Texas children will learn horsepuckey, because Cynthia Dunbar "likes to believe"

Thanks to the Teajad that the Paliban wing of the Texas Board of Education has declared against history, truth, and anything that isn't evangelical Christianity, Texas schoolchildren will now be trained to be good little soldiers for Jeebus. Because according to them, facts have a decided liberal bias. (If Stephen Colbert didn't exist, we would have to invent him for occasions like this.)

Yesterday, before voting, high-profile Board member Cynthia Dunbar did the invocation:

“Whether we look to the first charter of Virginia, or the charter of New England…the same objective is present — a Christian land governed by Christian principles.”

“I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.”

"Likes to believe"? Texas schoolchildren are going to be taught revisionist history because this nutball "likes to believe" narcissistic sociopathic delusions?

The first charter of Virginia, a document written by King James I to the Virginia company, DID assign land rights for the purpose of spreading Christianity. However, it dates back to 1606 and last I looked, King James I (yes, THAT King James I, son of Mary, Queen of Scots and great-nephew of Henry VIII) was not recognized as one of the Founding Fathers of this country (though perhaps in the new Christian curriculum of Texas, he will be). By Dunbar's logic, the Virginia Charter, not the Constitution, is one of the founding documents of this country and so I suppose that a fifth of any gold, silver, or copper found in Virginia should be shipped back to Queen Elizabeth and that she be declared the rightful head of state. It also explicitly states that Virginia is part of the realm of England, but Dunbar and her Christofascist Zombies conveniently forget that part.

As for the charter of New England, this one dates from 1620 -- also prior to the Revolution and the founding of the United States. This is another dictate from our friend James I -- a long rant that includes:

And also for that We have been further given certainly to knowe, that within these late Yeares there hath by God's Visitation reigned a wonderfull Plague, together with many horrible Slaugthers, and Murthers, committed amoungst the Sauages and brutish People there, heertofore inhabiting, in a Manner to the utter Destruction, Deuastacion, and Depopulacion of that whole Territorye, so that there is not left for many Leagues together in a Manner, any that doe claime or challenge any Kind of Interests therein, nor any other Superiour Lord or Souveraigne to make Claime "hereunto, whereby We in our Judgment are persuaded and satisfied that the appointed Time is come in which Almighty God in his great Goodness and Bountie towards Us and our People, hath thought fitt and determined, that those large and goodly Territoryes, deserted as it were by their naturall Inhabitants, should be possessed and enjoyed by such of our Subjects and People as heertofore have and hereafter shall by his Mercie and Favour, and by his Powerfull Arme, be directed and conducted thither. In Contemplacion and serious Consideracion whereof, Wee have thougt it fitt according to our Kingly Duty, soe much as in Us lyeth, to second and followe God's sacred Will, rendering reverend Thanks to his Divine Majestie for his gracious favour in laying open and revealing the same unto us, before any other Christian Prince or State, by which Meanes without Offence, and as We trust to his Glory, Wee may with Boldness goe on to the settling of soe hopefull a Work, which tendeth to the reducing and Conversion of such Sauages as remaine wandering in Desolacion and Distress, to Civil Societie and Christian Religion, to the Inlargement of our own Dominions, and the Aduancement of the Fortunes of such of our good Subjects as shall willingly intresse themselves in the said Imployment, to whom We cannot but give singular Commendations for their soe worthy Intention and Enterprize

So yes, we can say that King Jimmy did intend for Virginia and New England to be dens of proseletyzer/warriors. What makes this hilarious, for anyone who has even passed by Masterpiece Theatre over the years, is that Dunbar's adoption of King James I as a Founding Father, supplanting the hemp-smokers and libertines who actual DID set forth the documents that most of us who are actually SANE regard as the founding documents of this country, means that the laws of this land descend from a guy whose great-grand-uncle established himself as head of the Church in England so he could get rid of a wife and marry a younger, presumably more fertile chickie, then cut that one's head off when she failed to produce a son, had the one who DID give him a son die in childbirth, got rid of another one who was at least smart enough to go quietly, and cut off the head of another one. All of which I guess puts Henry VIII, whose sister Margaret married James IV of Scotland and produced James V, who in turn married Marie de Guise and produced Mary, Queen of Scots, mother of James VI of Scotland, who became heir to the throne of England when Elizabeth I died childless, as a fitting spiritual and behavioral ancestor to the Christopath psychotics who run the Republican Party today (see also: Sanford, Mark; Gingrich, Newt; Souder, Mark, etc.) as well as the Texas Board of Education.

