Debunking the myths about Chappaquiddick…and Mary Jo

ted-kennedy-neckbrace.jpg chappaquiddick-accident-site.jpg

Left: Senator Ted Kennedy, age 37, attends Mary Jo Kopechne’s funeral. Note the neck brace inside his collar. Right: The scene of the accident at Chappaquiddick, showing the direction Kennedy’s car was travelling on Dyke Road just before it skidded off the bridge.

One of the not-so-guilty pleasures of being a true-crime buff (along with all the other persons I am) is that it compels me to take an interest in the actual particulars of a story, not just what the media circus has chosen to make of them.

I’ve seen the blogosphere, like the media, dissect this drunk-driving accident nine ways till Friday. Lots of passion, little coherence, and all too often, facts get beaten out of shape before being sacrificed on the pyre of ideology. End result: Huge disservice done not only to the memory of the late US Senator Ted Kennedy, but also to the memory of Mary Jo Kopechne, the young woman who drowned in Kennedy’s car that night. Can you stand to see one more wingnut masturbating over Mary Jo’s grave? No? Then how about self-styled feminists and progressives–usually too smart to do such things–falling into the selfsame ‘winger trap, slamming Ted Kennedy as just one more rich bastard who threw a not-so-rich young woman (metaphorically speaking) under the bus?

No, I don’t want to go there, either. So let’s go back to that unlucky night on purely factual grounds this time, with Mel Ayton’s excellent Crime Magazine piece, The Bridge at Chappaquiddick. I think it will go a long way toward debunking a lot of persistent myths, innuendos, rumors, and just plain lies.

MYTH: Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne were having an affair.

FACT: Not bloody likely. According to Ayton:


An RFK aide described Mary Jo as “an unworldly girl.” Others who knew her said she was a young woman with a good character who had been committed to her work, full of high idealism, and excited that the Kennedys would regain the White House in the 1968 presidential election.

Mary Jo called herself a “novena Catholic.” Her friends described her as a young woman who was seriously committed to her faith. She did not smoke and rarely drank. Everyone who knew her testified to the fact that she was a woman who was almost prudish in her dislike of obscene language and sexual impropriety.

Furthermore, at the time of the incident, Mary Jo Kopechne had been unofficially engaged to be married to a career foreign service officer — a fact overlooked by those authors who tried to blemish her character by insinuating she had been single, free and willing to engage in a sexual relationship with Sen. Ted Kennedy. There is no evidence that this allegation is true. The only person who can answer it is Ted Kennedy and he has stated on numerous occasions that nothing happened between them.

It is significant that, while other details of Kennedy’s recollection varied (we’ll see why in due course), that one in particular did not. He categorically denied it every time, and so did anyone else who knew the both of them. Nobody has ever been able to offer concrete proof of an affair, because there was none to be had. Doesn’t stop the wackaloons from speculating, though.

MYTH: Ted Kennedy murdered Mary Jo Kopechne to cover up an affair and/or pregnancy.

FACT: See above, and add “why the hell would he dirty his own hands (and risk his own life) to kill her if he was rich enough to pay a hitman?” The doctor who examined the body at the scene found no evidence of a pregnancy, either. There was no autopsy, which might have put the final kibosh to this rumor, but this was not Ted Kennedy’s doing; her own parents asked that there not be one. Ironically, they made this request because they had heard that the autopsy would be done only to determine whether Mary Jo was pregnant!

However, someone else in Ted’s life at the time was pregnant: his wife, Joan…

ted-joan-funeral.jpg

…who went with him to Mary Jo’s funeral, as we can see in the picture above. Sadly, she miscarried soon after–probably as a result of stress from the incessant media hullabaloo about the accident.

MYTH: Ted Kennedy didn’t care that Mary Jo was killed.

FACT: Since only he was privy to what was going through his own head that night, we have to rely on eyewitness accounts of his behavior in the aftermath of the accident. And all of them suggest that not only did Ted Kennedy care very much, he was badly broken up about it–to the point of hysteria. According to Ayton:


During their post-accident journey to the ferry, Kennedy kept saying to Gargan and Markham that he expected to see Mary Jo walking down the road. According to Gargan, Kennedy was rambling and verbalizing irrational thoughts – behavior that is consistent with individuals who are suffering from shock. Gargan said, “Sen. Kennedy was very emotional, extremely upset, very upset and he was using this expression… “Can you believe it, Joe, can you believe it, I don’t believe it, I don’t believe this could happen. I just don’t believe it.” Markham told the inquest that Kennedy was, “sobbing and almost of actually breaking down and crying. He said, ‘This couldn’t have happened, I don’t know how it happened…What am I going to do?’”

