So easy even a caveman could understand it

Glenn Greenwald:

First, the President began his Press Conference by admitting that the administration’s explanations as to what happened here have been — to use his own words — “confusing” and “incomplete.” Why, then, would Congress possibly trust Bush officials to provide more explanations in an off-the-record, no-transcript setting where there are no legal consequences from failing to tell the truth?

Related posts:

20 Responses to “So easy even a caveman could understand it”

  1. JonJedi Says:

    As I watched “Crony McSnowjob, the Presidential Spokesliar” (lifted from the Stephanie Miller show)in his press conference today, it was clear that the White House is attempting to use Howard K. Sterns legal logic.

    Just as in the case of the Anna Nicole baby where DNA would resolve the matter, Mr. Stern has attempted to claim paternity through Bahamian law. Their ‘take our word for it, it’s against the law to lie to congress anyway’ is pretty much the same argument against a more accurate method, such as being under oath and having the testimony recorded.

    While it sucks that our nation suffers so much from this whole process, in the end, it’s my hope that truth and justice do prevail.

  2. whig Says:

    All it takes is for one person to tell the truth, and then another.

  3. Do his pants seem to be on fire? « cannablog Says:

    […] So easy even a caveman could understand it […]

  4. mklekacz Says:

    Whig, I’m with you. The truth is so easy but so seldom heard. It’s a little understood fact that Bill Clinton faced impeachment not for “not screwing Monica Lewinski” but for lying about it, costing us taxpayers bazillions of dollars and totally distracting our elected officials from anything productive for a very long time. If he’d just said, “Oops,” the whole thing would have blown over in a week.

  5. whig Says:

    That being said, Ken Starr is a giant prick. But yes, he could have been an honest adulterer and that would not have cast his credibility in question as president, though it would doubtless still have had a longer-term impact on his marriage. It’s hard to say how it would have turned out, had things gone differently, all we can do is ask whether the way he did handle it was appropriate. It was not appropriate to lie under oath and as a consequence he was not only impeached (though not convicted) he was also disbarred.

  6. whig Says:

    All that having been nearly a decade in the past, we have a more pressing matter of a current president who lies, tortures and kills for his and his family and friends’ financial benefit.

  7. mklekacz Says:

    Whig, I frankly prefer not to respond directly to this.

    Since you’re in Berkeley, see if you can find a book titled The Letters of Hieronymous Brandenburg (fiction). It’s pretty much been out of print for years, but Berkeley would be one place I’d expect to find it still in a library somewhere.

  8. whig Says:

    I hope I haven’t given you some offense. I speak directly as I see it. What can you tell me about this book you recommend?

  9. whig Says:

    I can’t find it in the Berkeley Public Library card catalog. Perhaps it has a different spelling, or maybe it is unavailable.

  10. mklekacz Says:

    Whig, I woke up in the night realizing I’d given you the wrong title. These senior moments seem to be coming more and more frequently. Here’s the entry from Amazon. It’s available for as little as $.50 (plus shipping and handling of course which will make it ten times more). But it’s worth the investment if you can’t find it at the library. It was published in the 60s. I bought it new and still have my copy.

    Insurrection of Hippolytus Brandenburg (Hardcover)
    by Roy Friedman (Author)
    (2 customer reviews)
    Availability: Available from these sellers.

    24 used & new available from $0.50


    One review describes it pretty accurately:
    “The principle is this : The entire book is written in the form of letters, log-book entries, and inter-office memos. The story is of the eponymous Hipploytus Brandenberg and his Insurrection (or his ‘plans’ as he calls them). Brandenberg works at an insurance company where he not only fails to do any work, but claims he is being harrassed by his seniors for being Jewish. He puruses this false claim with alacrity. Meanwhile, he is in communication – seemingly innocently – with a whole host of interesting and shady figures (Communists, Terrorists, Agents of Foriegn Powers) et al. – this incurs the attention of the CIA. And all the while he is continuing with his ‘plan’ – to have a hunger-strike march with thousands of the starving parading in New York. Not a bad book.”

