fight. Gonzalez v Senate. Are you ready to bumble!
SENATOR: Who's [whose] idea was this?
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I don't recall specifically
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I don't recall the-the contents.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I have no recollection.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I-I don't have any recollection.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I have searched my memory.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I don't recall remembering…
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I can only testify as to what I recall.
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: Senator, I don't recall…
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I don't recall…
ALBERTO GONZALEZ: I firmly believe that nothing improper occurred.
JON STEWART: After weeks of mock testimony, there you have it, Alberto Gonzales does not know what happened, but he assures you what he doesn't remember was handled properly.
END CLIP: THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART
JON STEWART: And by the way, that was all just — that was a game, and he knew it, and the guys on the committee knew it. And for the President to come out after that and say, "Everything I saw there gave me more confidence in him," that solidified my notion that, "Oh, it's because what he expected of Gonzalez was" it's sort of like, do you remember in GOODFELLAS? When Henry Hill got arrested for the first time and Robert DeNiro met him at the courthouse and Henry Hill was really upset, 'cause he thought Robert DeNiro would be really mad at him. And DeNiro comes up to him and he gives him a $100 and he goes, "You got pinched. We all get pinched, but you did it right, you didn't say nothing."
BILL MOYERS: Gonzales said nothing.
JON STEWART: Right. And "you went up there and said nothing. You gave them no legal recourse against you, and you made yourself, a smart man, a self-made man, look like an utter pinhead on national television, and you did it for me."
[My italics.]
Get it? Get the contempt? The utter contempt that this gang -- this cult, indeed -- these WISE GUYS!!! have for us the people?
An old saying: "There is honor among thieves." "Honor" meaning they have loyalty to one another: they don't rat one another out. And these particular thieves run this country; they rob us blind and we have no power to resist it.
Yet.
Deliver us, O Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)