You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (41)

PLAYS: (75)

December 11, 2009 BBC World

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI shares "the outrage, betrayal and shame" felt by Irish Catholics over cases of clerical sexual abuse and the way abuse claims were handled by church leaders, and he plans to write a special pastoral letter to the Catholics of Ireland, the Vatican said.

Pope Benedict, the statement said, "was deeply disturbed and distressed" by the contents of a report by an independent Commission of Investigation, headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, which looked at the handling of some 325 abuse claims in the Archdiocese of Dublin in the years 1975-2004.

The report concluded that during those years, rather than being concerned about the victims, Catholic leaders were more interested in "the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church and the preservation of its assets." Catholic News Service

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 172

PLAYS: 101

(Robert McNamara - Every time he opened his mouth, doom flew out)

To anyone of a certain generation, the name Robert S. McNamara will probably evoke the same (or very similar) reactions as this generations Donald Rumsfeld does.

Anger, bitterness, rage, betrayal - simmering arrogance, wrongheadedness and simple belligerence. All over a war that, like Iraq, should not have existed in the first place. And yet it was McNamara's insistence we wage it, even to the point of deceit.

I remember his "Mea Culpa tour" of the 1990's, begging forgiveness for his wrongdoings and his errors - saying in fact, The Gulf of Tonkin incident may not have happened. And some 60,000 casualties and untold wounded later . . . .

But as Joseph N.Welch once told Joseph McCarthy: "Your forgiveness sir, will have to come from a power other than myself".

And so here is a Press Conference, typical of the McNamara era during the Vietnam War, from February 7, 1965 - as the escalation and casualties mount. As we sighed and waited for our draft notices to appear.

It's very sad to see the Obama administration act like this.

Joe Sudbay:

Gay Americans lost rights last November in California. We had fundamental rights taken away by an election. Think about that. When was the last time that happened in this country?

Yesterday, a Democratic President of the United States of America, in the year 2009, and an African-American child of inter-racial parents no less, gave his lawyers the go ahead to compare our marriages to incest on the same day that 42 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in his parents' favor in Loving v. Virginia. And these people, along with our President, are suggesting that the appropriate response is to shrug our shoulders and go home, since, after all, the law is the law?

So, yes, I am advocating that we push the envelope and demand new and creative thinking on legal issues, on our civil and human rights. That's how change happens (there's that pesky word again). That's what we expect from our President who promised change, who promised to be a "fierce advocate" for our rights. Yesterday's homophobic brief would have met the expectations we had from George Bush (or Jerry Falwell). From President Barack Obama, it was an appalling betrayal of our humanity, and his own.

The Gay community gets slapped once again in the face.
Digby writes:

And likewise, merely because an unjust law is on the books doesn't mean that its right for the DOJ to defend it, particularly with the kind of inflammatory and (one hopes) disingenuous arguments used in the brief. This isn't God's Law we're talking about (assuming there were such a thing.) This is just a system set up by human beings to create an orderly and (hopefully) just society. Separating justice from the law makes the law nothing more than an arbitrary exercise in power. I recognize that it is that mostly anyway, but there's no reason to legitimize that by saying that anything goes as long as it's "legal."

If he really felt constrained by the law in this case, Eric Holder could have simply argued that the couple in question didn't have standing and let it go at that. The other arguments were gratuitous and seem to me to be designed to form a strong legal bulwark in favor of the law rather than setting the stage for reversing it. Which brings us to the politics.

Needless to say, after so many slights, snubs and various betrayals it's pretty hard to deny that the LGBT community is being used as a pawn in the president's "outreach" to social conservatives. It's a cruel dismissal of a strong and loyal constituency on an issue of fundamental civil rights. I can't defend it and I don't know how the administration is going to keep defending it. And it won't buy them a single vote, I guarantee it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1046)

PLAYS: (1202)

[H/t Scarce]

Sean Hannity interviewed Rush Limbaugh again on his show last night, and as you might expect, it featured the usual endless stream of insane right-wing crap. Now there's a big surprise.