    You have not offended me. I always welcome direct comment. It’s just that I’ve fouond caution to be a useful trait from time to time. Of course you have to remember that I’m old enough to remember when the scariest thing the U.S. government could throw our way was J. Edgar Hoover in a pink dress. . .

    This book says it all about my concerns.

  11. whig Says:

    That does sound interesting, and since I’m going out of town to visit the in-laws for a few days with my wife, maybe I’ll see if it’s available and take it along.

    I try not to take fiction too seriously, though. It’s important to remember that what one person might imagine could happen is based upon things happening in a way they may not. I hope that makes sense to you, but another way of saying it is that if we reality-test everything we are able to go much further in fact because we know we are attached to solid ground — even if we are using cantilevers for some purposes.

    Are you concerned about repercussions for condemning the administration that currently seems to hold power? I would be more concerned not to condemn them, because I know what happens next in the story. The historical one, I mean.

  12. mklekacz Says:

    This particular piece of fiction is worth considering seriously. It’s a funny but all to serious read.

    No, I’m not concerned about repercussions. But I don’t have anything too positive to offer, either. It’s like a note I got from a scientist/engineer whom I really admire. He’s on the global warming horse riding full steam, even though this isn’t his field. His concerns are correct, as I suspect your concerns are correct. The problem is he thinks what has been done can be undone, and I’m not sure this is realistic.

    So to rail vociferously against the administration I’d have to see something more promising on the horizon. Frankly, I don’t.

  13. whig Says:

    You can’t really see much of the horizon unless you get some altitude. From where I sit, things are changing rapidly. Big wave coming in. Huge.

    Political climate change, even.

    The thing is we cannot allow the status quo to remain. Despairing against the perceived alternative as a reason to do nothing would be to accept it, bless it, and consecrate it for the future. We must all become agents of change or be wiped away with the tide.

  14. whig Says:

    I realize I haven’t shown you anything promising or otherwise, and you would be unconvinced forever if you only read my words.

  15. whig Says:

    I guess that’s where you need to have a little faith, if you want to go on with what needs to be done anyhow.

  16. mklekacz Says:

    Things ARE changing rapidly. But as to this–“Political climate change, even.”–I assume you’re talking about throwing out the old administration and bringing in a new one.

    What I find extremely discouraging is the lack of a new approach. No matter what happens in the next two years, we’ll have our same old two-party, winner-take-all system. And it will still be peopled by politicians.

    I’ve been studying Toqueville lately, and I’m blown away by how accurately he nailed the problems of democracy in America so long ago.

    I have the faith to do what “needs” to be done. We might not agree on just what that is. (smile)

  17. whig Says:

    I’d like to see the Republican party gone. Just irrelevant. And I’d like to see fair elections which can’t be digitally stolen.

    I don’t mind having multiple parties, and I think we should have more than two, and I think the winner should not be whoever gets a plurality, but either some form of proportional representation or a Condorcet-style ranked choice ballot. Not sure how much of this we can get and how quickly, indeed I think it should not happen too fast because it won’t be acceptable unless it arises out of perceived need.

    I think the blogosphere is a new approach. I think we are defining the new political system, and we won’t transform it over night but over a period of years.

    Right now we are going through the period of exposure, the time during which we display the failures of the old system in order to bring it down in a controlled way that preserves the institutions we want to keep.

    I don’t know that we’ll always agree and hope we wouldn’t, it would be boring. If you aren’t yet convinced that impeachment and removal of this administration is appropriate, it is still necessary to convince the rest of the nation as well, and hearings will have to compel that result in order for it to happen.

  18. Globalization, global warming, Toqueville, and democracy as we know it, part 1 « Marianne’s Virtual Salon Says:

    […] Whig and I have been having a somewhat lively discussion over at Cannablog in his “caveman” post. I want to expand it a little bit, and it feels too lengthy for a comment, so […]

  19. On this day in history « cannablog Says:

    […] So easy even a caveman could understand it   […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: