Reasonably Ascertainable Reality

An Historic Day

2008-11-05T15:28:00.002-05:00

Today is an historic day. We've once again seen the peaceful transition of power from one president to the next and the next just happens to be an African-American in a country where a generation ago, discrimination and 'separate but equal' was the law of the land. It truly is amazing.
I thought I'd post an email I recieved from a friend who is British and a doctor living in London:

i'm on night shifts and i watched the election. quite exciting. it was covered the whole way through.
obama is inspitarational. it is amazing. it showed everybody a different america. normally the rest of the world doesn't get to see the good qualities of ordinary americans, but i think this campaign will change all that. the energy of the campaign, as well as the victory, and the turnout showed the world that americans are brave, and bold, and full of energy and belief in change and a better future, a better wold. that the young, and the old and the african american vote, and former hardcore republicans as well as the majority of regular fair-minded democrats could mount this take-over is testament to a national faith and intelligence that the last eight years had cast into doubt. that barack hussein obama was chosen, despite public announcements that he was a socialist and a terrorist, makes this a transformative moment for America and therefore the world. well done you.

I had previously written to my friend that my hope was that at long last, our eight year national embarrassment would soon be over. And it is...who knows what is to come. But what I believe is that IF things can change, the best hope is Obama. Maybe things won't and it will be business as usual -- do nothing government that is out for interest groups and not the American people. If so, we'll have lost nothing. But the chance there is something better out there was too much to deny.

Scott McClellan....

2008-05-30T11:55:00.004-05:00

Better or worse than the Bruce Ismay (White Star Lines executive) character from Titanic who boards the life raft with women and children?

Discuss.

You see, thats basically what Scotty's done. Scotty was part and parcel of the Bush Administration. Right in the thick of it...standing at the podium and feeding the MORE than willing press corps, and the American people, lie after lie, after lie.

But now, the ship is going down. Some people have gotten to the life rafts already, to try and salvage their reputations, or what is left of them. But there aren't enough life rafts for everyone and time has already expired for anyone with a conscience to have spoken up about what actually was happening in the inner circle of the White House.

Enter Scotty. He'll be damned if he's going down with the ship. So he slyly jumps on board the last remaining raft to salvage his reputation. Unfortunately, as with Ismay, trying to save yourself this late only makes you look infinitely worse.

Because, now you see, we already know what you are trying to do. We see your shame for what it is. We know you SAT BY IDLY while this was going on. Worse than that, you participated fully in feeding it all to us. All the lies. All the propaganda. All of it. Its more than too little too late. The horse left the barn and you are trying to shut the door.

If you read one article about McLellan, and of course, his detractors and the defenders (still!) of the Bush Administration, read this one:

We confess that here at McClatchy, which purchased Knight Ridder two years ago, we do have a dog in this fight. Our team - Joe Galloway, Clark Hoyt, Jon Landay, Renee Schoof, Warren Strobel, John Walcott, Tish Wells and many others - was, with a few exceptions, the only major news media organization that before the war consistently and aggressively challenged the White House's case for war, and its lack of planning for post-war Iraq.
...
* The Bush administration was gunning for Iraq within days of the 9/11 attacks, dispatching a former CIA director, on a flight authorized by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to find evidence for a bizarre theory that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. (Note: See also Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on this point).
* Bush decided by February 2002, at the latest, that he was going to remove Saddam by hook or by crook. (Yes, we reported that at the time).
* White House officials, led by Dick Cheney, began making the case for war in August 2002, in speeches and reports that not only were wrong, but also went well beyond what the available intelligence said at that time, and contained outright fantasies and falsehoods. Indeed, some of that material was never vetted with the intelligence agencies before it was peddled to the public.* Dissenters, or even those who voiced worry about where the policy was going, were ignored, excluded or punished. (Note: See Gen. Eric Shinseki, Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson and all of the State Department 's Arab specialists and much of its intelligence bureau).

Hungry for more? Read the whole thing. There were dissenting voices at the time. I didn't make up my mind based on fantasy to protest this war or to oppose it at time. The media, the administration and yes, you Scotty, are responsible for this entire debacle. No life raft will save you now.

hat tip Glenn.

Interesting perspective on the Immigration debate

2008-05-14T12:28:00.002-05:00

One of the points I keep hearing being raised in discussions with people over immigration is that they are afraid that our "way of life" will change should we keep allowing all of this immigration. My point was always that we need to do something about illegal immigration, but that it was silly to think our way of life would change. I always figured that common sense would say that within one or two generations, those immigrant's children and grandchildren would be just as Americanized as you or I. Now, there is proof.

Immigrants of the past quarter-century have been assimilating in the United States at a notably faster rate than did previous generations, according to a study released today.

The study, sponsored by the Manhattan Institute, a New York think tank, used census and other data to devise an assimilation index to measure the degree of similarity between the United States' foreign-born and native-born populations. These included civic factors, such as rates of U.S. citizenship and service in the military; economic factors, such as earnings and rates of homeownership; and cultural factors, such as English ability and degree of intermarriage with U.S. citizens. The higher the number on a 100-point index, the more an immigrant resembled a U.S. citizen.

The report found, however, that the speed with which new arrivals take on native-born traits has increased since the 1990s. As a result, even though the foreign population doubled during that period, the newcomers did not drive down the overall assimilation index of the foreign-born population. Instead, it held relatively steady from 1990 to 2006.
"This is something unprecedented in U.S. history," Vigdor said. "It shows that the nation's capacity to assimilate new immigrants is strong."

I don't think that there is any denying that something must be done about illegal immigration. But the sentiment that we should stop immigration, particularly from Mexico, because somehow our way of life is threatened, seems to be to more fueled by the color of the immigrant's skin rather than whether our way of life is actually threatened.

Which Category does this fall into?

2008-05-14T12:13:00.002-05:00

Is it the "ticking time bomb" scenario whereby torture must be legal in case a hypothetical person knows of a hypothetical incident that we could hypothetrically stop?

Or is it the Rush Limbaugh "fraternity hazing" type of torture?

The alleged torture, which he detailed in a written statement, included being beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female personnel.

Either way, I guess it was our bad, eh?

The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was alleged to have been the so-called "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks, his U.S. military defense lawyer said Monday.

How anyone could not be ashamed that their country is behaving this way is beyond me. This administration is chock full of war crimials, and there is really no other way to say it.

The attorney said he could not comment on the reasons for the dismissal until discussing the case with lawyers for the other five defendants. Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subjected to a harsh interrogation authorized by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Then again, I guess it was just "harsh interrogation".

This made me want to post...

2008-04-20T15:59:00.002-05:00

This is a wonderful, inspirational story that shows what a small group of people can do...they can make a difference. Or at least start to make one...

South African port and truck workers are refusing to move weapons from a ship that docked in the country on its way to Zimbabwe, union officials said Friday.

The move could add to pressure on South African President Thabo Mbeki to take a harder line on Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who is accused of withholding the results of an election his opposition says it won. Mbeki has argued that Mugabe is unlikely to respond to a confrontational approach.

..."How positive it is that ordinary dockers have refused to allow that boat to go further," Robinson said during a conference in Senegal on governance in Africa. "They as individuals have taken the responsibility. Because they believe it's not right."

One should note of course that China is the country supplying weapons to Zimbabwe...and also the country hosting this years summer Olympics. I don't agree with disrupting the Olympics, as atheletes have been training for this stage their whole lives and have no say in the host-country, but I also believe that protesting, without disruption, is appropriate. China shouldn't get a free pass -- the world's eye is on them, and the view isn't pretty.

via.

L'Affaire Spitzer

2008-03-12T12:56:00.002-05:00

So Eliot Spitzer resigned today. I have no sympathy for him at all. He is no less of a hypocrite than Larry Craig and David Vitter and the family-values-loving Republicans who talk a good talk but don't feel that they have to walk the walk.

Like most, I feel extremely sorry for his family and especially his wife. I agree this practice of trotting out the wife for her public embarrassment must stop. Its utterly contemptable that he brings his wife to stand there at a news conference while he apologizes to his constituents. I'd wonder what she was thinking to agree, but I tend to think it was something along the lines of "my entire family is ruined, my marriage is a sham, my children are hurt beyond words, ...oh, what was that? Stand here? ok...what do I do now? How can I repair my family...". You get the point.

The absolutely WORST part of all this is a little nugget that came out today which indicates that as Client 9, Spitzer asked a prostitute about some "dangerous" activities. It turns out, that activitiy was "bare-backing", or having sex without a condomn. You know what Eliot? Do whatever you want to your own body. But potentially exposing your spouse to STD's or any other consequences of having sex with someone who has sex for a living is downright, utterly reprehensible. I was about to say there is nothing worse about this scandal, but then I saw that Dr. Laura was on the Today Show this morning speaking about why poor, little, victimized men cheat:

Dr. SCHLESSINGER: Men do need validation. I mean, when they come into the world, they're born of a woman and getting the validation from Mommy is the beginning of needing it from a woman. And when the wife does not focus in on the needs and the feelings, sexually, personally, to make him feel like a man, to make him feel like a success, to make him feel like her hero, he's very susceptible to the charm of some other woman making him feel what he needs. And these days, women don't spend a lot of time thinking about how they can give their men what they need.

VIEIRA: But you--are you saying the women should feel guilty, like they somehow drove the man to cheat?

Dr. SCHLESSINGER: You know what, the cheating was his decision to repair what's damaged and to feed himself where he's starving. But, yes, I hold women accountable for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.

Why is this vile woman on national TV? Why is she validated by being given a platform? Absolutely disgusting.

I liked this

2008-02-28T16:44:00.002-05:00

Haven't been leaning Hillary lately -- but had to post this because its great...and true.

Some quick hits

2008-02-26T13:41:00.002-05:00

Obama:

"This is where I get to be honest and I hope I'm not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress. And frankly some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have to have an honest dialogue about."

More, please. Its not that Hillary Clinton believes or doesn't believe this. I have no idea. What I do know, is that she would never say it. I'm tired, so tired, of having politicians who are afraid of speaking the truth, because it might not sit well with certain constituencies.

Have we all successfully formed opinions on Obama and his dressing in traditional Kenyan attire? As if it matters? No, you haven't? Well, good. Because Hillary's flacks are here to help you form one:

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones: "I have no shame, or no problem, with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, in the clothing of his country." Hmmm, last time I checked, Obama was born in the USA.

As I said to my mother and aunt the other day, for God's sake Hillary Clinton's team does nothing but make her look bad. So either she has horrible judgement skills on who is spinning for her, or she's really trying to pull the wool over people's eyes and yell "boo...Kenya...muslim" and hope people vote for her. Sad. Better put by Christopher Orr:

"At this point, it seems to me there are really only two plausible interpretations: Either Stephanie Tubbs Jones is an imbecile, and the Clinton campaign is enormously unlucky that it keeps looking as though they're trying to paint Obama as an exotic, probably Muslim foreigner. Or the Clinton campaign is trying to paint Obama as an exotic, probably Muslim foreigner, and they think they can get away with the smear as long as they add, "not that there's anything wrong with that."

One of the reasons I lean towards Obama is that try as everyone might, he never seems to take the bait. He never pulls the typical, Democratic, tail-between-the-legs, bullshit responses. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, he responds exactly as he should. On the holier-than-thou flag lapel pin controversy, intead of insulting my intelligence and telling me how much he loves America and hates The Terrorists, he said:

"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?
"That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."

Exactly right. Obama has been taking some ugly attacks. So has Hillary. One has responded in the way that I have been wanting people to respond to these right-wing attacks for the past 7 years -- since 9/11, and thats Obama. The pickup of the Dodd endorsement today only strengthens his case, in my mind. Chris Dodd has not been very popular on the campaign trail, but he's been doing the unpopular work on the FISA debate and is not afraid to stand for something that others will mischaracterize as "giving the terrorists our rights"!

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Hillary. She is just not making her case very well, in my opinion and trying to scare people into thinking Obama is some exotic Muslim foreigner only makes her seem like a right-wing hack.

Things that Piss Me Off

2008-02-26T11:01:00.003-05:00

You're pro-choice. Does that interfere with being an evangelical?

Well, I don't like the [pro-choice] label. I guess the reason I wrote about abortion the way I did in the book is because I have serious moral concerns about abortion, but I don't believe that it should be illegal. And that puts me in the vast majority of Americans. But unfortunately, there's no label for us.

Yes, there is. You are PRO-CHOICE.