[...]

On the Monday before Mary Jo’s funeral, Kennedy telephoned the Kopechnes a second time. Joseph Kopechne said, “I could see he was trying to tell us about the accident but I still couldn’t understand him. He was still sobbing, still so broken up he couldn’t talk.”

The shock was physical as well as emotional; Kennedy sustained a concussion and neck injury when the car flipped onto its roof. After emerging from the vehicle (he could never remember how he had done it, a probable sign of amnesia), he momentarily reoriented himself and made several attempts to rescue Mary Jo, but was forced to give up. The current in the pond was just too strong, and he was injured and exhausted, as well as emotionally labile and confused. Only then did he begin to make his way back to the cottage to seek help.

But here’s the main thing: would a guy who didn’t give a shit attempt “seven or eight times”, in the Boston Globe’s words, to rescue Mary Jo, whom he did not even know all that well? And would he be upset and crying, as Kennedy was? Would he have attended her funeral, as Kennedy was photographed doing (see top of this entry)? Acc
ording to several accounts, Ted Kennedy even went so far as to approach Mary Jo’s parents, offering to pay for the funeral. They turned him down, preferring to do it with savings they’d set aside to pay for her wedding. The one thing he did that was even remotely suspect was not to call them with the news right away. Given that he was in a state of shock and confusion, as well as horror and remorse, it’s not surprising that it took him several hours to work up the nerve.

Oddly, though, her parents seem to have understood this, because they didn’t appear to harbor any rancor toward him:


As Mary Jo’s mother stated, “No matter how you look at it, it was an accident. What hurts me deep is to think that my daughter had to be left there all night. This is why we had so bitter a feeling toward Markham and Gargan…I think Kennedy made his statement when he was still confused. In the state he was in, I do believe he couldn’t think clearly. I think he was taking all this bad advice, and it just continued for days.”

Notice she said “Markham and Gargan”–Kennedy’s aides, not himself. She blames them for giving him bad advice, but not him for taking it, because he was in a confused state.

And if he really didn’t give a shit about Mary Jo, doesn’t anyone suppose her parents would have noticed–and been extremely bitter toward him? She was, after all, their only child.

MYTH: Ted Kennedy just walked away from the scene of the accident. He should have been charged with leaving the scene, at the very least.

FACT: See above; he did remain for as long as it took him to realize that he could not get Mary Jo out of the car. After that, he had to rest a moment; then he made his stumbling way back. He was so confused that he did not see the Dyke House along the road he had just driven down. Ayton again:


Kennedy’s lawyers were remiss in not challenging the prosecution’s charges that Kennedy was guilty of leaving the scene of an accident. They failed to make reference to Kennedy’s injuries and the inevitable mental confusion that usually follows because they believed a plea of mental impairment would have damaged Kennedy’s political career. James E.T. Lange even ventures that the sworn testimony of two doctors could have been used to clear Kennedy. He does, however, believe that Kennedy was guilty of the “wrongful death” of Mary Jo and “reckless driving.”

What injuries did Ted Kennedy suffer that might have impaired his mind?


Dr. Robert Watt, trauma specialist at Cape Cod Medical Centre, examined Kennedy and reported that the senator had suffered, “a half-inch abrasion and haematoma over the right mastoid, a contusion of the vertex, spasm of the posterior cervical musculature, tenderness of the lumbar area, a big spongy swelling at the top of his head.” Dr. Watt diagnosed concussion.

When a person is hit on the head hard enough, the soft brain tissue collides with the hard inner surface of the skull creating a brain injury. Invariably, this disrupts electrical activity in the outer areas of the brain where memories are stored. And this disruption prevents memory from forming not only of the traumatic event itself but also of the time before that event.

Later Kennedy was examined by Dr. Brougham at Cape Cod Hospital where he underwent X-ray examination that showed a straightening of the cervical vertebrae. Dr. Brougham diagnosed acute muscular spasm, confirming cervical strain. Both doctors said that Kennedy’s mental confusion had a definite physiological basis.