Limbaugh repeated the point he made yesterday on the radio -- that perhaps Sonia Sotomayor, being Catholic and all, might secretly be anti-abortion. In which case, he'd probably be fine with her nomination to the Supreme Court:

Limbaugh: If -- now I'm speaking for me personally -- If I've learned, if I can be assured, that she is actually a pro-life person, and does think that Roe vs. Wade is bad constitutional law, and if she would rule on the right side of the life issue, I might look past this racism -- we can deal with that. But that's something very, very important to me, and she could be stealth in that regard. And I know that -- well, there's no record. Normally most liberals, they love to tell you how pro-choice they are on abortion -- she doesn't have any of that.

Now remember: The entire reason all of these right-wingers say they have been opposed to Sotomayor is that (given the way they've managed to deliberately distort her "wise Latina" remarks) she might be predisposed to favor identity politics with a feminist and Latino bias. Or as Newt the Phony put it, "Sotomayor’s words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

That means pretending that a judge's experiences and backgrounds and predispositions are never supposed to come into play when they make rulings, as though the law is some kind of abstract entity whose purity must be defended. It's an outgrowth of the "strict constructionist" philosophy, which likes to pretend that there can only be one perfectly literal interpretation of the law.

But that of course goes flying out the window when these same right-wingers contemplate the possibility that Sotomayor might harbor a secret bias about abortion that actually skews in their favor. Then they're all good with it -- supposedly.

Limbaugh doesn't mean a word of it, of course. We get the real reason that Limbaugh is saying this: He just wants liberals to start fretting and stewing and raising questions about Sotomayor's positions, driving a wedge into the heart of her support. Pretty clever ruse, Rushie boy. Too bad most of us long ago learned how to see right through your crooked lies.

Just like when you claim that "no one has denied" that Sotomayor is a racist. Um, yeah, right.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2140)

PLAYS: (2826)

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

UPDATE:
Rush reacts to Newt's backtracking on Sotomayor "racist" charge: "I'm not retracting it."

LIMBAUGH: Have my words been too strong on Sotomayor? Are you asking me because Newt has retracted his -- no, my words have not been too strong. I just heard right before the program started. I didn't have a chance to do a lot of show prep late because of the Hannity interview, so I -- after the interview, I checked my email, and three members of the state-run media has sent me emails wanting my reaction to Newt's retraction of calling Sotomayor a racist, and I didn't know that he had, and I didn't know why he had retracted it, and I still don't. But -- what did he say? Why did he retract it? Did he say that he thought the word was too harsh or -- well, I have my own theory about what Newt's doing, but since I'm not doing it, I'm not going to comment.

I'm not retracting it. Nobody's refuted it. You know, they're out there saying, "It's too harsh. It's distracting, Rush. I mean, it's calling -- you know, you just don't want to use the word." Why? If the word means something -- words mean things -- and if it fits, I use it. Now, they may say, "Don't say it, Rush. Dial it back a little bit." But nobody's saying I'm wrong. Nobody's saying I'm making it up. I mean, when she says she'd do a better job than a white guy, what is it? It's racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it's still racism. She would bring a form of racism, bigotry to the court.

Newt Gingrich confirms that he's running for President in 2012 because you know he would never backtrack from a statement like this:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party.

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system -- that everyone is equal before the law."

Sotomayor, 54, would be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.

He still won't put her words in context and when that is done, her words are not a betrayal. But he still acts a like a jerk when he calls her a radical:

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?”

DOWNLOAD (23)

PLAY (84)

From Hardball Dec. 1, 2008 when asking if the left should feel betrayed by Obama's appointments Chris Bowers from OpenLeft responds to Matthews by saying:

I don't think he's betraying it. I think, I mean first of all he hasn't become President so it's difficult to see how he's failed to deliver on any campaign promises so far but he, he didn't say he was going to govern from the left during his campaign. He had some progressive rhetoric, but he said he was going to govern in a bi-partisan fashion. He repeatedly said that throughout 2007 and 2008, so I don't feel betrayed.

Matthews moves on and changes the subject. It's always nice to see someone knock him off of his talking points if only for a moment. Matthews is desperate for a fight where there is none yet and Chris Bowers is right, it is difficult to see how Obama has failed to deliver on any promises since he's not President yet. Can we at least wait until he's sworn in and see how he governs before having this conversation Chris Matthews? The Villagers are just champing at the bit to skewer bloggers and the progressive wing of the Democratic party at every opportunity.