This is the crap that pisses me off -- when right-wing nutters who want to change the debate start using the phrase "pro-abortion" it makes people believe that if you are pro-choice, that must mean you just love abortions.

Abortions are just awesome, aren't they? When my sister got pregnant, I told her I was pro-choice (meaning pro-abortion, natch) and suggested she get an abortion. She didnt...alas, that must make her pro-life.

This is stupid. If you are pro-choice, it means you do not think that it should be illegal to get an abortion and that if a woman wants to get an abortion, that option should be available to her. END of STORY. Women who allow others to change the definitions of what "pro-choice" means, only demonize other women and allow those that would take that choice away from you more power. Get a clue Amy.

Via.

Blogging...explained

2008-02-20T12:58:00.003-05:00

Its a mysterious phenomenon, thankfully explained by XKCD in one picture:

Via.

In case anyone was wondering...

2008-02-14T16:50:00.002-05:00

Just a few words from Silvestre Reyes to counter the fear-mongerers on the right:

"First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year - until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark.

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes."

Hat Tip.

Shall we re-visit how right-wingers are trying to scare you? Sure...why not.

Andy McCarthy: "In today's article, I catalogue some of the problems with the Senate bill which would overhaul FISA — while explaining that the bill absolutely must be passed by the House or our foreign intelligence collection is going to collapse."

Michelle Malkin: "The frenzy over FISA is a stark reminder of basic party differences on the War on Terror. The Republicans put security first. The Democrats put trial lawyers, terrorists’ rights, and election campaigns first. The Republicans are acting to prevent another 9/11. The Democrats are stuck in a 9/10 world. "

Republican Leader John Boehner: "Delaying action on a long-term modernization bill puts our national security at risk"

President Bush: "The House's failure to pass the bipartisan Senate bill would jeopardize the security of our citizens. As Director McConnell has told me, without this law, our ability to prevent new attacks will be weakened. And it will become harder for us to uncover terrorist plots"

As Kevin Drum says: "Look, if it's that important, there's a simple answer: pass the bill without telecom immunity. Then come back and introduce immunity in a separate bill. If you've got the votes for it, fine. If not, too bad. "

Do we really need to answer that?

Is there Anything Better?

2008-02-04T11:48:00.000-05:00

Eat it, Eagles fans.

FISA Madness

2008-01-28T14:13:00.000-05:00

Well, a big day in the Senate as debate on reauthorization of the Protect Amercia Act -- my god that name alone strikes Orwellian fear in my heart -- rages.

I have asked this before and have yet to get an unqualified, reasonable answer. I've gone looking for answers on right-wing blogs...still nothing. So I'll throw it out there.

How does having to obtain a warrant endanger national security? Now, all responses must include conscious knowledge of the fact that FISA allows the government up to 72 hours (3 days) to conduct surveillance and obtain a retroactive warrant.

Please, someone educate me.

Now this is what I call Sexism

2008-01-24T12:57:00.000-05:00

There seems to be some think skins in the blogosphere lately. Calling out "racism" and "sexism" at every opportunity really does nothing but diminish the meaning of those words. Not that I haven't been sympathetic to some of those charges, but others were ridiculous.

Anyone wondering, possibly, what a sexist attack against Hillary Clinton would really look like? Well, here you go (hat tip Ezra).

Get it? No, no really...don't you get it? Cunt. Its hilarious. No...I'm sure its just a coincidence. Really. No, no..please, by all means...continue this and Hillary will get 60% of the vote, you band of slimeballs.

Finally cracking down on that filibustering...

2008-01-24T09:18:00.000-05:00

Let's all say a great "thank you" to Harry Reid. While the Republicans threatened at filibustering almost every single Democratic introduced legislation, Harry Reid, being the gentlemen he is, never actually made them filibuster the legislation. Even though their threats were completely unprecedented. Even though it is the Democrats who are getting blamed for accomplishing nothing in their first year since taking over the majority.

But thankfully for all of us, Harry Reid is finally cracking down. On Chris Dodd, his fellow Democrat, who is attempting to block legislation that will give retroactive immunity to telecoms who broke the law by providing access to telephone records to the Bush Administration in their never-ending quest to run-around the requirements of the FISA law.

Harry Reid:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

Many others are commenting. I would hope the candidates for President would join John Edwards in providing leadership on this issue. Chris Dodd is doing an immense service and I respect and admire his leadership on this issue.

I intend to contact Harry Reid and express my disgust at his leadership on this issue. I encourage others to do the same.

Department of Unintended Hilarity

2008-01-23T19:27:00.000-05:00

Has anyone seen the commercial for this product -- Aciphex?

I mean, am I missing something here? I'm no marketing genius... but really. Has no one, not one person in their company or their ad agency, actually listened to the commercial?

To wit -- "Jennifer Aniston's aciphex men in mysterious ways."

Please, try harder.

TERRORIST MASTERMIND SENTENCED

2008-01-22T16:40:00.000-05:00

Terrorist mastermind and Dirty Bomber...er, oh wait a minute...

Terrorist conspirator SOOOO dangerous that he was held for 3 and 1/2 years without access to an attorney, in solitary confinement, incommunicado, and treated so harshly he could not assist in his own defense, Jose Padilla, was sentenced today to 17 years in prison.

Lets remember kiddies, he faced life in prison and was accused of attempting to set off a "dirty bomb" in Chicago. Lets also remember one very important fact -- his constitutional rights as an American citizen were so flagrantly violated as to make anyone defending how he was treated to seem completely out of touch with that quaint little document called the Constitution.

Cooke said she was giving Padilla some credit -- over the objections of federal prosecutors -- for his lengthy military detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina. She agreed with defense lawyers that Padilla was subjected to "harsh conditions" and "extreme environmental stresses" while there.
"I do find that the conditions were so harsh for Mr. Padilla ... they warrant consideration in the sentencing in this case," the judge said.

This case was a farce from the start. As the judge said...

"There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped or killed anyone in the United States or elsewhere," she said.

Absolutely disgraceful and I hope that history sees this for it is -- one of the most flagrant violations of Constitutional rights in this country's history. Sad. But hey, we all feel safer now right?

"Best Party Evah"

2008-01-17T19:33:00.000-05:00

This is great. It doesnt get really good until the end when the reporter keeps pushing this kid to take off his glasses.

Dammit

2008-01-16T11:11:00.001-05:00

You know those annoying couples who finish each other sentences? Yeah, I do too.

As much as I love Andrew Sullivan, and I truly do respect his point of view and read him daily, I was literally just about the post about this. Its all just a bit too hysterical, a bit too obsessive and a bit too conspiratorial.

So then, I went to Balloon Juice just to see if my buddy John Cole had any new posts up, and luckily he does, and of course, he says it better than I could.

A few days ago (January 10th), I sent Andrew an email that said this:

Andrew,

I love ya...but you are going a bit off the deep end here. First the "buddy system" and now Anne Rice calling her "Hillary" is sexist? Obama and Edwards did gang up on her a bit and rather than say gang up, she used 'buddy system". What is HILLARY supposed to say? The "non-gender specific tag-team?" Hillary has always been known as "Hillary" and not simply Clinton or Senator Clinton. She causes some of the same feelings in me, though not as viscerally, as she does in you and I also find myself hoping along with Obama. I'm not particulary hoping for her to be the nominee. But c'mon man! Lets not look too deep.

Andrew, please, just go under self-imposed, cold-turkey Hillary avoidance for a day or two. It would do you some good.

Which is more disturbing?

2008-01-16T08:30:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadir:

"According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country,” Mr. Qadir said in an interview on Monday, conducted in Arabic through an interpreter.
“In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020."

I have to go with the latter, as the first has a chance of not getting elected, where the USA has absolutely no chance of getting out of Iraq, basically...ever.

More on Ron Paul

2008-01-11T16:31:00.000-05:00

Libertarian Radly Balko has a great explanation of the suspension of belief that Ron Paul is asking his supporters to do in order to look past the now infamous newsletters (hat tip Megan McCardle).

Paul talks in the Blitzer interview about how the drug war has disproportionately sent black people to prison. He's right. Black people use drugs in proportions only slightly higher than their share of the general population. But the proportion of blacks in prison for drugs crimes is substantially higher. They are far more likely to get arrested for drug crimes, far more likely to be convicted, and even when facing similar charges, tend to receive longer sentences than whites.

...I have no idea if Paul is a racist. I suspect that he isn’t, at least today. But he’s certainly had no problem benefiting from the support of people who are. It’s more than a little disingenuous for him to now defend himself by invoking what the criminal justice system has done to the black community when for fifteen years a newsletter bearing his name, and the profits from which went into his bank account, celebrated and encouraged the black-people-are-savage-criminals lie in particularly vile and perverse ways.

Emphasis mine. And this is why, whether you believe these newsletters reflect his views or not, they couldn't show him in a more poor light. One of the things that draws people to Ron Paul is his willingness to talk about things, to say and do things, that others won't or are too afraid to. His views on foreign policy are a prime example -- being more humble and not looking for excuses to go to war. If President Paul's Secretary of Defense went into the Middle East and said the Israel had started every major war or that the Palestinians were 'savages', would Paul's defense be that these aren't his views?

The Ron Paul brand is as important as Ron Paul the person. Thats why the newsletters can't be excused. And that is what is so disappointing. His stances alone of the foreign policy and the drug war are so encouraging -- and now, back to the fringe they go.

Past vs. Present

2008-01-10T14:57:00.000-05:00

Barney Frank has a very eloquent and passionate op-ed in the Huffington Post today, responding to a major theme of the Obama campaign -- namely that Obama doesn't want to "refight the fights we had in the 90's". (hat tip -- John Cole) With all due respect to Barney, I think he's missing Obama's point. Its not the real policy fights he wants to avoid, but the bitter, bitter silliness that went on through the 90's, that a Clinton nomination, and election, will certainly provoke.

This is a debate that has been ongoing in the blogosphere for a few weeks now and has been commented on by both right and left wing blogs. John Cole himself has been bringing this up along with his somewhat related criticism of Obama's lack of substanative policy speeches or proposals.

But Frank's op-ed gets at the heart of what I believe is the struggle for most liberals in whether to support Obama or Hillary (most Edwards supporters are flat-out Edwards supporters). You see...I think everyone is tired of the past 16 years. The past 16 years where 50% of the country hated the other 50%. Where disagreeing with someone, was not just a difference of opinions, but an admission of any number of evil personality traits (treasonous, unpatriotic, Nazi, fascist...I could go on). In fact, as Frank says:

It was Gingrich and his right wing allies who decided to inject a much harsher note of partisanship by explicitly rejecting the notion that the Democrats were honorable people with whom they disagreed, and instead decided, as Gingrich's own printed and taped materials argued, to portray us as treasonous, corrupt, immoral and otherwise vile. And when Gingrich was forced by his own flaws to step aside, Tom DeLay took up those cudgels with a little less rhetorical flourish but with an even heavier hand.

I think people who are supporting Obama and are excited by his campaign, as I myself am, really feel like this is a chance to put that all behind us. Is this naive? Probably, yes. But perhaps the feeling is, if there is a chance, the chance exists with Obama and not with Hillary. Rightly so, the counter argument is, in the current political environment, while Hillary would invite more scorn, she is also the candidate most likely to fight back stronger, harder and more successful than Obama.

So the question literally becomes "dare to hope for a change" or "resign yourself to what you know will come to pass anyway."

Glenn Greenwald had a great post about whats likely to come down the pike should Obama be the nominee anyway, and I think his points are valid.

There's a prevailing sense that Obama is not as offensive to the right-wing GOP faction as other Democratic and liberal candidates in the past have been, or that he's less "divisive" among them than Hillary. And that's true: for now, while he tries to take down the individual who has long provoked the most intense hatred -- literally-- among the Right. But anyone who doesn't think that that's all going to change instantaneously if Obama is the nominee hasn't been watching how this faction operates over the last 20 years. Hatred is their fuel. Just look at the bottomless personal animus they managed to generate over an anemic, mundane, inoffensive figure like John Kerry. At their Convention, they waved signs with band-aids mocking his purple hearts while cheering on two combat-avoiders.

The idealist in me wants to support Obama and wants to believe in the hope that he really is someone who can bring parts of both sides together and end the division in this country. Or least amerliorate it. The cynic in me wants Hillary in there to weather the eventual storm. I honestly just haven't decided yet which path I want to follow. I won't be able to vote in NJ's primary, as I'm not registered to either party, so right now, my thoughts are just those.