And we thought Cheney was bad

One of the reasons why the story of Henry VIII resonates as much as it does to this day is that it combines sex with almost unimaginable cruelty. We watch telling after telling of the story, which reaches its gruesome apex with the horrific executions in 1452 of the barely-twenty-year-old Queen, Katherine Howard, along with her lover Thomas Culpeper, and her former lover Francis Dereham from well before her marriage to the King. The series The Tudors on Showtime plays fast and loose in many ways with history, but its graphic depiction of the torture and executions of Culpeper and Dereham are straight out of history (Warning: highly graphic video):

The Spanish Ambassador at the time, Eustace Chapuys, wrote an account of Katherine's fall and the executions of Dereham and Culpeper:

This year on 13 November Sir Thomas Wriothesley, secretary to the king, came to Hampton Court to the queen, and called all the ladies and gentlewomen and her servants into the great chamber, and there openly before them declared certain offenses she had committed in misusing her body with certain persons before the king's time, because of which he there discharged all her household; and the morning after she was taken to Sion, with my Lady Bainton and two other gentlewomen and certain of her servants to wait on her there until the king's further pleasure. And various people were taken to the Tower of London, such as my Lady Rochford, Master Culpepper, one of the king's privy chamber, and others.

On 1 December Thomas Culpepper, one of the gentlemen of the king's privy chamber, and Francis Dorand, gentleman, were arraigned at the Guildhall in London, for high treason against the king's majesty, in misdemeanor with the queen, as appeared by their indictment which they confessed to, and they were sentenced to be drawn, hanged, and quartered, the lord mayor sitting there as chief, the lord chancellor on his right hand, and the duke of Norfolk on his left hand, the duke of Suffolk, the lord privy seal, the earls of Sussex, of Hertford, and various others of the king's council sitting with all the judges also in commission that day.

And on 10 December the said Culpepper and Dorand were drawn from the Tower of London to Tyburn, and there Culpepper, after exhorting the people to pray for him, stood on the ground by the gallows, knelt down and had his head struck off; and then Dorand was hanged, dismembered, disemboweled, beheaded and quartered. Culpepper's body was buried at St Sepulchre's church near Newgate, and their heads were set on London Bridge.

For some reason, we fail to draw parallels between the tortures meted out by corrupt European royals during long-ago history and what is being done to human beings in our name in our own time. We like to think we're somehow more enlightened.

Except that we're not, as Sebastian Doggart horrifyingly reveals over at Down With Tyranny:

War criminal? Torturer? Condi Rice?!

I had the same response while making my investigative documentary on Rice, American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi. Over the course of researching and producing it, I have come to share Professor Gilbert’s view that the gravity of Rice’s crimes and misdemeanors, still largely unknown to the American people, outweigh the benefits of President Obama’s view that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

The conviction that we need to read the page of history before we can turn it underpins American Faust. Through the form of a biographical documentary, we tell a Faustian story of a woman whose hubris tempted her into a pursuit of power that destroyed her core values, and hurtled America into a perilous new direction. It’s a portrait of a woman who has changed the world but about whom most people know very little. It overturns the popular misconception of Rice as a yes-woman to Bush and reveals her as his chief confidante-- with deeper and more enduring influence than even Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or Karl Rove-- and thus responsible for much of the Bush legacy.

[snip]

it was Condoleezza Rice who is primarily responsible for the Bush Administration’s torture program. It was she who ordered the CIA to use torture techniques including genital mutilation, fingernail extraction and electrocution in countries across the world. The CIA agents who carried out these interrogations were acting under orders which came directly from the chairwoman of the Group of Principals: Condoleezza Rice. The role of the Principals-- a group that included Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales-- was to select and authorize ‘enhanced interrogation methods’ proposed by CIA Director George Tenet.

According to Christopher Anders, attorney for the ACLU: “The CIA would come in and give a presentation of what they wanted to do, to the point where, where they were choreographing interrogations and the torture from the basement of the White House itself.”

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Kessler says: “These ‘enhanced interrogation methods’ included water-boarding, fingernail extraction, and sleep deprivation. Condi signed off on the orders to the CIA with the words, ‘This is your Baby, go do it!’” Richard Clarke, US chief counter-terrorism adviser between 1992-2003 concurs: “Rice decided what torture to use on what person.”

