Hamdan: Court tells Congress to go pound sand!

I tried to read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (pdf here). Needless to say, I got a terrible headache.

The more complicated the judicial reasoning -- the more twists and turns a Court makes to support its ruling -- the more likely it is that the Court is going astray. In Plessy the Court went on and on about equal protection, rights, policies, etc., and then declared that separate was, indeed, equal. That decision stood for over 50 years, until Brown v. Board of Education said, "Er, no, no it isn't." By comparison (not just to Plessy but to ther lousy Court rulings), Brown is inspirational in its brevity.

I thought of that as I read the majority's reasoning that a Federal statute lawfully enacted by Congress didn't mean what it said, it actually meant something else, which conveniently allowed the Court to proceed.

US Supreme Court jurisdiction is subject to regulation by the Congress (see US Constitution, Article III). Ex Parte McCardle is the classic case, and the first, illustrating the matter. Like Hamdan, McCardle involved a habeas corpus action. Like Hamdan, Congress acted while the McCardle case was working its way through the courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court had already heard oral arguments on the case when Congress explicitly revoked its jurisdiction over the matter. Result? The Court said, "We no longer have jurisdiction." And then they shut up and poor Mr. McCardle was left to seek other remedies.

Would that this Court were as respectful of the Constitution.

Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which said in part that only the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC has jurisdiction over any appellate action involving detained enemy combatants (e.g., the Gitmo detainees). By the plain language of the statute, the US Supreme Court should never have heard this case because Congress had explicitly removed it from the Court's jurisdiction, which the Constitution says Congress can do.

This Court thought otherwise. They used "ordinary principles of statutory construction" to say that the DTA didn't really say what it plainly said. The leaps and bounds the majority goes through to come to that conclusion are breath-taking (and, as said, headache inducing). In contrast, Scalia's dissent is straight-forward and clear. The contrast is stark and telling. The majority seized jurisdiction in a matter where the Congress -- not the President, mind you -- said they had none. So much for obeying the rule of law.And that doesn't even get to the heart of the case. Much of the ruling was by a plurality of the Court, meaning it will only be persuasive and not binding on other courts, which means it's a mess.

How a war is conducted is, by the US Constitution, the purview of the President, not the courts, and certainly not the Supreme Court. While the Congress has a say, it often must defer to the President at a time of war in how the President chooses to conduct that war. Period.

Pointedly, the Court is not in that loop at all, yet in this decision they stick their nose in and declare that they do. Most breath-taking is their invocation of Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, which by its own terms cannot apply! Common Article 3 applies in cases of civil war, strictly internal conflicts within a given, signatory nation. It does not apply to international conflicts. Seems like plain language to me, but again, not to this Court. This Court says that the current war on terror, and specifically against al Qaeda, is not an international conflict (despite being fought in nations all around the world) because al Qaeda isn't a nation.

At that point in the decision my head throbbed so hard I had to stop reading.

If anyone asks what is meant by judicial activism, this is what is meant by judicial activism. Contrary to the MSM "news" reports, Hamdan is a relatively mild rebuke of the President. Rather than a win for the rule of law, it is a defeat. It is a major slap at the Congress for having the audacity to attempt to revoke Court jurisdiction. At the end of the day, this is what we have:

• The Court can find jurisdiction whenever and wherever it wants, the explicit will of the Congress notwithstanding. (And if you're terrified of a growing tyranny, that should make your blood run cold.)
• The President is not allowed to conduct military tribunals against detained enemy combatants.
• The Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't really apply to this same detainees, so they can't be tried under the UCMJ.
• The President can't try them in regular criminal court, either.
• But, and here's where it just gets to be too much fun, the President can detain them for "the duration of hostilities" because they are, after all, dangerous enemy combatants and the Court not only won't rule otherwise, it actually affirms that authority.

So if you want the detained enemy combatants released, then this ruling is horrific to your cause. As a result of this ruling, the Court has in essence said that indefinite detention is the President's only course of action. It affirms the President's power to declare someone as an enemy combatant (subject to their right to challenge that designation), it affirms that we are in a state of war, and it affirms that an enemy combatant may lawfully be detained for the duration of hostilities.