I do think it's a battle for most liberals/democrats between either explicitly hoping or wanting to hope he can transcend it all, just maybe, and knowing it's just politics as usual and wanting the proverbial Rocky to take the punches and bring it home in spite of them.

But as for Barney, he is dead-on. No one should be ashamed of fighting the policy fights and they should be fighting even harder now.

Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?

2008-01-09T21:39:00.000-05:00

Over at Andrew Sullivan's, a debate is raging over evolution.

No, not that debate. But whether evolution is a theory or a law. I believe the final shoe dropped tonight.

But I must echo Andrew's sentiments and if you know me, this isn't the first time I've expressed this. Simply put, if you don't believe in evolution, you are not smart enough to be President. Not. Smart. Enough.

There, I said it.

Intelligent people believe evidence. For crying out loud, I 100% believe that God created the universe, the earth and all the people in it and I still believe in evolution. These things are not mutually exclusive -- unless you are one of those people who believe that the guy in the bible who said 7 days, meant 7 actual, 24-hour days. Because, ya know...God has to clock in and out now doesn't he.

New & Improved for 2008

2008-01-07T14:26:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm going to be blogging more in upcoming months as the election heats up and I have more to say. 2008 will definitely contain more blogging than 2007 because God knows we need another opinion out there in the blogosphere. I have never let up on my pace of reading blogs, just in commenting. Some quick hits with more to come...

Obama: I like you, heck, I actually believe you. More of the same please.

Edwards: I always liked you and believed in your passion. If the best they can come up with is your hair is expertly coiffed and you made millions by working your butt off, I'd call that pretty damn good.

Clinton: Don't make me vote for her. I will, but I don't want to.

Richardson: Time to drop out buddy.

Biden/Dodd: Keep talking guys...intelligent people are listenting to the only two out there who aren't afraid to say and do what needs to be said and done.

Romney: Fake, liar, poseur and whatever other word you can conjure up that means absolutely "no principles". C'mon, it must get better than this right?

Huckabee: You reap what you sow, Republicans. Every anti-gay, values voters, etc...speech of the last 8 years finally REALLY mobilized all those envangelicals. Now you actually have to deal with them.

McCain: Can you teach an old dog new tricks? Despite the past eight years, I still have a modicum of respect for you. The only Republican who I would even consider, albeit remotely.

Guiliani: Such a scary thought. Anyone ever watch the Family Guy where Lois runs for mayor? That's what this commercial is. Pathetic.

Ron Paul: Actual principles. I might not believe in them, but probably the most principled guy in the entire race, on either side. If people stopped micharacterizing his positions, we might actually be able to intelligently debate the issues he brings to the table.

**1/8/07 Update**: Ouch. This hurts. While I find Paul principled, and stated that I don't agree with many of the things he believes, this story will hurt him immensely. I think his apology/statement makes sense, but then again, not knowing how these 'newletters' work, I'm somewhat at a loss. It certainly doesn't jive with his libertarian principles that he has campaigned on admirably and in the face of accusations that didn't have merit but could also have hurt him (9/11 truthers, etc). If your name is on something, you have a responsibility for what that something says -- I live this everyday in the consulting field. At the very, very least, it makes Paul look completely and utterly careless with his reputation. At worst, well...homophobic and bigoted. I think that is a stretch given his stand on things.

When someone disavows past positions, whether for political expediency, it is usually because they have a true and realistic chance at power. Ron Paul, whatever his historic and amazing fundraising and support levels are, can not believe this to be true, and could not have thought that at the beginning of his campaign before his support was mobilized as it is now. His message however, has been consistent. And he disavowed these writings back in 1999, before he was on any national radar. I'm prone to believe this is carelessness, but again, that still neither excuses it or speaks well to Paul's responsibility.

Thompson: Yawn. Do you even want it? I'm not sure. And quite frankly, I kind of trust you. But you are a good actor. Do I trust you or that guy from Hunt for Red October? That is what scares me.

Anyway, more to come.

Wothy of a post

2007-06-07T13:17:00.000-05:00

Well, I haven't posted in ages. I suppose mostly due to discontent with our current political discourse and not having really much to add -- in a positive manner-- to it. Still reading blogs, as always.

I read something today that I find not only interesting, but monumentally important and wanted to share.

Money quote:

But I would like to give pause to all those who imagine that Iran is a place of undifferentiated evil, malice, oppression, and fanaticism, or our natural and rightful enemy. There is hope there. The difficult question is how best we might nurture it.

Hopefully, not at the end of a gun. Please read the whole thing.

Disgusting

2007-03-20T12:16:00.000-05:00

There's only one word for this move by the Democrats in the House, and that is disgusting.

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for
lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass
an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.

...For Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), there is $25 million for spinach growers
hurt by last year's E. coli scare. For three conservative Democrats in Georgia,
there is $75 million for peanut storage. For lawmakers from the bone-dry West,
there is $500 million for wildfire suppression. An additional $120 million is
earmarked for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen.

This pork is stuffed in the Iraq spending bill. Listen, if there isn't enough support for your bill, you lost. Plain and simple. These kinds of tactics are corrupt and disgusting and just show that not much changes no matter who you vote for. This country deserves better than 95% of the Congressmen and women now serving.

Interesting Budget Analysis

2007-02-22T09:33:00.000-05:00

How's that for a post title? Reasonably Ascertainable Reality -- sponsoring naps everywhere!

Check out this article by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone regarding some interesting 2008 Bush Administration budget analysis done by the office of Congressmen Bernie Sanders.

A teaser:

Sanders's office came up with some interesting numbers here. If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.

Some other notable estimate estate tax breaks, versus corresponding cuts:

Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts
Nordstrom family (Nordstrom dept. stores) receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut
Ernest Gallo family (shitty wines) receives a $468.4 million cut while LIHEAP (heating oil to poor) would get a $420 million cut

And so on and so on. Sanders additionally pointed out that the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks. Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children.

Listen, I can understand arguments regarding capitalistic tendancies and "making and keeping" your own money. But budget development is a series of choices. Choices regarding the good of the country and society. ALL OF SOCIETY. Is repealing the estate tax, which affects approximately the top 2/10ths of the top 1% of the people in this country, really as important as cutting funding for Medicaid, which provided health care services to approximately 40 million people in 2002 -- 18.4 million of them children?

h/t: Pandagon

Sorry, but I call "bullshit"

2007-01-30T16:28:00.000-05:00

This video seems to be making the rounds of the right-wing blogosphere, with directives of "lefties should watch this" and such.

The jist of the video is that some American troops think that people back home "can't have it both ways." That if we "support the troops", we have to support them all the way, including their mission. I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

First of all, lets ignore the huge numbers of active duty troops in Iraq who don't agree with the mission. I guess they don't support the "troops" either. And you know, those veterans of this War, like Patrick Murphy, in Congress? Yeah, they don't support the troops either. And you know, veterans of other American wars like Vietnam, yeah, they don't support the troops either.

Second of all, and I don't think I'm making any intellectual news here, but I think that most people in this country understand that when the country "decides" to go to war, it isnt the place of the armed forces to decide if they support the mission and if they are going to participate. They joined the armed forces full well knowing that they must follow orders, the orders of the President, no matter what.

Therefore, when I opposed the war in Iraq, I certainly didn't expect that our armed forces were to immediately go AWOL and desert if they didn't support the invasion. No, I understood that they must follow orders, agree or disagree, and thats what the defense of this country requires.

Therefore, when I say I "support the troops", I mean that I support them and the job they MUST do, which is to follow their leaders.

However, if I'm supposed support the complete mismanagement of every part of this war, just so I can prove I support the troops, well guess what, I guess I don't support the troops then. If I'm supposed to accept the reasoning for going into this war, which I NEVER DID, just to prove I support the troops, well then I guess I don't support the troops. If I'm supposed to support torture and denial of habeas corpus and the outsourcing of "rendition" to places like Syria and the unconstitutional imprisonment of Jose Padilla, well then I guess I don't support the troops.

Here is what I support. The fact that the security of this country falls upon the shoulders of an armed forces who don't have the luxury of deciding whether or not they agree or disagree with the President. That, knowing full well they won't have a choice if the time comes, they still enlist and join to be a part of defending this nation. I support and wish for their success and scream and vote AGAINST efforts that put them in harms way needlessly or for political cover. I support congressional oversight of the President in times of war to ensure what we are doing is in our nations interest.

I always thought I supported the troops. Turns out, according to some of them, because I don't agree with the Iraq War, and think that the Bush Administration has done a PISS POOR job of executing it, including, quite possibly, willful negligence, that means I don't support the troops.

So be it.

The "Surge" and the President's Plan

2007-01-09T16:25:00.000-05:00

I suppose I shall wade into the waters already chock full of opinions about what to do about Iraq.

I do not, and have never, supported a unilateral pull-out of our troops in Iraq. I think it is the highest form of ethnocentricity and arrogance to invade a county, topple its leader, destroy its infrastructure and then withdraw and leave it in chaos and then say something like "well, its up to the Iraqis."

If it was up to the Iraqi's, for crying out loud, we should have left toppling Saddam up to them too.

However, one can not continue to ignore the realities that exist in Iraq today, whether they existed for millenia, or they are something which our effort created -- perhaps a combination of both.

Iraq, in almost all likelihood, will fall into civil war. Its hard for me to imagine a situation where this doesn't happen. The only reason it didn't happen prior to our invasion was the stranglehold that Saddam had on the majority of people, and government dissenters, in the country. Now that Saddam is gone, revenge seems to certainly be on the menu.

Whether the US endeavor has hastened the path to civil war or not, the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq seem to have little desire to live in peace with one another. Worse yet, no leader has emerged who shows any interest, Maliki included, in bridging the wide divide between these two factions, let alone the Kurds (who got a nice kick in the face when Saddam was executed prior to being tried for the Kurdish massacre...and then the charges were dropped).

Now, while I don't agree with unilaterally withdrawing our troops, I certainly oppose keeping our troops in a country intent on civil war. If the President wants a surge in forces, I'm skeptical as to how many will actually be necessary (let alone how skeptical I am that the President will be truthful in how many are necessary) to stem the violence. I am also skeptical about bringing in extra troops on the broad mission of "securing Baghdad" or some other such nonsense. Direct, clear, concise missions. Timelines for success/failure. A plan that outlines a complete exit strategy with a deadline.

Yes, I'm aware that the insurgents can just wait us out. But they can do that without a deadline. Also, if the Iraqi forces step up, they can wait us out only to be faced with Iraqi forces.

Quite honestly, I find it hard to believe a word President Bush says about Iraq and have the distinct impression he is looking for approximately 2 years of political cover. If he told me it was dark outside, I'd look for the sun.

Questions remain about where the "surge" troops will come from and how many will be enough. Sadly, I don't think anyone has any idea. But I know one thing. If the President is continuing to rely on the advisors who were so wrong on so many things in the past (greeted as liberators, oil revenues will pay for the war, "last throes" etc) he's crazier than I thought he was. At least if you are going to sell the American people on a new strategy, start by getting new strategic minds.

In conclusion, I'm open to a plan, I just don't trust this President to be truthful, to have the right plan, or to execute it properly. Not sure where that leaves me.

How will this end?

2007-01-05T09:56:00.000-05:00

A disturbing update on Jose Padilla from NPR.

According to court papers filed by Padilla's lawyers, for the first two years of his confinement, Padilla was held in total isolation. He heard no voice except his interrogator's. His 9-by-7 foot cell had nothing in it: no window even to the corridor, no clock or watch to orient him in time.

Padilla's meals were delivered through a slot in the door. He was either in bright light for days on end or in total darkness. He had no mattress or pillow on his steel pallet; loud noises interrupted his attempts to sleep.

Sometimes it was very cold, sometimes hot. He had nothing to read or to look at. Even a mirror was taken away. When he was transported, he was blindfolded and his ears were covered with headphones to screen out all sound. In short, Padilla experienced total sensory deprivation.

During length interrogations, his lawyers allege, Padilla was forced to sit or stand for long periods in stress positions. They say he was hooded and threatened with death. The isolation was so extreme that, according to court papers, even military personnel at the prison expressed great concern about Padilla's mental status.

The government maintains that whatever happened to Padilla during his detention is irrelevant, since no information obtained during that time is being used in the criminal case against him.

I think that last bit is the most disturbing. So after everything, all of this, NONE of the information gathered during his detention will be used in the prosecution against him?

Not that it would be admissable anyway considering that Padilla has these rights, ya know, guaranteed by the Constitution and all. However, considering the moral cliff the government jumped off of to obtain whatever information they obtained during his interrogation, you would think they would at least put up a fight to have it admitted into evidence.