The medical reports state that Kennedy had suffered from traumatic amnesia that includes retrograde amnesia and post-traumatic amnesia, both of which are nearly always present in head injuries. Retrograde amnesia covers the period before the trauma and the trauma itself. Post-traumatic amnesia is a period of confusion and memory loss following the trauma.

Kennedy’s head injuries, which caused his befuddlement, would account for his later testimony and confusion about the timing of events when he left the cottage. It would also account for the numerous witnesses who testified to his depressed, confused and forgetful state of mind in the days and weeks following the accident. His father’s nurse, Rita Dallas, believed he should have been given psychiatric help.

This would undoubtedly also explain why Kennedy had so much trouble keeping his story straight. Which leads us to…

MYTH: Ted Kennedy lied.

FACT: When you can’t remember in precise detail what happened because you’ve been thumped on the head and had your neck badly wrenched, not to mention that you’re in shock and confused, would it be fair to call you a liar? NO? Well, then, think of how Ted Kennedy must have felt, being hounded by the media on this point every time he was up for re-election. He recollected the night’s events to the best of his ability. Unfortunately, his ability was impaired by the head injury he received. Not receiving proper psychiatric care at that crucial moment can’t have helped much, either.

MYTH: Ted Kennedy tried to cover up Chappaquiddick.

FACT: Actually, if anyone was guilty of a cover-up, it was his aides, Markham and Gargan; Mary Jo’s own mother felt that they gave him bad advice. And so did Rose Kennedy, Ted’s mother, according to Ayton:


Kennedy became distraught; his behavior during the next few hours strongly suggests a man who was confused, frightened and in shock. As he later confessed in his television broadcast his thoughts were jumbled. And this is entirely consistent with the injuries he suffered. [...]

But it was Gargan and Markham who had the faculties to make a rational decision in the early hours of the morning. Despite their positions as subordinates of the senator, they should have taken complete charge. Instead they retired to the cottage after Kennedy jumped into the water at the ferry landing. In any event, reporting the accident to the police would not have saved Mary Jo’s life. The time span was too short.

Kennedy believed he did everything in his power to save Mary Jo and, given his medical condition, he was probably correct. He placed full blame upon himself for his recklessness. And he never blamed Gargan and Markham who had been in a much better position, both physically and mentally, to handle matters. As Ted Kennedy’s mother Rose was to say, “I didn’t understand why Joey Gargan or Markham did not report the matter to the police even if Ted did not have any sense enough or control enough to do so — especially when the body of the girl was in the car… That is what seems so unforgivable and brutal to me…”

Failing to report the incident immediately? Sounds like the sort of thing two solicitous subordinates would do to keep their already controversial boss out of trouble, and his name out of the papers. They did not do so at his request, however, and his self-blaming behavior suggests that far from wanting to cover anything up, Ted Kennedy was prepared to take full responsibility even when he was in no fit condition to do so. Perhaps this is why their effort to downplay the incident backfired so spectacularly. His physical and mental state at the time was not good, but his willingness to take responsibility suggests to me moral strength, rather than the moral weakness more typically ascribed to him. He knew he’d made a mistake, and was man enough to own up to it.

And again: Mary Jo’s parents can’t be left out of the equation. Their reluctance to speak ill of Ted Kennedy speaks volumes as to how they saw the situation. They steadfastl
y maintained that he had bad advice from Gargan, in particular. All the shrieking wingnuts who scream about “poor forgotten Mary Jo”, oddly, forget who her parents held to blame more than anything for the shambles–and it wasn’t Ted Kennedy.

Strangely, though, the media and the wingnuts all give the parents of the deceased woman the shortest shrift of all. Partisan? Yep. But they sure weren’t biased in favor of Ted Kennedy. Which leads me to my final myth of the night:

MYTH: The liberal media covered up for Ted Kennedy.

FACT: According to the March 1980 Reader’s Digest, here are the “liberal” media’s actual editorial positions on the issue of Chappaquiddick:


The Boston Globe: “The most famous traffic fatality of the century will almost certainly play a part in the selection of the next President of the United States. It should. Chappaquiddick was not just an auto accident. Many Americans suspect, not without reason, that Kennedy’s handling of its aftermath is another case of a politican stonewalling. And they wonder whether Kennedy would lie to the American people in a more public crisis.”