President Bush was seeking to try the worst of the detainees to move them out of the Gitmo facility and into a more regular prison facility, with a definite time for their release. Those having been handled, he could then release the remaining detainees to their countries of origin and, voila, shut down the detention facilities at Gitmo. This ruling completely stymies that effort, and leaves the 400+ detainees in their current (Court-ruled legal) state of limbo.

Oh, and as a marvelous bit of serendipity, since the Court says it does indeed have appellate jurisdiction over these matters, it may have just opened the floodgates to 600+ habeas corpus appeals. Hope they're not too busy!

Nice going, asshats of the bench!

Why is abortion still a hot button issue?

I mean, haven't you ever wondered? If Roe is "settled" law, if a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is clear and given in the US Constitution, why does it remain the #1 hot button political issue?

Because Roe is not settled law. Because such a right doesn't exist in the US Constitution. Oh, and because abortion supporters are chickenshits. Oh, and anti-abortion members of Congress are also chickenshits. Am I being blunt?

Roe is not settled law because no judicial decision ever is. During recent Senate hearings, we kept hearing about "super precedents". There is no such thing. Stare decisis, the rule of precedents in our judicial system, is a guideline and nothing more. Any past decision is subject to challenge if either the underlying facts or law have changed. For example, in Roe, one of the underlying facts had to do with viability, when a fetus could survive outside the mother's womb. Anyone keeping an eye on the medical science knows that viability improves all the time. Just ask anyone who has given birth to a premature baby. Thus one of the unlying facts of Roe has changed, and continues to change.

Roe is also not settled law because -- surprise -- it's not even the law any more. Roe was partially affirmed and partially overturned by Casey. Casey, as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out during his confirmation hearing, is the law, not Roe. Most people still believe that the Roe trimester approach to abortion regulation is still in effect. Nope. The rule is Casey, and Casey says that the states are free to regulate abortion in anyway they see fit as long as it does not create an "undue burden" on a woman's right to have an abortion. A two-edged sword, Casey opened the door for states to pass laws mandating parental and spousal notification, which drives abortionists up a wall or two. However, Casey states that the right to abortion is an absolute (bye bye viability!) and opened the door to late-term abortions, such as the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion. Under Casey, a woman could be on her way to the delivery room and opt to have an abortion instead.

Do you begin to see why Roe is not "settled" law? It's not even the law, yet everyone still refers to Roe when they discuss abortion rights. It's not settled because a Court could come along and, under the right legal circumstances, toss Roe/Casey out the door. To see an example of a "super precedent" that was treated just that way, consider Plessy, which stated that separate is equal. That law was in place almost 60 years (1896 to 1954) before Brown v. Board of Education declared that separate is not equal. Poof, Plessy vanished. So much for super precedents. As measured against Plessy, Roe and Casey are infants. (No pun intended, though I like the tinge of irony.)

So now we have to wonder why Senators want Roe/Casey treated as some sort of super precedent. First, they understand perfectly that a future Court could see that Roe was one of the most horribly reasoned decisions the Court has ever made, and decide that maybe it's time to eradicate that stupidity. Erasing Roe would mandate reviewing Casey (since Casey is based on Roe), and Casey would similarly be eradicated. So pro-abortion Senators -- or, more accurately, those pandering to the pro-abortion factions -- want to avoid that at all costs.

(Please note right here and now that this is not a pro- or anti-abortion issue. This is a matter of law. And as a matter of law, Roe is one of the Court's least reasoned rulings. When we hit the issue in law school, it was amazing. Even abortion supporters couldn't figure out how the Court came to its conclusions in Roe. As one [pro-abortion] woman put it, it was as though the Court simply ruled the way it did because it wanted to, and legal reasoning be damned.)

So why are allegedly pro-abortion Senators chickenshits? Because, second, if they really gave a rat's ass about protecting a woman's "right to choose" then they would introduce legislation codifying Roe and/or Casey. That's the "check" the Legislature holds over the Judiciary. If they dislike the law that has resulted from a judicial ruling, the Legislature can pass a law reversing that ruling. (It doesn't help the poor slob impacted by the ruling; it just prevents what the Legislature perceives as future injustice.) If the Legislature really wants to keep the Court out of it, they go even further and amend the Constitution.