More:

Another dilemma faces the government as well. Padilla's lawyers contend that as a result of his isolation and interrogation, their client is so mentally damaged that he is unable to assist in his own defense. He is so passive and fearful now, they maintain, that he is "like a piece of furniture."

Even at this late stage, after dozens of meetings with his lawyers, Padilla suspects that they are government agents, says Andrew Patel, who is on the legal team. Padilla may believe that the lawyers assigned to represent him are in fact "part of a continuing interrogation program."

The situation has become impossible, defense lawyers say; they've hired two psychiatric experts to examine Padilla. Both have often testified for the prosecution in criminal cases. This time they have sided with the defense.

After spending more than 25 hours with Padilla, both psychiatric experts have concluded that his isolation and interrogation have resulted in so much mental damage that he is incompetent to stand trial.

But don't worry, our government has a plan for Padilla. A plan it apparently had since the beginning of this mess:

Indeed, there are even some within the government who think it might be best if Padilla were declared incompetent and sent to a psychiatric prison facility. As one high-ranking official put it, "the objective of the government always has been to incapacitate this person."

At this point, I really can't imagine there is anyone out there that can defend this treatment of an American citizen, no matter what he/she is accused of doing. Luckily, I'm not disappointed. The crickets chirping on the right side of the blogosphere do just fine.

Self-hating women unite

2006-12-27T16:21:00.000-05:00

I really enjoy reading columns by so-called intelligent, different women who spend their time blasting and degrading other women...but this one takes the cake. Its called "The Girls on the View" and in this case, if you didn't already know, The View is representative of the entire female population, except, of course, the author of the column, Mary Grabar.

She starts off strong:

After watching The View and following the inane statements made on the program, I’ve come to the conclusion that it really is true what Aristotle, Saint Paul, and John Milton said: Women, without male guidance, are illogical, frivolous, and incapable of making any decisions beyond what to make for dinner.

I'm happy the author at least educated herself on the female gender appropriately before coming to this conclusion. I mean, the four women on The View are representative of the female population of the US, or the world for that matter, right? Just like the men on The Man Show are representative of men.

But it’s a sign of our crumbling civilization that a bunch of girls of varying ages and ethnic backgrounds, sitting around all dressed up for a coffee klatch, some of them with cleavage spilling out of Victoria’s Secret Infinity Edge Push-Up bras, spout off opinions borrowed from disturbed teenagers and Michael Moore, and call it a talk show.

We all know how much cleavage Rosie, Barbara Walters and Joy Behar sport on daily basis.

This was the danger of giving women the vote. The danger to conservatives (and the survival of this country) is the voting bloc of single women, i.e., those who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor.

There are so many things wrong in two sentences I don't know where to start. There is no "danger" in giving the citizens of a country the right to vote, its call democracy. The "danger" is when they don't agree with your warped opinions and therefore, shouldn't be voting, according to Ms. Grabar -- who we assume has some type of penile guidance in her life...thank God.

And God knows that single women, with no intellectual mentor with a penis, are the most dangerous. Forget their degrees, their homes (which trends show they are buying on their own in significantly greater number than single men), their education, their jobs, their LIVES, they have no male intellectual mentor.

These are women who pride themselves on being independent and empowered when they dress like prostitutes (look at the view of cleavage on the View!). These are the women who watch the View. These are the women who support Hillary Rodham Clinton.

My God, they support an intelligent, independant strong minded woman who has taken a heaping of abuse for most of her adult political life, survived and become one of the more powerful sentators in this country...what idiots.

Ever observe a table at a restaurant filled with women? Good Lord, it’s exhausting just watching the gesticulating and gabbing. Whenever I get invited to a “luncheon” I head for the hills.
Not that there is anything wrong with such gatherings and not that I have anything against other women. In fact I have a few female friends. But such squeal-a-thons (“I love what you’ve done to your hair!”) are not the proper places in which to make public political statements. When women have been the minority among men they have proven themselves to be quite competent. Look at Jeane Kirkpatrick, Margaret Thatcher, and Condoleezza Rice. Did any of these women attend any of these on-air chat fests?

Could there be a more trite and stereotypical paragraph ever written. I mean "I love what you've done to your hair"? Is this 1950? But not that Ms. Grabar has anything against women, per se, its just that they shouldn't be able to vote, unless by God they are voting conservative. They they are intelligent and "quite competent."

Men, on the other hand, are quite capable of holding forth intelligently among themselves, as commentators have done through the years. You don’t have men squealing “Oh, I love your tie!” as they set to embark on a discussion about the future of free world.

Yes, just look at all the intelligent men on the air today. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell. I mean, real intellectual heft there.

I admit I’m not a typical woman... At a party (party being the situation that many of the questions were about), I study people to determine if they’ve read Truth and Method before talking to them. They have to pass my test, but then I don’t let them go until they plead starvation and head for the hors d’oeuvres.

Sounds like a real hoot. My guess is that the author is unfamiliar with the concept of a "party" meant to be fun...not a trapping exercise for political commentary.

There is nothing worse than a women-hater, especially when the hater is a women herself. Ms. Prager, from a single, intelligent, educated, home-owning, LIBERAL ..., f*$k you.

The View is a tv show, not a microcosm of female society. I guess no more than "Nocturnal Emissions" and "The Daily Nut" are microcosms of male society...or are they?

what he said...

2006-12-27T16:15:00.000-05:00

Its been annoying me all day, but John Cole said it better than me.

I know, it's so fun to talk about Kerry and how we can all PRETEND he insulted the troops. Let me say this once...if you took what he said as an insult...you ARE stupid. I know...it's fun to pretend like Kerry doesn't support the military, even though he was part of it. It's fun to pretend that Kerry shot himself to get his purple hearts. It's fun to pretend liberal veterans are anti-military. It's fun to pretend somone like Bill O'Reilly deserves more respect than someone who voluntarily served his country -- ooops, I meant enlisted for political gain.

And as the right blogosphere strokes themselves over how much they "support the troops" it will be fun to watch them turn on them when they come home and run as Democrats and liberals, just like a lot of them this year...and won.

Christmas in NORTH Jersey

2006-12-15T11:18:00.000-05:00

So....you are saying I got a shot?

2006-12-15T10:20:00.000-05:00

Not so sad news...

According to a report on People.com, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and
actress Bridget Moynahan ended their relationship recently.

Moynahan's representative Christina Papadopoulos released the following
statement: "(They) amicably ended their three-year relationship several weeks
ago. We ask for your respect and consideration of their privacy. No further
comments will be made."

Two things....

1. Quite obviously, I now have a shot with Tom Brady. I will plan accordingly.

2. Who knew Webster had a sister?

What can I say?

2006-12-07T20:26:00.000-05:00

I'm a home town kinda gal.

What American accent do you have? Your Result: Philadelphia Your accent is as Philadelphian as a cheesesteak! If you're not from Philadelphia, then you're from someplace near there like south Jersey, Baltimore, or Wilmington. if you've ever journeyed to some far off place where people don't know that Philly has an accent, someone may have thought you talked a little weird even though they didn't have a clue what accent it was they heard.
The Northeast
The Midland
The Inland North
The South
Boston
The West
North Central
What American accent do you have? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

h/t: Environmental Republican

More Liberal Craziness

2006-12-04T20:03:00.000-05:00

I know I should be focusing on things that matter...like, oh I don't know..John Bolton's resignation and the fact that neanderthals, our non-existent ancestors, were cannibals, but I just can't seem to get this picture out of my mind.

This, as I've said before, is an American citizen. Who, by all accounts, has behaved completely docile and non-violent, since his incarceration, over 3.5 years ago. Notice the riot gear, eye and ear shields to continue his complete sensory deprivation and manacled from soup to nuts. We don't treat violent offenders this harshly.

This is ILLEGAL imprisonment, or was so anyway. I don't say that lightly. For a substantial period of time, he was denied access to counsel and wasn't privy to any charges or evidence brought against him. He also has credibly alleged that he has been subjected to torture, forced administration of drugs, and other inhumane treatment.

His charges have come to light, and he is NOT, read again, NOT being charged in any way shape or form with conspiring to set off a 'dirty bomb'. In fact, his charges are so vague that a (Republican-appointed) judge has harshly criticized the administration by saying the case is 'light on facts'. Any conviction now will likely not result in life in prison for Padilla. In fact, the government will have a hard time making any case given Padilla's treatment and the admissability of evidence in trial.

How can anyone not be outraged by this? The complete and utter trampling of a fellow citizen's rights in the most blatant way possible. If he's guilty, it doesn't matter. He has still been treated with complete disregard for his Constitutionally-protected rights.

There are various reactions around the blogosphere, mostly on the left side. I actually searched Instapundit, that heralded libertarian, for "Padilla", not one hit. Sad, really.

Thank God we have Red State really getting down to the heart of the story. Forget Constitutional rights, forget that hokey notion of "innocent until proven guilty". I mean, this is a prized opportunity to blast (yet again) the real terrorists...the New York Times. I mean, stories about state sanctioned "torture" and "abuse" (mind you, NOT torture and abuse) is really just a cover-up to get you to forget 9/11. Isn't that obvious??!!

Just in case you forget...brush up on that "torture" and "abuse" of an Amercian citizen, by his government, here.

Election Day

2006-11-07T10:33:00.000-05:00

Today is election day and I only have one direction...go vote. No matter who you vote for, exercise your civic responsibility and participate in your democracy.

Already, there are reports of voting problems...machines not working and such. Right and left leaning blogs are linking to stories of problems, especially in Ohio this morning. This is a joke.

I was always a little wary of voting on computers, however at my polling location, I've never had a problem. But reading reports, I didnt realize the complex machinery out there...scanning machines and such. If we can't get machines that work, or can't staff polling locations with people who know how to fix the machines, we need to just go back to simple hard copy ballots. It more important that the votes are counted accurately than they be counted easily, by computer. I mean, six years after the irregularities and problems of the 2000 election and we still have machines that aren't working?

I don't make any predictions, I just hope that the Democrats gain at least one chamber of Congress. Thats looking likely and its the most I hope for right now.

Big Day in NJ

2006-10-25T08:32:00.000-05:00

Today is a pretty big day in New Jersey. Today, the NJ Supreme Court will issue its ruling on whether it will allow gay marriage to be legal in NJ.

As readers know, I support gay marriage and don't feel as though the government should have a position on the sex of your spouse. Religion, and religious institutions, are another thing entirely. Considering that for governmental purposes, marriages are contractual agreements anyway, I don't see why the government should hold a moral or philosophical opinion on who you marry.

The ruling is expected at 3pm EST. I guess we'll see what we see!

** Update**

I had a nice updated post when the ruling first came out, but stupid blogspot lost my post. Anyway, I'm relatively satisfied by the ruling. The NJ Supreme Court basically said that under the equal protection clause of the NJ Constitution, you can not deny same sex couples any rights that are afforded to heterosexual married couples. Whether or not to call it 'marriage' or 'civil unions' is up to the legislature. They then gave the legislature 180 days to either re-write the existing marriage laws or come up with another vehicle for conferring those rights upon same-sex couples.

I see this as a victory. Not being gay myself, I see the whole "marriage v. civil union" debate as a debate of semantics. When the rights are the same, who cares what you call it? But of course, its not directly affecting me or my relationships, so I can understand how others might feel differently and I have seen passionate responses from those part of the actual case who still feel as though their relationships are less with the 'marriage' label.

I also think that people who are against same-sex 'marriage' are holding onto a tradition that is a tradition in name only. In the eyes of government, your marriage is a civil contract, now no different, in NJ anyway, than a civil union. Why deny the term 'marriage' to same sex couples when all the rights are exactly the same. It seems to me that the resistance to 'marriage' is based only in reluctance to let go of a traditional view of marriage, even while being receptive to the idea that same sex couples should have all the rights afforded to married couples. Its this last vestige of tradition that is so hard for some to let go of.

Either way, there will be no more discrimination in NJ when it comes to heterosexual and gay couples. That IS a victory.

Being forced out of the closet

2006-10-18T12:54:00.000-05:00

I'll go on record, not that its a big leap for me, as being against the forceable outing of gays, either in public or private life. Whether Senator Larry Craig is gay is his own business. Its wrong, and many people on the blogosphere, right and left, are rightly condemning it.

However, as Glenn Greenwald notes in a devastating post, the Republicans lost their right to outrage a long, long time ago. Private sexual activities have no place in the public arena, and they didn't 10 years ago either.