The Wall Street Journal: “…his ability to function as President depends no little on whether the nation feels he is a man it can trust to explain his actions fully and frankly. Without this trust, national leadership is ultimately impossible.”

The New York Times: “There ought to be no hesitation to rake over this puzzling affair. If Mr. Kennedy used his enormous influence to protect himself and his career by leading a cover-up of misconduct–and the known facts lead to that suspicion–there would hang over him not just a cloud of tragedy but also one of corruption, of the Watergate kind. And as we know from Watergate, there is no graver question for a President than whether he can be trusted to respect the law.”

And that’s how the “liberal” media saw it in the year that plaster saint, Ronald Reagan–accused rapist and known philanderer–won the White House. Yeah, they really covered up for Ted Kennedy just great, didn’t they? So much that they were leading the bayonet charge against him and his reputation. They even went so far as to accuse him of “Watergate corruption”!

Unfortunately, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes there’s no “there” there, and sometimes an accident…really is just an accident. Chappaquiddick was an accident–terrible, tragic, painful for all those involved–but it really was just an accident. There is nothing to be inferred from it. But the fact that it cost Ted Kennedy his larger political ambitions, and relegated him to becoming an undignified sideshow even in death, is without a doubt the real scandal of Chappaquiddick.

Jesus wept

Roy Romanow’s message to Barack Obama

A former (NDP!) premier of Saskatchewan, Canada’s first province with single-payer healthcare, speaks out, along with others in the medical and nursing fields:

US visitors, please spread this message. Grab the YouTube and put it on your blogs, or link to it in forums. The advice in it is very important, especially the part about “trying to cross a chasm in two steps”. Right now, that’s exactly what Obama is trying to do–and it’s exactly why his plan is in so much jeopardy. Learn from Tommy Douglas–do it all in one, and play hardball if you have to. The end result is worth it!

Music for a Sunday: Remembering Katrina

Ray Nagin and Led Zeppelin–a duet made in hell on Earth.

“Wonder why I got my middle finger up down here?” I don’t. After four years, it’s still not fixed. And the racists are still gloating. So, when is Cthulhu coming for THEM?

Posted in Environmentally Ill, Music for a Sunday. Comments Off »

Yay

shoe-throw.jpg

I would argue that this guy should never have gone to prison at all (he’s a hero for doing what he did!), but hey–at least he’s getting out:


An Iraqi journalist jailed after hurling his shoes at former President George W. Bush will be released next month after his sentence was reduced for good behavior, his lawyer said Saturday.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi’s act during Bush’s last visit to Iraq as president turned the 30-year-old reporter into a folk hero across the Arab world amid anger over the 2003 invasion.

He has been in custody since the Dec. 14 outburst, which occurred as Bush was holding a joint news conference with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

He was initially sentenced to three years after pleading not guilty to assaulting a foreign leader, then the court reduced it to one year because the journalist had no prior criminal history.

Defense attorney Karim al-Shujairi said al-Zeidi will now be released on Sept. 14, three months early.

“We have been informed officially about the court decision,” al-Shujairi told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “His release will be a victory for the free and honorable Iraqi media.”

Off early for good behavior? Sentence reduced for having no priors?

Well, shit.

What he did was nothing but good old-fashioned freedom of speech. In the Arab world, it’s customary to show the bottom of your feet–or the soles of your shoes–to anyone you hold in absolute contempt. This gesture was less an assault than it was a harangue, especially since neither shoe hit its target. I think he was being jailed to send a message to anyone else who might be considering telling King George the Dubya, in no uncertain terms, where to get off. And the message was: Don’t even think about it.

This ruling, while welcome, is just a good end to a bad situation. It would have been a real victory for press freedom in Iraq if he had never been taken into custody in the first place, but of course, nobody–not even the “War President” and self-styled liberator–was willing to let Iraq’s supposed newfound freedom actually go that far!

Why have we not heard of Marwa al-Sherbini?

First, a bit of backgrounder, courtesy of al-Jazeera–the only major English-speaking network to have given this shocking murder story ANY coverage:

And now, I weigh in.