So if pro-abortion Senators really believed in what they were spouting, they would propose a Constitutional amendment codifying Roe, Casey, or some combination thereof. If such an amendment were successfully added to the US Constitution, there would be an actual right to an abortion, and a woman's precious "right to choose" would be protected from any present or future US Supreme Court.

Of course, the pandering bastards don't do this because they know it would never succeed. They know that the statement "most Americans support a woman's right to choose" is a half-lie because polls show that support really means support for abortion "in cases of rape or incest or if the mother's life is at risk, and then only during the first trimester." They know that the majority does not support abortion on demand, or procedures such as partial-birth abortion, or -- generally -- any abortion after the first trimester.

And I'm talking about women here, because in a number of surveys it turns out that men are far more in favor of abortion than women (contradicting claims by NOW and others). Even allowing for that, the above poll results still hold.

So those pompous bastards who bark that they support a woman's right to choose, i.e., abortion, don't. They are chickenshits.

And to that precise degree, Senators who claim to be anti-abortion are also chickenshits because they could propose legislation and/or a Constitutional amendment overturning Roe/Casey. But they don't.

So abortion remains a hot button issue when, in reality, it doesn't have to be. If one side or the other proposed legislation either supporting or tossing Roe/Casey, we -- as a nation -- could have the massive national debate over the matter that the Court in Roe denied us. We could get the issue settled. You know, do that democracy thing. That, of course, would require the US Senate to do its job rather than posture and pontificate. And they are much better at that, strutting peacocks that they are.

Kung Fu, F You!

Now this is funny.

What Kind of American English Do I Speak?

Your Linguistic Profile:

75% General American English

10% Dixie

5% Upper Midwestern

5% Yankee

0% Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

Autorantic Virtual Moonbat

I may be late to the party, but still...

Ubuntu bye bye

I give up, I surrender. Once upon a time I might have had the energy or inclination to put up with all of this, but not now and not today. Maybe if I strike it rich and can spend a week or so tinkering with an operating system (ah, the days of old...sans riches, that is) I'll give it another go. But for now...

Bye bye, Ubuntu. Bye bye, Linux.

Obviously I'm more in love with the concept of Linux (in all its assorted flavors) than with the reality of living with Linux (in any of its assorted flavors). I frankly loved working with the WindowMaker interface (window manager, in technical terms), but that's all.

What brings me to this conclusion was Ubuntu Linux Dapper Drake, v6. I had previously tried Breezy Badger (v5) and was impressed but not won over. But with Dapper, Beta 2, I really got excited. Somewhere along the line I tried a live CD and everything just worked. Cool. I used Partition Magic to open up some room on my laptop and installed the beta. Everything just worked. Perfectly.

But then I hit the release candidates. I believe it was around Beta 5 or so. The Internet just went away. Mind you, I hadn't changed a thing on this machine. After that update (downloaded via the Internet, o' irony), poof, no Internet connection. Boot over to XP, seek help, try a flurry of suggestions, nothing works.

I relaxed, figured I'd just want for the actual release before trying again. I did and when v6.06LTS was released, I bit-torrented it onto a local drive, created an install CD, and started that sucker up. Installed perfectly. Everything worked again. Oh joy and happy day!

Day.

It installed v2.6.15-23-386 of the Linux kernel. A short while later there was an update to -25- of the kernel. Bye bye, Internet. Boot back to the -23- kernel. Works for a few minutes, then nada.

Boot back to XP, searched for answers, find a slight flurry of suggestions (enough to tell me I'm not the only one with the problem), and none of them work. For that matter, none appear to work for others who are having the same issue.

So Ubuntu, as of v6.06LTS, is a Linux dead end. It was far and away the best distro I had tried. Mandrake to Mandriva, Red Hat to Fedora Core, Knoppix, SUSE, Damn Small, and even the now-defunct Evil Entity (and oh, I really wanted that one to work; the name alone made it worth the effort).

So, sigh, in a few minutes I'll press the "back up now, damnit" button on my extenal HDD. When that's done, I'll run Partition Magic and recover the space I had created for Linux. Then I'll run the XP recovery console and zap the MBR. When I'm done (in less than an hour) I'll have a pure XP laptop again. And note that all of those steps will work and I can do them with my eyes closed.