Environmental Republican also thinks its a disgusting tactic and notes how the 'donks will do anything to win seats in this election'. Ah, one blogger equals the whole Democratic Party. Pretty impressive for a blogger I've never heard of, but ok. Of course, the demonization of gays by the entire Christian right wing (Dobson, Perkins etc), that doesn't reflect on the Republican party they vote and campaign for though right? Republicans are the 'big tent' party, the party of inclusion. Yeah, except when it can get them votes.

Couldn't happen to an American citizen?

2006-10-11T14:58:00.000-05:00

Think again. Everyone in this country should be deeply disturbed by the Jose Padilla story, whether they area Republican or Democrat. Jose Padilla is an American Citizen who was help for over three years as an 'enemy combatant'. Jose Padilla was held without access to a lawyer, without ANY CHARGES WHATSOEVER brought against him and now we learn, tortured. Finally, charges have been brought against Padilla, but that doesn't erase the previous 3 and 1/2 years.

Glenn Greenwald brings us up to date on the latest. The details of his imprisonment should shock the conscious of this nation. Whatever Jose Padilla did or did not do is not relavent. The only thing relavent is that he is an American citizen whose rights were trampled upon, taken away from him and abused, at the sole discretion of this administration. His Constitutionally protected rights. Rights that President Bush swore to uphold.

I've written about this before. It is an outrage.

Money Quote from Glenn:

In an effort to gain Mr. Padilla’s "dependency and trust," he was tortured for nearly the entire three years and eight months of his unlawful detention. The torture took myriad forms, each designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and, ultimately, the loss of will to live.

The base ingredient in Mr. Padilla’s torture was stark isolation for a substantial portion of his captivity. For nearly two years – from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers – Mr. Padilla was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions of confinement remained essentially the same.

He was kept in a unit comprising sixteen individual cells, eight on the upper level and eight on the lower level, where Mr. Padilla’s cell was located. No other cells in the unit were occupied. His cell was electronically monitored twenty-four hours a day, eliminating the need for a guard to patrol his unit. His only contact with another person was when a guard would deliver and retrieve trays of food and when the government desired to interrogate him.His isolation, furthermore, was aggravated by the efforts of his captors to maintain complete sensory deprivation. His tiny cell – nine feet by seven feet – had no view to the outside world. The door to his cell had a window, however, it was covered by a magnetic sticker, depriving Mr. Padilla of even a view into the hallway and adjacent common areas of his unit. He was not given a clock or a watch and for most of the time of his captivity, he was unaware whether it was day or night, or what time of year or day it was.

. . . .Mr. Padilla’s dehumanization at the hands of his captors also took more sinister forms. Mr. Padilla was often put in stress positions for hours at a time. He would be shackled and manacled, with a belly chain, for hours in his cell. Noxious fumes would be introduced to his room causing his eyes and nose to run. The temperature of his cell would be manipulated, making his cell extremely cold for long stretches of time. Mr. Padilla was denied even the smallest, and most personal shreds of human dignity by being deprived of showering for weeks at a time, yet having to endure forced grooming at the whim of his captors.

...He was hooded and forced to stand in stress positions for long durations of time. He was forced to endure exceedingly long interrogation sessions, without adequate sleep, wherein he would be confronted with false information, scenarios, and documents to further disorient him. Often he had to endure multiple interrogators who would scream, shake, and otherwise assault Mr. Padilla.

Additionally, Mr. Padilla was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.Throughout most of the time Mr. Padilla was held captive in the Naval Brig he had no contact with the outside world. In March 2004, one year and eight months after arriving in the Naval Brig, Mr. Padilla was permitted his first contact with his attorneys.

Return of the Attack of the "Signing Statement" II

2006-10-06T13:55:00.000-05:00

As we all know, President Bush likes to act like he supports the laws passed by Congress, all the while, he issues 'signing statments', like his most famous, to the McCain Amendment, bascially saying that he doesnt have to comply with them.

These are humorous.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency’s 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

And not to be outdone by himself, another triple whammy:

Congress passed the law last week as a response to FEMA's poor handling of Hurricane Katrina. The agency's slow response to flood victims exposed the fact that Michael Brown, Bush's choice to lead the agency, had been a politically connected hire with no prior experience in emergency management.
To shield FEMA from cronyism, Congress established new job qualifications for the agency's director in last week's homeland security bill. The law says the president must nominate a candidate who has ``a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and ``not less than five years of executive leadership."
Bush signed the homeland-security bill on Wednesday morning. Then, hours later, he issued a signing statement saying he could ignore the new restrictions. Bush maintains that under his interpretation of the Constitution, the FEMA provision interfered with his power to make personnel decisions.
The law, Bush wrote, ``purports to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the president may select the appointee in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

God knows we wouldn't want Bush to pass up yet another opportunity to appoint a well qualified crony..er..um, applicant, like "Heckuva job" Brownie.

Your democracy at work.

Down the rabbit hole

2006-09-28T12:07:00.000-05:00

With very few defenders. Russ Feingold today. Read the whole thing. On a historic day as today, you owe it to history, agree or not.

Mr. President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act. Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

But Mr. President, we wouldn’t be where we are today, five years after September 11 with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that didn’t comply with the law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law.

Finally, only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, the President has agreed to consult with Congress. I would have hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, have the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting those who attacked us. And that is why I am saddened that I must oppose this legislation.

Because, Mr. President, the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not stand for our own government to do so, either.

Not only that, this legislation would deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere—people who have been held for years but have not been tried or even charged with any crime—the ability to challenge their detention in court. Among its many flaws, this is the most troubling—that the legislation seeks to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus.

(Katinula: habeas corpus history goes back to 1305, first codified in 1679 and is in the Constitution as follows "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.")

The legislation before us is better than that originally proposed by the President, which would have largely codified the procedures the Supreme Court has already rejected. And that is thanks to the efforts of some of my Republican colleagues for whom I have great respect and admiration.But this bill remains deeply flawed, and I cannot support it. One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill (this amendment failed today 9/28/06). I ask unanimous consent that my separate statement on that amendment be put in the record at the appropriate point.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions. Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus “safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy – ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.”

Mr. President, this bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law. Mr. President, that is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation.

Mr. President, why would we turn our back on hundreds of years of history and our nation’s commitment to liberty -- particularly when there is no good reason to do so? We should be working to provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice. We can do that quite well without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.

Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular – the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless any of my colleagues can say with absolute certainty that everyone detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained – and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case – then we should make sure that people can’t simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a “terrorist” label on them.

There is another reason why we must not deprive detainees of habeas corpus, and that is the fact that the American system of government is supposed to set an example for the world, as a beacon of democracy. And this provision will only serve to harm others’ perception of our system of government.Mr. President, a group of retired diplomats sent a very moving letter explaining their concerns about this habeas-stripping provision. Here is what they said: “To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world as the supreme form of government at the very moment we eliminate the most important avenue of relief from arbitrary governmental detention will not serve our interests in the larger world.”

Many, many dedicated patriotic Americans share these grave reservations about this particular provision of the bill. They have reservations not because they sympathize with suspected terrorists. Not because they are soft on national security. Not because they don’t understand the threat we face. No. They, and we in the Senate who support the Specter amendment, are concerned about this provision because we care about the Constitution, because we care about the image that American presents to the world as we fight the terrorists. Because we know that the writ of habeas corpus provides one of the most significant protections of human freedom against arbitrary government action ever created. If we sacrifice it here, we will head down a road that history will judge harshly and our descendants will regret.

Mr. President, we must not imperil our proud history. We must not abandon the Great Writ. We must not jeopardize our nation’s proud traditions and principles by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and permitting our government to pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about. Unfortunately, the suspension of the Great Writ is not the only problem with this legislation, nor is it the only instance where the legislation goes beyond establishing military commissions to include unnecessary provisions with deeply troubling results.

The Administration has spoken about the need for this legislation to bring clarity to the War Crimes Act, which makes it a crime to violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It has proposed that we specifically list the actions that would be considered crimes under that law. On the face of it, that certainly sounds sensible. But when you look at this legislation, you realize that the modification it makes only muddies the waters. Not only that, it does so retroactively.The key problem is in the definition of “cruel or inhuman” treatment. This is a critical definition because it is the provision that determines which coercive interrogation techniques amount to crimes under U.S. law. But because of the complex structure of this section, it is very difficult to understand what the new definition would criminalize, and I am concerned that any ambiguity may be interpreted too narrowly by some. The definition incorporates several terms that in turn have their own separate definitions, and it even has one new definition that doesn’t go into effect until the date of enactment, even though the rest of the amendments to the War Crimes Act are made retroactive to 1997.

Frankly, Mr. President, the new prohibition is extremely unclear. And we have already heard different interpretations of it from Senators and Administration officials who negotiated the language. If our goal is to give unambiguous guidance to our personnel, and the courts, this does not do it. The way the provision is drafted, it even seems designed to grant immunity to senior officials who authorized coercive interrogation techniques.Mr. President, we should just follow the approach originally endorsed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would have applied the language of the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I am also very concerned about the definition of unlawful enemy combatant that is included in this legislation, and about the corresponding issue of the jurisdiction of the military commissions.Mr. President, this legislation has been justified as necessary to allow our government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men recently transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Yet if you look at the fine print of this legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that. It would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of serious terrorist crimes, but also individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who are alleged to have “purposefully and materially supported hostilities” against the United States or its allies. This is extremely broad, and key terms go undefined. And by including hostilities not only against the United States but also against its allies, the bill allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any action against the United States. Not only that, but the bill would also define as an unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission, anyone who “has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”

This essentially grants a blank check to the executive branch to decide entirely on its own who can be tried by military commission. If we are going to establish military commissions outside of our traditional military and civilian justice systems, at a minimum we should explicitly limit their application to the worst of the worst, those who pose a serious threat to our country. We shouldn’t leave it up to just one branch of government to make these incredibly important decisions.Mr. President, the bulk of this legislation concerns the structure and process of military commissions. Although we heard from many witnesses at congressional hearings this summer that we should hew as closely as possible to the long-established military system of justice, this bill instead essentially starts from scratch and creates a whole new structure. It does so despite Justice Kennedy’s wise advice in his concurrence in Hamdan, where he said: “The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment.”

For example, this legislation creates a presumption for the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Now, it is true that because of the exigencies of war and active combat situations, hearsay rules may need to be structured differently than they are in our criminal courts, but the rules laid out in the UCMJ are drafted to handle these same exigencies. While there may need to be some adjustments to the UCMJ hearsay rules, we need not discard them altogether. The presumption against hearsay is a fundamental protection built into our existing legal structures to ensure that proceedings yield a just and fair result. Yet in this provision and elsewhere, the legislation erodes such protections—going far beyond what is allowed in the military system—and without justification. Even more disturbing is that the bill appears to permit individuals to be convicted, and even sentenced to death, on the basis of coerced testimony. According to the legislation, statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, as long as it was obtained prior to December 2005 when the McCain amendment become law, would apparently be admissible in many instances in these military commissions.

Now, it is true that the bill would require the commission to find these statements have sufficient reliability and probative value. But why would we go down this road of trying to convict people based on statements obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation techniques? Either we are a nation that stands against this type of cruelty and for the rule of law, or we are not. We can’t have it both ways.The idea that coerced statements can be used as long as they were obtained long enough ago is appalling. It seems to assume that there was a lack of clarity in the law prior to December 2005. In fact, there was great clarity, until this Administration decided to invent a narrow definition of torture that had never been used or accepted anywhere in the civilized world. The McCain amendment was needed to get this Administration to return to the law. It was a repudiation of the legal theories of the infamous Bybee memo, which the Administration even said it was withdrawing once it was publicly revealed. Its enactment should not now be used as a dividing point before which evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment can be used in court.

At times of great adversity, the strength of a nation’s convictions is tested and its true character revealed. If we sacrifice or qualify our principles in the face of the tremendous challenge we face from terrorists who want to destroy America, we will be making a terrible mistake. If we cloak cruel or degrading interrogations done in the name of American safety with euphemisms like “alternative techniques,” if we create arbitrary dates for when differing degrees of morality will apply, we will have betrayed our principles and ourselves. Statements obtained through such techniques should not be admissible, even against the most vicious killers in the world, in proceedings held by the government of the United States of America. Period.