American Faust reveals that the techniques that Rice approved went far beyond the mock executions and water-boarding already made public. Our film has first-hand accounts of torture techniques that make stress positions look like a slap on the wrist. Binyam Mohamed had his penis cut, and acid poured into the wounds. Khalid el Masri was drugged, sodomized and imprisoned without charges. Abu Omar was tied to a wet mattress and electrocuted. Mamdouh Habib had his fingernails torn out.

Even John Ashcroft, known for a nutty rendition of his song Let the Eagle Soar but not for his leniency to Moslem prisoners, objected to the torture meetings that Rice chaired: "Why are we talking about this in the White House?” he asked. “History will not judge this kindly."

But perhaps they will make a Showtime series about it. And our descendants will, just as we do, think they are more enlightened than that.

Just wonderin', is all

I wonder why, in all the hoopla about how poor Hillary Clinton is being pushed out of the race because she's a poor defenseless fragile flower of a woman, there isn't a big feminist outcry about the Blogad for the finale of The Tudors that's running on all the big name blogs (you can see it at Digby's blog, for one). Because if there were ever a poster child for domestic violence, it's Henry VIII. Maybe it's just me, but this poster bothers me. It's the same "hot" image that's been running in ads the entire season, but the bodice-ripper-style photo of Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry with his hand firmly on Natalie Dormer's throat, taken in conjunction with what we know happens to Anne Boleyn in this Sunday's season finale, seems kind of like B&D porn to me. Is this an image that progressive blogs ought to be carrying?

Discuss.

Blogrolling in our time

I've been reading Paul Levinson for a while now, so I decided it's time to add him to the blogroll. He writes about politics, Lost, The Tudors, Dexter, and other important things. What's not to like?

Anne Boleyn, The Tudors, and Women who Plan to Sulk if Hillary isn't Nominated

Well, it doesn't look so good for Anne Boleyn, now, does it.

I don't know what it is about the short-lived Tudor dynasty so compelling. After all, Henry VIII wasn't the only European king who fooled around with women to whom he wasn't married. Queen Victoria's son Albert, who became King Edward VI, had an extended affair with Lillie Langtry, after all. It's tempting to think that the story of Henry VIII and his wives is about the sex -- especially when the series currently running on Showtime is populated with so many relentlessly gorgeous people and more flesh than we've seen in any other treatment of this story. But there's so much packed into this particular piece of history -- the Reformation, Henry's break with Rome, the tragedies of the various women unfortunate enough to catch his eye and his interest, the relentless stream of pride goingeth before a fall. But one of the most compelling aspects of this story has always been Henry's moral relativism in the face of the intense religiosity that characterized the age in which he lived, and how that moral relativism led him to the heinous acts that books and movies and television have retold over and over and over again.

For all the fine dramatizations that have been done in the past depicting this story, and for all that this one plays so ridiculously fast and loose with certain historical details, there's a kind of raw immediacy that this series has. Once you suspend disbelief enough to buy that a slightly-built young man with cheekbones you could grate cheese on, impossibly perfect teeth and an Elvisish curl of the lip is the large, hearty king we know from the Hans Holbein portraits, and if you can avoid ticking off the many historical liberties taken in this series in the name of narrative, there's a palpable intensity here that sucks you into the emotional lives of these people.

In last Sunday's episode, we saw quite graphically the miscarriage that was literally the final nail in the coffin of Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry. Anne has always been portrayed as this strong, defiant creature that has often made it difficult to find her sympathetic. We forget how she was pimped out by her family to curry favor with the king and expected to somehow hold onto his interest when her own sister had failed to do so. Imagine what it must have been like for an intelligent young woman to try to balance the headiness of attracting the attention and gifts of a king, one's obligation to one's family, and at the same time be witness to your own sister's plight as a discarded mistress. Imagine watching your male fetuses bleed out of you knowing that you only have so many tries to produce a male heir. We've always seen Anne Boleyn as a schemer, fully complicit in her own fate, a homewrecker who on some level we always felt got what she deserved. Natalie Dormer's interpretation of the character is just as self-assured as those that have preceded hers, but she finds the human part of Anne that we've so often missed:

Life for women in Tudor England just have been horrible:

Young girls were given hardly any personal freedom.

Religion was at the very center of life in Tudor England. And girls were raised to obey their parents without question.

Girls were taught their only function in life was to marry and bear children.

They learned they were commanded by God to render unquestioning obedience to their husband and to learn in silence from him in all subjection, the same way they behaved at home to their parents.

[snip]

Most people in the first half of the 16th century didn't believe in education for women. They held the medieval belief that teaching girls to read and write would cause them to waste their time and skills on love letters.