When I googled for Marwa’s story, to find out the particulars, I got this blog post at the top of my search. The post is excellent in itself; I have no problems with it. What bugs me is that the very first comment it got…is THIS:


All hate crimes are horrible. Yet you perceive this with blinders on. Most Muslim women murdered in Europe are murdered by their father’s or husband’s in honor killings. How many women have been murdered for wearing a veil? One. How many have been killed for refusing to? Hundreds if not more. Also, hate crimes like this have happened in Europe and the USA where it was the Muslim who was the perpertrator. I live in Seattle where a Muslim opened fire on a Jewish Center last year killing one and seriously wounding four. Why didn’t the Muslim media report on it?

…which sounds to me like it’s just a hair away from justifying the exact racism and bigotry that led to Marwa’s death in the first place. “They do it to (fill in the blanks), so tit for tat.” The “why didn’t the Muslim media report on it” bit is also a sweeping generalization: How does this “jane doe” know they didn’t? Can she read Arabic? Has she scoured the “Muslim media” for the report she claims did not exist? My educated guess is that she doesn’t know, can’t read Arabic, and hasn’t done a damn thing except fire off at the keyboard to diminish the impact of a death that should not be minimized under any circumstances. Very slick work on the part of “jane” to deflect people’s attention from the horrific facts of Marwa’s death. (Happily, lots of other readers–including Muslims who DO follow the Arabic-language media–take her to task for her lies.)

This tendency to minimalize the violent deaths of those who don’t blend in with Western society fits right in with what I blogged two days ago, about the Canadian government being willfully and selectively blind to the abuse perpetrated against Muslim Canadians abroad. It amounts to undeclared institutional racism. In Germany, similar things are happening, and on local soil. Since I am the daughter of two German immigrants myself, this touches me where I live. I cannot afford to be blind to this sort of thing. After all, I blog the news that goes unreported or underreported here.

And yes, Marwa’s death is big news. I am ashamed to say that it is news to me, totally unknown until today. A full two months after it occurred. How could this be?

Marwa’s murder occurred in eastern Germany. That’s significant in itself, because the “Eastzone”, as it’s called, has lingering socio-economic problems dating back to before reunification. Ingo Hasselbach, an East German who used to be a leading neo-Nazi in the area, wrote extensively on those problems in his memoir, Führer-Ex. Kids disaffected by the failures of sovietism (not to be confused with socialism, or even communism) and further disenchanted by the failed economic promises of capitalism, have a high risk of becoming the very thugs their parents and grandparents were rightly taught to abhor. Eastern Germany still lags behind the western three-quarters in terms of jobs, education and health. It is, in short, a perfect storm of the circumstances that breed fascism and xenophobia. And it has the violent crime statistics to prove it.

Moreover, Marwa’s murderer was a Russian national (claiming German ethnicity). No doubt he came to Germany in hopes of finding better prospects than were in store for him back home (post-Soviet Russia is in even worse shape than East Germany.) He landed in the depressed Eastzone–and, predictably, found nothing. Meanwhile, there was Marwa, right next door. Another immigrant, but with a difference: She had a job, an education, a growing young family. She had much to live for; she had, in short, a future. Something the murderer did not have.

But what really galled him, I’ll bet, was that Marwa was a Muslim. She wasn’t acting like a “proper” second-class citizen. She wore her headscarf openly and didn’t try to look assimilated. How dare someone like that behave as if she belonged? (Which she did?) To his twisted reckoning, she must have been a terrorist–someone out to impose Islam on the west. The sort of people the shitty racist “anti-jihad” pundits, like Mark Steyn, are always “warning” us about.

Or maybe not; maybe he just called her that because of pure spite and resentment. Possibly it was the product of all this and more. Whatever it was, she took him to court for it. And right there, in the courtroom, in front of everybody, he stabbed her to death. 18 knife-thrusts in all.

Marwa’s death caused a huge outcry in Germany as well as in Marwa’s native Egypt (and throughout the Arab/Muslim world), but news of it somehow failed to make it across the big pond. Meanwhile, the media here were all over the death of Neda, the Iranian woman killed during protests against the Ahmadinejad government, literally like flies on a carcass. Why was Neda’s story so much hotter than Marwa’s?

Maybe it’s because the anti-jihadis were quick to seize on Neda’s death as proof that Islam is inherently evil and murderous. After all, those who killed her were believed to be agents of the so-called Islamic Republic. Visibility is also an issue, albeit a secondary one; Neda’s death was caught on camera and broadcast via Internet, but Marwa’s wasn’t. The anti-islamists therefore had more graphic “evidence” to exploit. But most of all, I think it’s because Marwa was killed by an obvious islamophobe, while Neda was killed by an alleged islamist. Apparently, a Muslim who kills is a worse person than a killer of Muslims–so runs the logic, no?