Mr. President, in sum, this legislation is very troubling and in many respects legally suspect. I fear the end result of this legislation will only be more delay. It will surely be subject to further legal challenge, and may squander another four or five years while cases work their way through the courts again. We can and must fight terrorism aggressively without compromising fundamental American values. We must remember what the Army Judge Advocate General told me at a Judiciary Committee hearing this summer: that the United States should set an example for the world, and that we must carefully consider the effect on the way our own soldiers will be treated. Mr. President, in closing let me do something I don’t do very often – and that is quote John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, at a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said: “Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S. history. But at least we had fair procedures for him.” How sad that this Congress would seek to pass legislation about which the same cannot be said.

What country is this Part II

2006-09-26T12:21:00.000-05:00

Read this. Then, read it again.

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

Now, answer this question: Which country do I live in? Not the one that was set up by the constitution and founding fathers.

I know, I know, I'm SO unpatriotic. I can't be trusted with matters of national security. Don't I understand the Jihadist Islamofascist threat? I guess not.

What country is this?

2006-09-22T12:00:00.000-05:00

Today is a sad day for the United States of America. Last night, Senators McCain, Warner and Graham reached a compromise with the Bush Administration on the issue of legalizing torture. More specifically, the aim of the Bush Administration was to ensure the contiuance of the CIA interrogation program which is currently in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The senators caved and the administration got exactly what it wanted. I have read only part of the compromise, but the CIA program will continue and the President has the authority to determine what torture is. The additional compromises on options detainess will have in courts is a sham. Detainess won't have access to classified evidence against them and the burden of proof is on them to prove evidence if false. Heresay will be admissable. Marty Lederman has been following this issue very closely and has the best roundup of commentary.

I know the theme of right wing commentary on this is a combination of "they don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions" and "the fact that we wouldn't torture them doesn't mean they won't torture our soldiers" and "its a different kind of enemy we face today and the world is a different place". But when it comes to torturing another human being, what moral high ground do we hold if our arguements fall on technicalities and a code of conduct that is based on our enemies conduct and not our own principles? I'm not going to address the "national security" arguement in favor of this program, as Colin Powell and FIVE FORMER JOINTS CHIEFS OF STAFF have all said that torturing does not provide intelligence or protect any more than other interrogation techniques. I know, I know...silly me. Cheney, Addington and Bush know better than all of them right? Hell, Powerline knows better than all of them right? Idiots.

The other day Dave Justus made an arguement which said that this whole issue was mostly a Republican issue and that it was hurting Democrats to not be a part of the arguement. In his comments, I stated that the major story was McCain against the administration, but that Democrats have made their opposition to this program well known. In retrospect, I gave Democrats way too much credit. If they don't mount some type of opposition, their silence is shameful. This compromise is shameful and today is a shameful day for our country.

The beginning of a religious war? Updated

2006-09-19T09:39:00.000-05:00

The Pope made some comments last week that riled up Muslims around the world. Actually, who it riled up were Muslim political opportunists who then proceeded to incite rage and anger in their populations in order to strengthen their own hold on power.

What did this anger produce? A true martyr to God. A woman who served God and died asking for forgiveness, not for herself, but for her murderers.

How do we combat this type of irrational hate? I'm not sure anyone knows the answer. I don't believe the answer is more violence.

But I do know the answer isn't this. To become just like them. If you compared this video to the indoctrination that Palestinian children recieve, sadly, there wouldn't be many differences.

Update: I should add that I unequivocally support the Pope's right and freedom to say whatever he wanted to say, those who are offended be damned. There is no right to NOT be offended. That goes for Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhist...anyone. The fact that his comments were responded to with violence shows just how desperate these power-hungry leaders are. Rather then helping themselves, they are sewing the seeds of their own irrelevance.

That sound you hear?

2006-08-15T11:21:00.000-05:00

Is the death knell for George Allen. When the story of his 'fascination' with the confederate flag came out, I was mildly disgusted. See, I have absolutely zero patience for anyone who tries to insinuate that the confederate flag represents anything but bigotry, racism and violence. It is clearly grossly offensive to huge parts of the population, not just minorities. There is literally no excuse to hold up that flag as anything of which to be proud. Well, George was fighting his way through that one and boom...he quite lazily inserts his foot in his mouth and his head up his ass.
Turns out, his mother is French Tunisian and the word he used is an ethnic slur against Africans in North Africa. He most certainly knew what it meant. Say goodbye George, thats all folks.

PS. and the video is already up at YouTube. Damn the internets and their tricksy ways.

Hat tip, TNR obviously.

This might be

2006-07-21T12:24:00.000-05:00

the awesomest thing I've ever watched.

Watch it.

Your tax dollars at work

2006-07-17T18:43:00.000-05:00

In keeping with the broad tradition of 'abstinence-only' sex education, yet again, your tax dollars are funding what is supposed to be a trusted resource for women in crisis, yet instead, is preaching false information in order to dissuade those women from obtaining an abortion.

One pregnancy center told a congressional aide the risk of cancer after an abortion could be 80 percent higher, the report noted. Ford said she doubted a pregnancy center would go that far, but the Web site for a pregnancy center in Albuquerque says the risk for cancer after an abortion is 50 percent or greater.
In February 2003, a National Cancer Institute workshop concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.

Now, I'm sympathetic to the arguement that tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund things that people find morally reprehensible. I sometimes think that the greater good of humanity outweighs the 'moral issue', in cases like stem cell research.

However, if these centers are recieving federal money, at the same time as religious conservatives are railing about abortion being "federally subsidized", the least they could do is provide women with the truth in the middle of all their preaching.

Tennis in all its glory

2006-07-07T13:26:00.000-05:00

Just a quick post to say "WATCH WIMBLEDON" this weekend. We have perhaps two of the most intriguining finals to come down the pike in my lifetime.

Womens

Mauresmo v. Henin-Hardenne: rematch of the Australian where Mauresmo won her first grand slam trophy after Henin-Hardenne defaulted at 1-6, 0-2. In case anyone was wondering, she was getting crushed and Mauresmo was on track to finally put to bed her "choke" demons. Henin-Hardenne never gave her the chance and Mauresmo, now number 1 in the world, never got the exhaultation of the final point. The crowd will be HEAVILY behind Mauresmo.

Men

Federer v. Nadal: Federer has lost only 4 times this year. All four times to Nadal, most recently in the French Open final where Federer again failed to complete the career grand slam.

My picks?

I want Mauresmo to crush Henin-Hardenne. I think this one is too close to call though.

I want Nadal to win just to give some life to men's tennis. But I'm picking Federer. He's just too tough and experienced on grass to the newbie Nadal, however much success he's had at Wimbledon this year.

I've signed on

2006-05-03T11:21:00.000-05:00

I've endorsed the Online Integrity Statement of Principles. It seems to me maybe it won't stop all of the unethical things happening on line, but its a great start.

Spread the word.

Hat tip, Environmental Republican.

At story that needs to be told

2006-04-28T11:57:00.000-05:00

Via Andrew Sullivan, a story that touched me on 9/11 and still does. That is the story of Father Mychal Judge. He was the NY fire department chaplain who was the first body pulled out of Ground Zero, ministering to his people. His story needs to be heard and thanks to some filmakers, is getting out there via the Saint of 9/11, a film which just debuted at the Tribeca Film Festival.

His story is also reason number one that instead of demonizing gays, Catholics should embrace and love everyone. It is, after all, what Jesus taught. If Father Judge wanted to be a priest today, he could not. Pope Benedict has made sure of that. The pedophiles and molestors, well, they can be protected by Church hierarchy. Reassigned to different parishes. Father Judge, as Benedict wrote prior to becoming Pope, represented "a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil."

Can there be a higher betrayal towards God's teachings? I wonder. It makes me more resilient than ever to not let hate take over my Church. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle.

When it rains...it pours

2006-04-12T12:08:00.000-05:00

So unlike the Bush Administration's deeply plausible explanation that the Libby leak of classified information to the NY Times, was really just a case of "previewing" some information that was going to be in the public domain in a few days anyway (and for God's sake, the NYT was really acting "deeply unfair", and isn't that reason enough?), I don't think this story is going to go away.

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush
proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers
captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile
"biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass
destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months
afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war.
But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence
that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now --
had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological
weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the
president's statement.

That, is what we call a lie. Even if you are so generous as to not call it a lie, it is misleading. And even if you were so generous as to say "they weren't deliberately misleading us", you have to admit that we (the American people) were once again not provided the whole and truthful story as to this specific intelligence finding. Ezra Klein goes off the deep end and slams them.

**Update, some are chiming in that the report is really not as explosive as it seems. Taking their criticisms in stride, is anyone really going to say that when you have three teams of inspectors, one from the Pentagon, who disagree on the purpose of the labs, AS WELL AS additional informants who, in contrast to "Curveball", state the labs are for hydrogen for weather balloons, that this information supports the statement "We have found the weapons of mass destruction"? I think not. As I said above, I'll be generous and state "highly misleading". Standard administration operating procedure though. Whatever supports what you are trying to sell is presented as fact, with no context as to whether there is disagreement among experts or even within the administration. I'm not saying I need to know all of that, I'm just saying, when it exists, a statement like "We have found the weapons of mass destruction" is not warranted, its propaganda.**

Oh yeah, speaking of a good blogospheric slam, please go read this absolute trashing of Mark Steyn by Belgravia Dispatch, who now that he's back, is in fine form.

Tidbit:

This is scandalously absurd tommyrot to the nth degree. But in some bien pensant quarters, I gather, such musings pass for high-brow "Jacksonian"-style foreign policy deep-think, and quite apart from being met with protracted guffaws and sniggers, are instead greeted with furrowed brows and hearty, if appropriately resigned, nods of agreement. Let's be more plain: if this is the future direction that some in the Republican Party plan to cheer-lead regarding security policy matters like Iran--'blow up the whole bloody place, mate, and we'll see where the chips fall later'--please count the proprieter of this humble little site out of the fiery festivities.

Truth be told, my tolerance for such devastatingly juvenile B.S. being beamed in from the still wintry outlands of New Hampshire, ostensibly for eager and ready consumption by legions of newbie foreign policy mavens spinnin'-it-steely-Steyn-style-in-the-'sphere, is growing pretty thin. But, hey, maybe that's just me. It's Munich again, see, and the times require gumption and spine and fortitude--not the cowardice of the Eastern Establishment say, or Kofi's kleptocracy granting Kojo the run of the mill, or some other bastion of weak-kneedness, one too far removed from the pure, virgin northern woods, where a man can live and breath free, and see the great challenges of the time in starker, more cogent relief.

Ouch. Can we get some props for the trash talk as well?

This is certainly not to downplay the Iran problem. It is a huge issue and unfortunately, military action can not be taken off the table. As I said before, this issue scares me more than any other issue since 9/11.

The chorus is getting louder

2006-04-10T12:39:00.000-05:00

Belgravia Dispatch has a great post on the growing chorus to fire Donald Rumsfeld. As I've stated in the past, I think he should be fired if only for the prisoner abuse scandal alone. Bottom line, leaders are responsible for their subordinates, not the other way around.

But with each and every general, lieutenant General and high ranking officer coming out and explaining their side of the story, as evidenced by BD's post, it is becoming increasinly more evident that Rumsfeld is at the heart of every failure. But for Bush, loyalty is the only thing that matters. Pity he doesn't put our troops, the mission, the Iraqi people and success in the GWOT above that.

April Showers???

2006-04-05T08:14:00.000-05:00

Travelling Woman

2006-03-30T21:35:00.000-05:00

I'm headed to London tomorrow for the weekend. Yes...just the weekend. Going to celebrate a friends birthday. The whole weekend should be a blur but it will be worth it to celebrate, finally, not being the only one of my friend who is 30!

My friend is quite the political left winger and extremely intelligent. She makes me look like Ronald Reagan. I'm sure we'll be having many conversations in our short time together. If anything, it is good sometimes to get an outsiders view...should be fairly enlightening. I'll report more when I come back!

Anyone See a Trend?

2006-03-24T15:24:00.000-05:00

Just wondering.

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act
this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey
requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's
expanded police powers.

...In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound
to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite
the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that
disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative
process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional
duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions .
. . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive
branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional
authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information
. . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile
instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a
law.

After The New York Times disclosed in December that Bush had
authorized the military to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans'
international phone calls and e-mails without obtaining warrants, as required by
law, Bush said his wartime powers gave him the right to ignore the warrant
law.

And when Congress passed a law forbidding the torture of any
detainee in US custody, Bush signed the bill but issued a signing statement
declaring that he could bypass the law if he believed using harsh interrogation
techniques was necessary to protect national security.