So, adios, Linux. Next time I wander through the operating system jungle, it will be to visit Mac OS X, which I understand is the best Linux/Unix distro in the known universe. Sounds good to me!

Wow, my sleep pose...

Find your own pose!

The Chicks don't get patriotism

Truly, I'll finish this and be done with The Dixie Chicks. This, however, was all just too juicy to pass up.

For the London Telegraph, The Chicks gave an interview. If they have expressed similar things in the US media, I haven't seen it. Again, we see the massive expression of their, er, bravery....

The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.

So, what The Chicks did had nothing to do with promoting their career. So all those appearances for Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, et al, had nothing to do with promoting their career. I get it. They speak with courage, others exploit. Sure.

Maybe they are familiar with the phrase: Good for the goose, good for the gander. Their accusation flies both ways. If we are to take their critique of Bush and Iraq as honest, then why can't we take the critique of them as honest? Oh, that's right, if you support Bush and the war you are, by definition, a lying bastard. I keep forgetting that....

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

First, let's understand what "pandering" means, aside from the traditional definition (to pander is to perform the job of a pimp, setting up customers for whores). In its current usage "to pander" or "pandering" means you are playing false to a crowd. That is, you are promoting ideas that you don't believe in but that your crowd does. You pretend support in order to gain favor from the crowd.

Remember, Maines made her original statement before a London audience, not a Texas audience. Almost seems like...pandering....

But not really because it's clear that Maines truly believes in what she said, so she wasn't pandering. When she makes the accusation here, though, she's saying that the artists using the flag and soldiers in their videos don't believe in the mission, the troops, or the country, and thus are pandering. Again, it's an easy accusation but is she saying that, oh, Tobey Keith is lying when he sings in support of the troops or the country, that he doesn't really believe in what he's singing? Again, they want it both way. Anyone who opposes Bush, the war, etc., is speaking the truth, while anyone who supports Bush, the war, etc., is pandering.

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

We start with a few definitions of patriotism that you can find on the Web:

• love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it; "they rode the same wave of popular patriotism"; "British nationalism was in the air and patriotic sentiments ran high"
  [wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]
• Patriotism is a feeling of love and devotion to one's own homeland (patria, the land of one's fathers). This article surveys the concept of patriotism from the viewpoints of history, politics, ethics, and biology.
  [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism]
• To show love, support, and sacrifice for one's country.
  [www.nps.gov/mana/education/vocab.htm]

To be generous, I'd say that Maines is young and ignorant. Why do people care about patriotism? That depends a great deal on how much you feel you have benefitted by being a citizen of your country. I would imagine that if you had been born in Russia during the Stalin era you might not feel very patriotic, given his penchant for purges.

On the other hand, if you lived in a country that afforded you the opportunity to pursue your musical dreams, to rise to the top in your field, to have your music played throughout the country and around the world.... In other words, if you were The Dixie Chicks, wouldn't you have some love for the country that gave you birth and afforded you the opportunity to become what you are?

Well, apparently not, and she doesn't "understand the necessity" for patriotism. Given that, I can assume that if ever in the future I hear the phrases "I support the troops" or "I love my country" or anything similar coming from the mouth of Natalie Maines, she is pandering, i.e., lying through her teeth.

Oh, and a clarification re The Chicks new producer....

The recruitment of Rick Rubin as producer, the man who rejuvenated Johnny Cash, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Neil Diamond and others, is guaranteed to extend the Chicks' appeal, though it would be disappointing if the album's thoughtful range of subject matter (from IVF to Alzheimer's) was overshadowed by the Bush episode.

I don't see hip hop on the list, but Rubin may handle that, too. And I love that word, "rejuvenated". Did any of those performers need rejuvenation? Do The Chicks need rejuvenating? Interesting.

Is Howard Dean insane?

Quote:

If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America....

DNC Chair Howard Dean on NBC's 'TODAY', 13 June 2006.