[snip]

Husbands of upper class girls were chosen for them by their fathers or other male relatives. Very few men and women of noble birth chose their own partners.

Marriages were arranged for political reasons, to cement alliances, for riches, land, or status, and to forge bonds between two families. The idea of marrying for love was considered bizarre and foolish.

Royal marriages were contracted largely for political, military, or trade advantages. It sometimes happened that the couple never saw each other until the day of their wedding.

[snip]

A girl's chances of marriage depended more on the wealth and social position of her family than on her beauty or accomplishments (though a comely appearance and a pleasing demeanor never hurt).

The Pre contract would contain a clause calling out the terms of the bride's Dower Rights; the amount settled by her husband or father for her living expenses in case of widowhood.

Even if she was widowed, she didn't gain and keep control of those funds unless she didn't return to her father's house or remarry.

[snip]

The Tudor concept of marriage fit into what they believed was the divine order. God ruled the universe, the King ruled the country, and a husband ruled his family.

Like subjects to a King, wives were bound in obedience to their husbands and masters.

Men expected to rule their wives and thereby gain their love and reverence. They believed a man could make, shape and form the woman to his will. They thought a loving, virtuous, and obedient wife was a gift from God.

For the woman, even queens, that meant total subjection to and domination by her husband, who was often a domestic tyrant.

Marriage was a period of upheaval and adjustment for any woman. Even more so for a Queen. Often she had to face a dangerous journey to a new land and a stranger, leaving her home, family, and native land never to see them again.

Royal wives could come to enjoy considerable power and influence as did both Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. But all such power emanated from her husband. She had no authority or freedoms except those he allowed her. Without him she was nothing.

Queen consorts were housewives on a grand scale with nominal charge of vast households and many estates which produced huge revenues.

They had a battalion of officials to administer the estates for them. The Queen only controlled the income allowed to her by the King. No major transactions of any kind could even be considered without his consent.

As a matter of fact, any decisions made, from financial matters to domestic issues, were subject to his approval. Usually the Queen had a privy council appointed by the King to oversee and advise him about her affairs.

The chief duty of the Queen was to produce heirs for the succession. She was also to set a high moral tone for the court and kingdom by being the model wife, full of dignity and virtue.

[snip]

The chief function of Queens and of wives of lesser status as well, was to produce sons to ensure continuation of her husband's dynasty.

Pregnancy was usually an annual event.

Many women and babies died in the childbed. Pregnancy and birth were extremely hazardous.

The expectant mother not only prepared a layette and the nursery for her new baby, but also made arrangements for someone to care for her child if she died during childbirth.

Even if she did survive the birth she could be physically scarred for life.

There was such a lack of medical knowledge even doctors, who were usually only called in if there were complications, had no real idea of how to treat or even diagnose.

Couple that with their almost total lack of understanding of even basic hygiene, and you begin to see why so many women died.

Anne Boleyn got caught up in power games played by men, was a pawn in her own family's ambition, succumbed to the headiness of being able to get a king to make her a queen, and then failed to remember what her function was.

Today we are once again hearing the rumblings of religious fundamentalism. That fundamentalism has worked its way into our government, where the judicial branch of government is one retirement away from the addition of another Samuel Alito to the Court. This breed of justice believes that because the word "privacy" is not seen in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, there is no right to privacy. There are people in this country who would return women to their place in Tudor England -- whose role is solely that of wife, mother, breeder. They would not only make abortion a crime, but they would also turn back the clock and overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, thereby allowing states to outlaw contraception the way some states outlaw sex toys today.

While some so-called feminists have obsessed about how Hillary Clinton has been treated by the media, and whether Barack Obama has been condescending, and have been threatening to stay home or vote for John McCain in November, they're forgetting how much of the progress women have made in the last four decades is because they are no longer slaves to reproduction. I have no doubt that Anne Boleyn wanted to have a male child as much as Henry did, and her inability to do so -- perhaps caused by Henry VIII having syphilis, as one theory has it -- cost her her life. Not so long ago, NOT wanting a child one had conceived could cost a woman her life.