Thank God we have a President who is willing to bypass the LEGISLATIVE branch of government and do whatever the hell he wants. Where are all those people who were screaming about "activist" judges now?

Thanks "Mavericks"

2006-03-17T08:23:00.000-05:00

In one of the worst ideas to come out of this NSA scandal yet, the so-called Senate Mavericks (Hagel, Snowe, and Graham) along with Senator Dewine introduced the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, which among other things would provide the President with authority to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for up to 45 days if its in the best interests of the American people. He can renew the surveillance if he deems it necessary (again) to protect the American people.

I guess that settles the NSA scandal question of whether it was legal or not for the President to have engaged in this behavior. It will be legal NOW. I think Snowe, Hagel and Graham feel infinitely better about themselves already.

I have one question. If what was happening was legal, why do we need this new piece of legislation?

Hat tip, Glenn Greenwald, who is doing great commentary on this.

Happy Tears

2006-02-27T13:07:00.000-05:00

Try not to cry, I dare you.

Hat tip, ...all over the blogosphere.

Suddenly, peace is bad

2006-02-27T10:33:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin, in yet another misguided attempt to show liberal bias, highlights the case of two high school students in suburban DC who are trying to get an elective class entitled "Peace Studies" cancelled. She ends her post with the following:

Good luck to Andrew Saraf and Avishek Panth: Fight the power!

"Fight the power" huh? Lets see, an high school offers an ELECTIVE class, not required for graduation, on peace, and the students and Michelle, are complaining that the teacher "is only giving one side of the story. He's only offering facts that fit his point of view."

Myself, I'm assuming that point of view is...um...peace. If students are interested in studying peace activism and peace activists, AND they have the capability of taking an elective, they select this course. What a liberal outrage!

Even better, those students who are 'fight(ing) the power' have never taken the class and have only sat in on one lecture. Their information came from the most sacred and trustworthy of sources...other high school students. I'm sure we all know how accurate information travelling from high school student to high school student is.

This is shocking evidence of further liberal bias. Michelle loves to point out stuff like this and she does everyone in this country a wonderful service by doing so, such as her hard hitting piece on Dana Milbank and his humor. Shockingly, especially to this blogger, Michelle never mentioned anything about Scott McLellan and Jeb Bush's ridiculous liberal swipes at Cheney. And Michelle....still nothing on Hannity stumping for Santorum.

Sadly, there are people out there who put stock in Michelle Malkin's opinion. Like a broken clock, she occasionally makes a good point. But I think that happens during random re-booting of her brain and in now way reflects on her actual cognitive abilities.

American Values..

2006-02-20T14:01:00.000-05:00

Do you have a good idea as to what they are? I thought I did, before people in this administration started re-defining them.

I had planned a long and thorough posting on the newest revelations regarding torture and detainee abuse, as well as uploading some pictures, just released, of what's being done in our name; but between work, school and moving this week...it just hasn't been possible.

I'll just leave you with this...READ THE WHOLE THING and educate yourselves. Its long, but history will most certainly judge that it's worth the read.

“These were enormously hardworking, patriotic individuals,” he said. “When you put together the pieces, it’s all so sad. To preserve flexibility, they were willing to throw away our values.”

News and Notes

2006-02-10T15:24:00.000-05:00

The cartoon controversy continues. Go read Andrew Sullivan for some interesting reader emails and links to some interesting articles. Someone who's opinion I respect also opines (via Ezra), as a Muslim, and I'm not quite sure I agree with him, but I'm also not sure I don't.

Powerline continues its fall from 'informed commentary' to outright hackery.

Jonathan Last at the Daily Standard reports that the U.S. is "quietly" winning the drug war. According to Last:

The supply of all the major drugs is down, but at the same time, drug
interdiction is up. In 1989, 533,533 kilograms of the four major drugs were
seized by U.S. authorities. By 2005, the total had risen to 1.3 million
kilograms.
Moreover, since 2001 "teen drug use is off nearly 19 percent.
Which means that 700,000 fewer teens are using drugs today than just a few years
ago."

I wonder whether this progress would be as quiet if it were occurring under a Democratic administration.

Jeez, not everything is a MSM conspiracy against right wingers. People just don't give a flying crap about the drug war...even a lot of Republicans! Give us something besides a non-reported story to justify media bias...there's plenty out there.

Lastly, the Olympics start tonight. I get psyched about the Olympics in a really dorky way. Oh well....GO USA.

Can we at least have an honest discussion?

2006-02-07T14:13:00.000-05:00

Comments like this:

One of the most telling moments is when Debra Burlingame points out that prior to the September 11 attacks, the NSA was surveilling an al Qaeda member in Yemen who placed or received more than a dozen phone calls to and from a number in San Diego. Because these calls involved someone in the United States, the NSA didn't listen to them. It turned out that the "Kahlid" who was receiving the calls in San Diego was one of the September 11 hijackers. In fact, he was one of the hijackers who murdered Debra's brother, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77.
This is what Democrats and the news media call "domestic spying." Do the Democrats really want to return us to the days when al Qaeda could call its American operatives with impunity?

and this:

If Badawi has access to a cell phone, and calls an al Qaeda operative here in the U.S. to give the go-ahead on a mass terrorist plot, and that plot is executed killing thousands of innocent people on American soil, who will the NYTimes editors and Democrat leaders blame?

make me so angry its hard to believe so-called intelligent, rational, respected people make them. Is there an ounce of honesty in these statements? Unless I am monumentally uninformed, is there one Congressperson or Senator who has called for an end to this surveillance? Or can we all agree that the arguement, if there is one, is on the legality of WARRANTLESS surveillance. Surveillance by the executive branch with no oversight. We can argue that all day. Fine, legal points pro and con. But to actually pretend as though Democrats (and lest we forget Graham, McCain and other Republicans) actually don't want our intelligence agencies to spy on these people is out and out lies. Its lies and its the tool of the weaker arguement. Powerline...blog of the year. Puh-leeze. If they had comments, chimpanzees could have taken apart that post in about 10 seconds.

Right to NOT be offended?

2006-02-03T12:30:00.000-05:00

In this world, no one has the right to never be offended. Apparently fundamental Islamists think they do. Many fundamental Christians feel the same way in this country. Granted, there tactics are worlds apart, but the feeling is the same.

When she's right, she's right.

These Islamic fundamentalists feel as though these pictures are insulting. I'll grant them that. However, in a free world, no other person has to refrain from insulting you. Thats life, take it or leave it.

On Sullivans blog, this gem of a quote:

"Mona Omar Attia, Egypt's ambassador to Denmark, said after a meeting with Rasmussen that she was satisfied with the position of the Danish government but noted the prime minister had said he could not interfere with the press. 'This means the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world,' Attia said."

Um, no...they don't.

Malkin has some other choice quotes that everyone should be afraid of:

Early Friday, Palestinian militants threw a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City, and many Palestinians began boycotting European goods, especially those from Denmark.
"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

(ed. note--glad that guy isn't important anymore. snark intended)

In mosques throughout Palestinian cities, clerics condemned the cartoons. An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off.
"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

About 10,000 demonstrators, including gunmen from the Islamic militant group Hamas firing in the air, marched through Gaza City to the Palestinian legislature, where they climbed on the roof, waving green Hamas banners.
"We are ready to redeem you with our souls and our blood our beloved prophet," they chanted. "Down, Down Denmark."

Fundmentalist Christians in this country also feel they have a right to not be offended. Most recently illustrated by their campaign to get Book of Daniel cancelled. Apparently, they haven't mastered the art of the 'click' yet. You see, you just hit that little button that says 'channel' up or down. It works wonders. As Sullivan points out, their tactics sometimes get worse:

"[I]t would probably be an overreaction to firebomb these men's houses. But what they have done is no mistake. It is a calculated strategy," - a posting on the website of Kevin T. Bauder, president of Central Baptist Seminary, on the decision to cast an openly gay actor in an evangelical movie, "End of the Spear."

I'm not equating the two at all, but their opinions aren't what differ between them, for now, it is only their actions and that line is becoming thinner and thinner.

I don't normally do this, but I'm ashamed of Bill Clinton, the American press and most recently the State Department for trying to appease these people. A free society in Iraq? Do we even know what that means anymore?

NSA and What I Dont Understand

2006-01-25T17:32:00.000-05:00

Over at Justus for All, I made a comment/question, which to my satisfaction, still hasn't been answered.

Basically, what is it about the FISA law that hampers the administration and intelligence officials so badly, that they must bypass in order to protect the country? What is it about the 72-hour after the fact time allowance that hampers the ability to get warrants? And if FISA put such handcuffs on the intelligence community in investigating these leads, why weren't changes to it sought? Surely, after 9/11, when something like the Patriot Act was able to be passed, changes to FISA could have been made as well.

This bothers me for one reason...why? Why not go get the warrants? What is the adminstration trying to hide? Dave posits that its all related to 'probable cause':

My guess is probable cause is the problem. We have a lot of ‘maybe terrorists or terrorist sympathizers’ out there that we don’t have enough evidence are directly involved. Doubtless, terrorist organizations try to route communications through unknown people to prevent them from being interecepted.

...Probable cause in my opinion is a great standard for prosecution and a horrible standard for intelligence gathering.

This seemed like a rational reason. I can put it along with the 'constitutional authority' reasoning, the 'it takes too long' and '72 hours isn't enough time reasoning'. But here is the problem...

In June, 2002, Republican Sen. Michael DeWine of Ohio introduced legislation (S. 2659) which would have eliminated the exact barrier to FISA which Gen. Hayden yesterday said is what necessitated the Administration bypassing FISA. Specifically, DeWine's legislation proposed:

to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the
standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons
from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .

In other words, DeWine's bill, had it become law, would have eliminated the "probable cause" barrier (at least for non-U.S. persons) which the Administration is now pointing to as the reason why it had to circumvent FISA.

Sounds pretty good right. So there was someone trying to change FISA. Here is where is goes all bad:

The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going "up" on those suspected terrorists in the United States.

One simple but important change that Congress made was to lengthen the time period for us to bring to court applications in support of Attorney General-authorized emergency FISAs. This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre-existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism. Thank you.

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

Thats James A. Baker, Justice Department lawyer. So someone explain to me why now FISA isn't good enough; 72-hours isn't good enough and why probable cause isn't good enough.

Read Greenwalds whole piece. Its pretty disturbing. I wasn't too crazy about the idea of the warrantless tapping, however, the more excuses which are offered and the more information and examination of the past, its becoming more and more clear that there is, apparently, something to hide. And to say that those criticizing these actions or who are looking for an explanation are 'chicken littles' or even worse to say something like "Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree." I think is really misleading and really just trying to decieve people.

Awaiting the outcome of all this; however instead of feeling more comfortable, I'm feeling more and more duped.

Gays? Hell No. Torture? Absolutely

2006-01-19T09:24:00.000-05:00

Via Ezra, I thought this was pretty damn interesting.

The Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons in the Salt Lake City suburb of Sandy decided to pull director Ang Lee's cowboy love story at the last minute on Thursday night, despite having agreed to play the picture. The theater is owned by Larry H. Miller, who also owns the Utah Jazz, a National Basketball Association team."It's the most despicable practice that any exhibitor can do," Focus' head of distribution, Jack Foley, told Box Office Mojo. "It was a flagrant dismissal of a commitment, and without even a phone call. So I'm not in business with him anymore. It's a breach of contract. It's unethical. We can sue him."

Calls to the Megaplex 17 resulted in "no comments" in regards to why Brokeback Mountain was yanked. "You're not going to get any comment from us on that," said Dale Harvey, General Manager for Megaplex Theatres.

As of Sunday, Megaplex Theatres' Web site had Transamerica, a comedy-drama about a transsexual parent, listed for Jan. 20 in their "Coming Soon" section, but the movie has since vanished from their schedule.

The Megaplex 17 is showing Hostel as well. Though No. 1 nationwide, the sex-and-gore saturated horror picture ranked fourth at the theater with $10,700.

A tender love story that involves two men is bad for families, culture and our country. A movie in which torture scenes are so disturbing as to make people sick, well now, thats just fine.
A better illustration of these people's homophobia, masked by 'family values' could not be found.

Environmental Republican touched on this subject as well.

Something we can all support

2006-01-18T17:05:00.000-05:00

Hat tip, Balloon Juice.

I think this is something both the right and left side can support and I hope that bloggers make this into a great issue in the upcoming months. Its been far to easy to pass laws in this country in which no one knows exactly what the hell is 'passing'.