It is instructive to note:

1) The bit about being indicted for perjury comes from an unsupported story that TruthOut published a month ago. Their “report” was that the special prosecutor was about to indict Rove for perjury and lying to investigators (essentially the same charges already filed against Scooter Libby). This bit, “[i]f Karl Rove had been indicted” is beyond sheer speculation and is utterly meaningless. Rove wasn't indicted so speculating about what a non-existent indictment might have contained is inane. Dean might as easily have said, “If Rove had been indicted it would have been for bitch slapping me in public, though I did deserve it.” There was not, is not, and probably will never be an indictment against Rove for anything regarding Valerie Plame.

2) No one has been accused of “leaking the name of an intelligence operative”. No one. The possibility of such a leak, in violation of Federal law, was the reason for the entire investigation. Years into this mess, no one has been accused because in all likelihood the “crime” never occurred. A criminal law defines the elements needed to violate that law. The elements of the offense don’t exist here, so no violation of the relevant statute(s) occurred, so this “sin” is a figment of Dean’s fevered mind. This inconvenient truth (!) is constantly ignored by Joe “I Squandered My 'Credibility' for Kerry” Wilson, [No]TruthOut, [We Can't] MoveOn, and et al of the fever swamp left. It is also clearly ignored by Dr. Dean.

3) The phrase “during the time of war.” Wow, that is an amazing admission. We now have Howard Dean on record as recognizing that the United States is engaged in a war, and that this state of war existed before we invaded Iraq. A real live war. Dr. Dean should be prepared for all the consequences that flow from that state of affairs, because if you actually read the US Constitution you see that, yes, when it comes to waging war the President is allowed all sorts of latitude that he isn’t otherwise allowed. Thanks for the admission, Howard, I didn't think you comprehended reality so well!

Chicks in Space!

Amazing. We’re still in a brouhaha about the Dixie Chicks. Though most of the public comments have been made by their lead singer, Natalie Maines, she keeps being represented as lead spokescritter for The Chicks, so I’ll just keep referring to them as The Chicks. Thus....

They can say what they want, but they are not immune from criticism. They can sing what they want, but some of the lyrics of their new song just sound like whiny little bitch monkey talk. They are not “brave” and I feel like gagging any time I see the words “Dixie Chicks” and “brave” used in the same sentence, where “brave” refers to “Dixie Chicks”. Barf! See?

Over on MSNBC I read an article by some guy about “red state liberals” and how if you’re offended by The Chicks you just need to get over it because it’s what he and his have had to put up with for years, well six years. At least.

Oh puh-leez! What’s most offensive about The Chicks is precisely what’s wrong with this article. It’s this never-ending pity party, a constant whine – sometimes made with sobs, sometimes with anger -- about how repressed and oppressed they are. Barf! Damn, another gag reflex.

You want to feel repressed? Try tuning into your favorite alternative rock station and being aurally mugged because you support Bush, the battle for Iraq, and the entire worldwide war against terror. Try looking for a movie to see and anything that’s not “This Season’s Must See Blockbuster!” turns out to be another anti-Bush screed by pampered snotty little self-righteous gazillionaires. Try listening to some music and hearing that you’re an idiot for supporting Bush. Try tuning into a “left-leaning” talk show and hear that 1) you are genetically defective if you support Bush and 2) you are just a pawn for the “Bush crime family”. Try it, just for a day.

In terms of political debate, The Chicks were (are) chickenshits, okay? Dear sweet little Natalie spouted her bit in London, in front of a Chick-friendly, anti-Bush audience. She would have been brave if she had said the same shit in front of a crowd in Texas, or any other venue within the United States. But she didn’t. Instead, she was in Europe where they're none too happy with Bush to begin with. Natalie’s not stupid, she knew exactly where she was and what she was doing. When the backlash began, she and the The Chicks demanded to be immune from criticism. Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly and every other outlet for the MSM granted them the status of saints.

Why? Because country music is predominantly conservative, in terms of artists and fans and songs. So when The Chicks slipped over to the MSM's dark side, the MSM lept to their defense. And the Chicks lept, too, as they embraced the rock and hip-hop scene, publically stating that rock fans and rock stars were more in tune with what they felt and believed. Who abandoned whom?