Now, why is it worse for a killer to be Muslim than white, presumably Christian, etc.? The antis would probably justify their unequal consideration by saying it’s because those people are all violent, all terrorists, all out to impose their religion on the west by force. The fact that nothing of the sort has happened makes no nevermind to them. “They’re just lying in wait”, is the standard response you’re likely to hear. “They’re still plotting it, still waiting for all you dhimmis to fall in line before dropping the hammer.”

Well, there’s a fine bit of projection. And you’re just as likely to hear it coming from the slimeballs at Stormfront, where the lying-in-wait, the plotting, and the hope that conditions will ripen into favorability are all running rampant…among the very people who are out to exterminate anyone who doesn’t “breed” correctly.

What makes all these rightard bloggers and pundits any better than those neo-Nazis? What makes them any better than the kind of person Ingo Hasselbach was before he saw the light and left the movement? The fact that Mark Steyn used to be Jewish (he’s now a Catholic)? Gimme a fucking break. Adolf Hitler probably had Jewish ancestors too, and he was definitely a practicing Catholic. Does that make him any less of an antisemite, any less a murderer of Jews?

As far as I’m concerned, if you’re on the right-hand side of the political spectrum and you subscribe to or defend this kind of beliefs, this attitude that “they” are out to oubreed “us”, you fit right in with the neo-Nazis. Why not go on over there and join them in
earnest? They’re looking for recruits. I’m sure they’ll be happy to have you. And it will be easier for me to identify you if I can see a swastika tattooed right there on your big dumb forehead.

But if you’re really NOT a racist, and NOT a bigot, and you find those swastika-wearing thugs abhorrent, then you’d better wake up and speak out. Wake up to the death of Marwa al-Sherbini. Speak out against bigotry. Wake up to the fizzing brew of insanity and inhumanity that got into the killer’s blood. Start using free speech for its true purpose–denouncing–and stop defending racist and fascist blather on the grounds of freedom of speech simply because they’re “unpopular”. They’re not, in fact. They’re very popular indeed, as anyone who’s been on the receiving end of the brutal end product of such speech could tell you…assuming s/he lived to tell the tale.

Marwa al-Sherbini did not.

Wankers of the Week: Ted Kennedy memorial edition

ted-kennedy-dead.jpg

This week, we honor a man who, like his brothers before him, made a career of public service. And who better to show what a public DISservice is, than those who dishonor him? Yes, folks…here are this week’s public fappers, and here’s this week’s public thwap:

1. Andrew Fucking Breitbart. Please, people–don’t get any “news” off his website, boycott his sponsors, and stay the fuck away from his Twitterings. You are feeding a booze-addled, pop-eyed, dough-bellied, frowsy-haired TROLL. Or, to quote Bitefart himself, “a special pile of human excrement”. Class? Decorum? Compassion? Any virtue at all? Him no haz it.

2. Joseph Fucking Farah no haz any, either. Hairball remedy, Joe? You sound like you could use it. Also, heh.

3. And Joe, when you’re done with the bottle of Hairball-B-Gone, don’t forget to pass it around to these fucking conservatwits. Meghan McCain (who DOES haz class, and to spare) didn’t spank those flying monkeys NEARLY hard enough.

4. Rush Fucking Limbaugh. Figures the Pigman would gloat about Sen. Kennedy dying before the healthcare reform he advocated would pass. Guess what, OxyMoron–nobody’s gonna visit your grave except maybe to dance and/or piss on it. Ted, like his brothers, will get pilgrims. Dust THAT on your stinky cigar and smoke it! We wanna hear you cough and wheeze your last REAL soon. (Better still, blow an artery on the air, you fat sack of shit. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has a bottle of champagne waiting just for THAT occasion.)

5. Sarah Fucking Palin’s Facebook “friends”. Trollops one and all. Won’t be missed when THEY are gone, either.

6. Andrew Fucking Klavan. Until now, I had never heard of this dickhead. I wish that were still the case. Oh well, another one who won’t be missed when it comes time. Too bad that time won’t come nearly soon enough.