A John McCain presidency means an end to the reproductive freedom we've all come to take for granted. I'm hearing women say that we should allow McCain to be president so Hillary can come back triumphant in 2012. John Paul Stevens is not likely to stay on the Court another four years. 2012 is too late. The march of the Court and of this country's attitude towards women cannot afford anothe four years of a Republican president in service to the descendants of those in the early 16th century who accused intelligent women of witchcraft, and behaded women on trumped-up adultery charges because their own Y chromosomes were too weak to turn a human egg into a healthy male child, and treated women as possessions and pawns in their power games and who twisted religion and their God to justify the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

These women claim to want their daughters to live in a world where nothing is off limits to them. We've come so far since Anne Boleyn lost her head because she didn't produce a male heir. Yes, there's more progress to be had. But the road we've been on for my entire adult life comes to an end with more conservative Supreme Court justices -- justices who will rule against pay equity and the right to self-determination. So if you're a Hillary Clinton supporter who is tempted to stay home just because you believe that a woman "deserves" the chance this year, just think about what you'll have to tell your daughters about how you helped the retrogressive aims of the Christofascist Zombie Brigade make sure that the world you envisioned and hoped for never comes to pass.

Whats Up? Whats New? Whats Happening? Maron and Seder-a-thon!!

Here in the new south of Fairfield County, we're sweltering in a heat wave, and in the half hour before the Sam Seder Show, complete with the Sammy Cam (!!) I'm looking at whats coming up this week and...yeah, its Columbus day tomorrow which is another opportunity for me to sleep late (8 AM, big-whoop) and then I can rail about how much I hate Columbus Day and all it stands for; and I don't mean Italian-American pride either. I think they should just rename the whole shebang Italian-American Day, and call it a...uh...day!
Take back your pox blankets boys...put your scurvy teeth back in your smelly head, and vamoose. I'm sure that Columbus was a brave guy, and I know that its human nature to explore, migrate, to and take over other lands...we are warlike creatures and the only way to survive is to appropriate the resources that are out there. But, do we have to celebrate it? Give the Italians a day of their own, and give it a rest...

In great news for the liberal voice, (besides that Sam is about to be on, streaming here, or...good luck finding a terrestrial signal,) Marc Maron will be guest hosting the Rachel Maddow Show on Monday and Tuesday, October 8th and 9th; then he will be appearing at Comix Friday and Saturday, October 12th and 13th; then, on Sunday the 14th, at Union Hall in Brooklyn (for a short set,) and THEN Monday at Mo' Pickin's House of Satisfaction on the lower east side of Manhattan/Ave A. For those of you who were hopeful that this might mean something in the way of the Greens/AAR suits being smart enough to offer him a show, no such luck right now....Though I'm sure that your cards and letters and email couldn't hurt.

This guy is one of the hardest working men in showbiz, and if HBO-Showtime-FX or the like, don't give him his own talk show soon, there is no justice in the world... which there actually isn't, so there you have it....a perfectly Maron equation...
For those of us on the east coast who were sorta getting used to having that guy living amongst us, lo those couple-a years, we unfortunately are not gonna get him here in person for a whole extra week before his Comix gig. He is apparently taping the Maddow show from sunny LA-LA...and the quickly evolving Marc-Sammy VodCast that is offered live HERE every Tuesday at 11 AM, EST, can be done, on Marc's end, from anywhere...but is also being taped from LA. Just refresh the page a few times if you don't see both screens. Its a great show and its going to be really fun to watch it develop.

In the embarrassment of riches department of this coming week, Sam Seder is filling in for Mike Malloy at Nova M, Monday to Friday from 9PM to midnight, EST. Its almost like the good old days....but unfortunately AAR can't see the forest OR the trees...

As if THAT wasn't enough, Elizabeth: The Golden Age is opening on Friday!

Bird News: My lil' parrotlets laid 2 eggs...and they are tiny. Think of smaller than a mini marshmallow....and my second frizzle baby is still holding on in the incubator but I'm a little worried about that one. Its also really little!...Why do birds make me happy? I don't know...but I'm holding on to whatever happiness I can get my hands on these days...


and yes...theres more...theres always more...

Cross posted at RIPCoco with pictures!

Introducing the new B@B program, "Entertainment Every Now and Then"

Tonight on EENT:

Henry VIII as Elvis
If you're a Tudor England buff, or if you just like ripsnorting costume drama, then don't miss The Tudors on Showtime this Sunday night at 9. I wrote about it a bit here after watching episode 1 online. If you haven't yet had a chance to catch it, you can whet your appetite here. Showtime is showing episodes 1 and 2, but they are Flash files that are for some reason just unwatchable. Presumably their servers are getting hammered. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, the Irish actor who won a Golden Globe for playing Elvis Presley, portrays Henry VIII as a combination of Elvis and Alex deLarge in A Clockwork Orange. It's truly bizarro stuff, complete with a gay subplot and strange compressions of time that have a young, hot Henry pursuing Anne Boleyn instead of one already on the cusp of middle age. But if you, like me, have been finding yourself reading Philippa Gregory's turgid and clunky Tudor novels and being unable to tear yourself away from them, this is right up your alley.