I’m happy that The Chicks new CD is selling well (though not as well as their last). I enjoy anyone’s capitalist success. That’s true even if I think their “art” is the stuff plagues are made of, because they managed to find an audience that believes otherwise. This is true even if you’re schlock-king Dan Brown. Maybe especially if you’re schlock-king Dan Brown, because if his badly written crap can sell 60 quadrillion copies throughout the known universe, then there’s hope for the rest of us schlock-king-wannabes.

By the same token, though, I embrace everyone’s right to not buy their shit, to be offended by what they produce, and to reject what they spout. I don’t find The Chicks brave (barf!) or even interesting. If anything, they’re whiners and they’ve found a complete whiner’s support group collectively known as The Left. If you want your art to be judged, then present your art and critics be damned, but accept that critics are part of the game. If you want to spout politics, expect to get spouted back at, because that’s part of the political game.

And I should immediately make clear that anyone who sent The Chicks a death threat because of what dear sweet little Natalie said ought to be sought out and introduced, face-first, to the business end of an outhouse. At a minimum. For a start. After all, shit deserves to be introduced to shit. Clear?

If I could stand most country music, maybe I’d hear some pro-Bush or pro-American music. But I can’t so I’m stuck in hell. Since I’m stuck I might as well be amused, and nothing is funnier than a rock star who believes his/her/its music is Significant.

It’s just as bad -- no, it’s worse at the movies. There are at least four movies in production about the battle for Iraq, and all four take a negative spin. (And hey, isn’t it “too soon”?) Where is the pro point of view, the one that says deposing a murderous thug of a dictator is a good thing, that bringing democracy to a region of dictators is a good thing? The snotty of you, maybe even dear sweet little Natalie, would probably say that there is no “pro” view so therefore there cannot be a pro movie.

If so, wow, such hubris.

What the hell am I saying? “If so”? Of course it’s so! You can hear it in the way they argue, in the way the left presents the case, any case. A contrasting POV is never shown because they don’t believe one exists. You see this in all aspects of the media, but most especially in their “dramatic” presentations. Oh the brav -- Barf!

Look, anyone in the entertainment industry is voluntarily participating in slavery. This is especially so for those trying to get their little toe in the door. They live in a part of the country where millionaires have a hard time affording a home. 30 or more rent a single-room studio apartment because you need 30 poverty-level incomes to afford the rent. It’s brutal. It is a system that is not designed to encourage success. Support groups thrive. You have to live in an echo chamber that says, “You are good, you will succeed” because nothing in the business says that. Quite the opposite. Until you do succeed, that is.

If you do achieve success, you’ve been driven somewhat insane by the process. This insanity is visible in any number of ways, and The Chicks declaration of their “bravery” is just one of them. Others would include Britney Spears loving publicity while demanding her privacy and George Clooney believing he has any talent. At all.

Well, actually that last is delusional, but that’s a form of insanity, right?

And that’s not really fair since I kind of like Clooney the actor when he’s being Clooney the actor a la ER or even Three Kings, and he rocked in The Peacemaker. But when he subverts his acting for his activism...barf! Especially given that he gets Edward R. Murrow almost all wrong by leaving out the follow-up to his conflict with McCarthy, that Murrow came to agree that Communism was the major threat to the country, that maybe ol' Tail-Gunner Joe bad it right.

But maybe that’s just Hollywood. Where else would a crowd listen intently, take seriously, and then soundly applaud someone praising them and their industry by reminding them of what sort of racist drivel they often make? (In case you need clarification, during his Oscar acceptance speech Clooney noted with pride that the Academy had awarded an Oscar to a black woman. That woman was Hattie McDaniel, for her performance as Mammy, Scarlett O’Hara’s servant in Gone With the Wind. Her performance and appearance is the epitome of Aunt Jemimah, which is not an altogether flattering term -- or image -- for a black woman. God bless Hattie, but that role...ugh!)

So it’s obvious why The Chicks chose to abandon their “country roots”, embrace the rock culture, and have their latest album produced by someone who specializes in rock and hip-hop albums. That’s their crowd, that’s their base, that’s their insanity. More power to them! I wish them well and fantastic success (good for a capitalist economy to have success stories, you know).

Just don’t call them bra -- Barf!