7. Bob Fucking Owens, alias Confederate Yankee. Basically, shitty used-car salesman with a whiny accent, living in the North, bitter that the South ain’t risin’ agiiiiiiiin (and that he still ain’t got hisself a brand-new barby-cue), takes out all his bilious ire on a corpse from Massachusetts. Once more, with feeling: Will not be missed, etc.

8. The Fucking Wankeress–er, sorry, I meant to type Anchoress. Say, aren’t nuns supposed to take vows of poverty, chastity, and all that crap? What, then, is this one doing with a computer, ho’ing around in the wingnut blogosphere? Oh yeah: Chappafuckingquiddick. Self-righteousness blogged large. Jesus appropriately pissed. Have I said “won’t be missed” yet?

9. Nick Fucking Gillespie. Someone please tell him that he just blowdried his own already feeble brains out. Ah well, won’t be missed…but that vegetative state IS rather disturbing.

10. Jonah Fucking Goldberg. Srsly, who cares what the illegitimate spawn of LBJ “thinks” about anything? Won’t be missed!

And in closing, I reiterate the mean thing “mauser” said at Dr. Dawg’s blog. The only true bad thing anyone could say about Ted Kennedy, in my humble estimation. Sleep well, old lion.

Another nail for the imperial coffin

Or should that be a screw? You know, the kind they put to people when torturing them?

uncle-sam-torture-drill.jpg

Moral high ground: guess who no haz it.


According to the report, written by the CIA’s former inspector general, John Helgerson, one CIA interrogator told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks that “We’re going to kill your children” if there was another terror strike on US soil. Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince Abd al-Nashiri, who allegedly devised the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him, a claim that the operative has denied.

[...]

US laws on torture forbid threatening a detainee with death. The report said that at least Mr al-Nashiri was hooded, handcuffed and threatened with a gun and a power drill. Another detainee was forced to listen to a gunshot in a nearby room, with the aim of making him think that a fellow detainee had just been executed.

Emphasis added.

The nice part is, this is all happening because citizens who believe in human rights for everyone did a little screw-putting of their own:


Mr Holder’s decision was bolstered by a recommendation from his Justice Department’s ethics office to reopen nearly a dozen alleged abuse cases. “I fully realise my decision … will be controversial,” Mr Holder said last night.

As Mr Holder reopens investigations into the actions of CIA interrogators, human rights groups and many Democrats are urging him also to focus on the Bush-era officials who, they claim, authorised the abusive methods. They are particularly focused on the Bush-era Justice Department lawyers who wrote legal guidelines for the CIA in 2002, redefining torture to allow techniques such as waterboarding, which simulates drowning, and severe physical abuse.

“The important thing now is that any action doesn’t focus solely on the people who carried out the torture, but on the people who gave the orders and who wrote the legal memos which facilitated torture,” said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU.

Of course, they did it without torture.

There’s a valuable lesson or two in here. Let’s see if those who need it will learn it.

Colonel Benavides, terror of the Venezuelan oppos

Meet my newest hero:

His name is Antonio Benavides Torres, and he is a colonel in the Venezuelan national guard. Chavecito recently awarded him the country’s highest honor–the Medal of the Liberator.

So what did Col. Benavides do to deserve it? Have a look:

What? No battle? No blood? No drama?

That’s right. Col. Benavides kept the public peace. He played the music of Venezuela’s most popular folk singer, the late Alí Primera, to counteract the ugly crap being blasted at the recent oppo demo. And when the oppos tried to provoke the national guard and the metropolitan Caracas police into starting a riot, the colonel wasn’t having any of it. He grabbed a mike and told his troops not to fall into the trap–that this was an oppo strategy to generate violence and try to force the expulsion of President Chávez. When a reporter from oppo channel Globovisión tried to get in his face and provoke a direct confrontation, he headed her off and told her to get back and record her “ambient sound” from a respectful distance. Result: No drama–and no excuse to get rid of the president. And no satisfaction whatsoever for Globoterror’s crew, who went away with their tails between their legs.

Peace, democracy and socialism win again. The End.

Festive Left Friday Blogging: The last man on horseback?

Chavecito’s famous revolutionary ancestor, Maisanta, was the subject of a biography called The Last Man on Horseback. Well, looks like his great-grandson is following in his footsteps…er, better make that hoofprints:

chavecito-horseback.jpg

Looks like he’s more than comfortable leading the cabalgata, himself:

chavecito-horseback2.jpg

¡Arriba Chavecito!