And Straight Guys All Over America are Groaning
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the movies; now that Kate Winslet is a thirtysomething mother of two with five Oscar® nominations under her belt and Leonardo DiCaprio finally looks old enough to order a beer, the Titanic stars, crows-feet and all, are reuniting on the big screen in a film directed by Kate's hubby, Sam Mendes:

Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are teaming for the first time since "Titanic" to star in DreamWorks' "Revolutionary Road."
Sam Mendes will direct the pic, based on the acclaimed 1961 novel by Richard Yates about post-war disillusionment.

John N. Hart, Scott Rudin, Bobby Cohen and Mendes, who's married to Winslet, will produce in association with BBC Films.

Yates' heart-rending and bleak tome, celebrated for its storytelling style, follows a seemingly happy suburban couple with two children in the mid-1950s who find themselves caught between their true desires and the pressure to conform -- with explosive consequences.

Mendes begins lensing this summer from an adapted screenplay by scribe Justin Haythe, said DreamWorks chair-CEO Stacey Snider.

Paramount Pictures has worldwide rights.

"As one of the most venerated post-war American novels, it is both fitting and thrilling that it's come together with this extraordinary group of artists," Rudin said.

The idea of the most hyped on-screen lovers of the 1990's portraying an unhappy married couple is so delightfully twisted it's downright inspired. Color me psyched.

And finally, with next Sunday's premiere of the final season of The Sopranos you should note that the building that has portrayed Satriale's Pork Store throughout the series is being torn down and turned into condos and a parking garage. No word on whether demolition contractors expect to find any of Richie Aprile's body parts.

(Apologies to ModFab for treading on the turf he always handles so much better.)

When men put country over king

It isn't easy to stand up to the Bush Junta. Many have tried, and have either turned up conveniently dead or had their careers destroyed. When we wonder why would-be rebellious Republicans and the so-called opposition cave into a president with a 30% approval rating again and again and again, you have to wonder just what is being threatened.

David Iglesias used to be regarded as an up-and-comer by the Bush justice department. Here is a guy who was involved in the military hazing case that became the film A Few Good Men. But he learned recently what happens when you dare to cross the Bush Family and their own personal Paulie Walnuts, Karl Rove.

Iglesias isn't going quietly, though:

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

[snip]

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

But Karl Rove did, because the Rove modus operandi is to win elections by any means necessary, as Digby notes here. And in fact, the entire prosecutor purge may be the result of Karl Rove's tantrum that the fired prosecutors put the rule of law ahead of serving the King.

Last night I watched the first episode of The Tudors, the new series on Showtime that is certainly unlike any other Henry VIII telling you've ever seen. We're used to seeing big, brawny, loud, larger-than-life guys like Robert Shaw, Brendan Gleeson Ray Winstone, Keith Michell and Charles Laughton play the much-married monarch. But this telling is different. Forgetting for a moment about the frequent, explicit-for-cable, bodice-ripping sex, this series, which features the unlikely casting of the dissolute-looking Irish actor Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as a young Henry, portrays a spoiled, impetuous, war-seeking monarch like George W. Bush only with Bill Clinton's libido. Like Bush, this Henry is surrounded by ambitious sycophants like Sam Neill's terrifically corrupt Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, with Jeremy Northam's suprisingly effective Sir Thomas More serving as the King's Conscience (and we all know already where THAT got him).

The whole things is deliriously and deliciously over-the-top, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness -- as when Henry lustily splits and greedily devours the insides of a juicy pomegranate right before no doubt similarly devouring one of his wife's chambermaids. But when you listen to the dialogue about the advisability of war, and look at the men feeding this king's lust for battle, there's no doubt of whom the scriptwriters were thinking when they wrote this script.

The story of Henry VIII is one of those historical events, like the sinking of the Titanic, that is timeless and always relevant, as well as being one of which we never tire. But even all these years on, no one has yet written a revisiionist history claiming that Sir Thomas More was the bad guy and that Henry VIII was right to cut off his head. But the royalist Bush family and their Republican lackeys have learned nothing from their British history, and they continue to make the same mistake of believing that history looks kindly on those who persecute the righteous.