ReadtheBill.org is a new national organization dedicated to forcing Congress to post all proposed legislation online for 72 hours before it goes to the floor of Congress. We call this the "72 Hours of Sunshine Rule". It is needed because Congress has degenerated into chaos. The House of Representatives still has a rule on the books requiring proposed legislation be available to members for three days. But the House waives this rule routinely and rubber stamps huge bills in the middle night, clueless of their content or cost. Senate rules are fuzzier but the result is the same. This chaos in Congress costs every American. Provisions and giveaways slipped through Congress are one reason that the U.S. has a national debt of $8 trillion. These sneaky provisions also invite plain-old corruption.

From the wierd chronicles

2006-01-17T16:12:00.000-05:00

At my alma mater, no less:

Last March, Jacques Pluss was fired from his job as an adjunct professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University soon after it came to light that he was a prominent member of the National Socialist Movement of the United States. This weekend, in an online essay titled "Now It Can Be Told: Why I Pretended to Be a Neo-Nazi," Mr. Pluss purports to reveal his true intentions in joining the white supremacist group: He did it all for scholarship.

Citing Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, the medievalist Ernst Kantorowicz, and the English Romantic poets, Mr. Pluss says he developed a highly participatory theory of historical investigation. "It slowly yet surely dawned on me," he writes, "that any attempt to understand a group, a movement, or an individual psyche, would have to include becoming, as much as an individual can, the subject under study."

To that end, Mr. Pluss joined the National Socialist Movement in February 2005 and soon began serving as host for a weekly Internet radio show called White Viewpoint, on which he railed against the "browning of America" and described Fairleigh Dickinson's treatment of him as "Hebrew" and "lawyerly." Within a few weeks of joining, he became a national officer of the group. He continued as a member until October.

Perhaps the strangest part of Mr. Pluss's account is his claim that he engineered his own dismissal from Fairleigh Dickinson in order to suffer the kind of public marginalization often experienced by neo-Nazis. "I realized that if I were going to experience the white power movement in America I was going to have to have something happen to me on a professional level," he said in the interview. "It was not going to be enough just to hang back and make the radio show and exchange emails with people."

To achieve this, Mr. Pluss says that while he was on vacation in Ireland, he wrote a pseudonymous letter to the editor of the Fairleigh Dickinson student newspaper, outing himself as a neo-Nazi. Soon after returning from Ireland, he says, he was notified of his dismissal.

I wonder if we can file this under 'closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped'?

Hap tip Instapundit.

Snippets

2006-01-17T12:36:00.000-05:00

Dumb.

The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-New York. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Why can't people just say what they think without making completely idiotic metaphorical statements?

Dumber.

"It's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild New Orleans the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans," the mayor said. "This city will be a majority African American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way. It wouldn't be New Orleans."

Way to come together Mayor. I had much patience during the Katrina affair regarding some of the statements of black leaders and officials. No matter what was going on, it sure as hell looked like, in a predominantly black city, no one was there to help and that people were abandoned. However, this is just stupid, reverse segregation and personally, I'm not sure God is down with that.

I think I can hear many conservatives moaning right now, "Say it isn't so Hitch!".

Good. Some people are wondering what this ruling would have been should Alito be on the court. I don't think its hard to guess.

Bad. Not sure what the hell is going to come of this. I have more fear about this issue than any other since 9/11.

Friday Fun

2006-01-13T14:11:00.000-05:00

Oh Hindrocket...please, PLEASE try and keep up with the blogosphere if you are going to make comments like this:

It's no wonder that Alito wasn't interested in pursuing this any further, but Kennedy's suggestion that the paragraph he read constituted some kind of ideological statement is silly. "People nowadays just don't seem to know their place." Does Kennedy think that's really how conservatives talk? (Maybe he considered it plausible because that's what Kennedy actually thinks.)

Because, this, which made its way around the blogosphere in the beginning of the week, makes you look like a complete assclown.

Even before DeLay's announcement that he would abdicate his leadership post, top Bush advisers tell TIME, the President's inner circle always treated DeLay as a necessary burden. He may have had an unmatched grip on the House and Washington lobbyists, but DeLay is not the kind of guy--in background and temperament--the President feels comfortable with. Of the former exterminator, a Republican close to the President's inner circle says, "They have always seen him as beneath them, more blue collar. He's seen as a useful servant, not someone you would want to vacation with."

I'll go with a YES, I think thats how some conservatives talk.

There's no crying in baseball

2006-01-13T09:17:00.000-05:00

Someone explain to me why I'm supposed to be moved by SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito's wife crying during the hearings. There are several reasons why I'm not only NOT moved and unsympathetic, but honestly, I feel the woman should be ashamed of herself.

First, in what you knew was going to be a complete and utter grilling of your husband, to put it bluntly, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'm quite positive both he, and probably you, have been briefed many times over on what the Democrats tactic was going to be in these hearings. The Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) story has been out for a while and you must have known some Senator was going to bring it up. You can say what you will about those tactics, however, you knew it was coming.

Secondly, she should be ashamed for allowing herself to become part of something that she should be completely and wholly uninvolved in. This is about her husbands qualifications and his judicial philosophy. By allowing herself to lose control, she became the story and will likely influence public opinion just by shedding a tear. I'd be ashamed of that.

And lastly, she lost control. Listen, there are many times during work or professional occasions or even in public, where I have been close to shedding a tear. I will not allow it. The times I have cried at work, I have been monumentally ashamed of myself. It is inappropriate and uncalled for. She lost emotional control over herself and that should not have happened.

So no, I have no sympathy for her and I already think the Democrats have been pretty pathetic in these hearings, so she doesn't change my opinion on that. Its not news, its entertainment and ratings and feeds the lowest common denominator...emotion. I won't allow myself to get caught up in it.

Leaks and the leaking leakers who leak them

2006-01-06T13:11:00.000-05:00

I have many thoughts on all this leak business going on lately around the media, government and blogosphere. First, I have a real problem with Bush seemingly circumventing a law that allowed him plenty of time (72 hours) after the fact to seek what he needed. If this is indeed what he did, the only plausible reason seems to be that he thinks he would have been denied these warrants. I'd like to get to the bottom of that.

Secondly, leaker versus whistleblower. This is one of the more insightful things that I've read on that and I tend to agree with it.

Part of the reason we can applaud them, is that unlike the mysterious leak sources, we are able to analyze whether they are ‘motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences’ or beaurocratic infighting for that matter. They put their reputations on the line.
Anonymous leaking information to a news source is the opposite of whistle-blowing (the metaphor itself conjures an image of an clearly identifiable blower of the whistle.) If a major figure at the NSA, or even more appropriately a member of Congress who was breifed on the program, had come forth openly announcing that despite the secrecy of this program, the legal issues needed to be addressed and the Bush administration had failed to do so and exposing this was necessary, I would be very supportive of protecting them from legal penalties.

If you are concerned and willing to put your reputation on the line, then do it. However, I do see instances where this might not work for someone, or possibly where a developing story, and targeted leaks over time would help find out the whole sotry, needed to be investigated. Therefore, maybe anonymity would be precious. For instance, would we know as much about Watergate if Mark Felt had come forward, out of anonymity, and told us what he knew instead of learning more and more as the story developed? I'm not so sure.

Thirdly, and lastly, every last and single conservative blogger/pundit sounds so disingenious when they are so concerned about 'leaks' now, when they didn't care when somone leaked Valerie Plame's name. I repeat, and this is a fact no matter how much whining and crying there is going on, that no one knows yet how much damage this might have done to her contacts, her co-workers and intelligence gathering in general. So to say one incident harmed national security and the other didn't just shows one to be ignorant of the KNOWN facts and to have a rampant tendency towards speculation.

That disingenious-ness also goes towards liberal bloggers who, while rightly concerned about the FISA incident, should also be concerned about our ability to gather intelligence being compromised. BOTH incidents are worriesome for different reasons.

Could the blogosphere please go to their local drugstore and get an injection of intellectual honesty?

Whiney McWhinestein strikes again

2006-01-06T13:09:00.000-05:00

I got an idea...maybe we should design it in the form of a Japanese internment camp. Maybe that will make Michelle Malkin happy?

Careful...Michelle is whining aga....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...oh, sorry, I feel alseep I was so bored.

Just one of the many reasons I love sports

2005-12-22T15:16:00.000-05:00

Here is a fun year end wrap-up from Sports Illustrated. Best quotes from 2005.

My favorite?

"That kid grew up so far out in the country, he had to go toward town to hunt."
-- Cowboys coach Bill Parcells on rookie defensive end Demarcus Ware, who's from Alabama

Slowly but surely...

2005-12-22T10:57:00.000-05:00

coming back online.

Going to stay away from all the partisan gunslinging for now (snoop-gate and the like).

Here is a very interesting update on the Jose Padilla case. Just to refresh your memory, Padilla is the so-called 'dirty bomber', an American citizen, arrested on American soil and held without being charged for 3 1/2 years. Just before his request for appeal was to go to the Supreme Court (remember, the 4th circuit upheld the Bush Administrations holding of Padilla), the Bush Administration asked that the case be transferred to civilian courts.

To say the least, the 4th circuit court was not amused by this request; and apparently, neither was conservative darling (and possible Supreme Court nominee) Judge Michael Luttig.

Actually, come to think of it, this case is very topical in that it touches on expansion and/or limitation of government and executive power. Someone who enjoys discussing these governmental power issues is fellow blogger Dave Justus.

Doing my part...

2005-12-12T14:41:00.000-05:00

to get this story out there.

The short story? Police perform a 'no knock' raid on an apartment in a bad section of town in Mississippi. A young black man living in the duplex (with no record) fires at what he supposes is an intruder and ends of killing the white son of the police chief. Turns out that the young black man wasn't specified in the warrant, had no prior criminal record and lived in the apartment with his infant daughter. Please go read here for more details on the case.

This man was convicted of murder by a white jury and sentenced to death. He is on death row in Mississippi.

Just a quick post

2005-12-09T16:54:00.000-05:00

I had to break work and post because this (via Sullivan) made me laugh and also pretty much sums up how I feel right about now.

Most of my readers know that I do not favor a pull out of troops from Iraq, and I never have. I was against the war from the beginning (I was in Washington for the protest before the war began), however we are there now and must finish the job. I haven't had any time to comment on the latest rumblings from both Democrats or Republicans regarding 'defeatists' or withdrawal.

I think it takes just as much suspension of reality to say 'Bush deliberately lied in order to take us to war' as it does to say 'Democrats want us to lose in Iraq'. Both of those statements imply an actual overt 'evil-ness' that I don't think either group qualifies for. However, I do believe intelligence was manipulated and exaggerated -- some maythink for good reason, but it is still not right -- and its obvious to me that the Democrats will gain politically from bad news from Iraq.

Calls for immediate troop withdrawal I think are simplistic and honestly irresponsible. One needs to look no further than Afghanistan to see what happens when we bolster a people against an enemy and then leave them flat with no support.

Anyway, on to the funny. Mr. Dave Barry:

"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."

Lack of Posting

2005-12-06T17:04:00.000-05:00

Just want to apologize to all my faithful readers out there who've been wondering where all my posts are....helloooooooooooooo.....

I've been super busy with school and work and haven't had much time. Posting most likely will resume after finals and around the holidays. Hopefully the tone of all of our conversations will be greatly improved by then.

As always, check the blogroll for some interesting reads on the right and left.

Sanity from the Catholic Church

2005-11-18T12:59:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, I'm ashamed, and other times...I'm impressed. I couldn't agree more. Emphasis mine.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

This is what I mean...

2005-11-15T14:13:00.000-05:00

when I say the 'assault on science' from the Bush Administration.

A congressional audit released Monday cited "unusual" steps in the FDA's initial rejection of over-the-counter emergency contraception, including conflicting accounts of whether top officials made the decision even before scientists finished reviewing the evidence.

Whether you like it or not, this administration, in many instances, has put hard science on the back burner to appease their religious base (or industry base for that matter). You might not be part of that base and that might anger you, but you cannot deny it.

They have allowed industry lobbyists to edit scientific reports to the point of changing conclusions. They have refused to come out against the insertion of 'intelligent design' in science class. And now, more than likely, at some level, they have instructed their appointees to stall this approval from the FDA.

Just a reminder, the FDA scientific advisory panel approved over the counter sales in December of 2003.

We can not legislate values. We can not legislate tradition. We can not legislate morality. Why does the religious right in this country try so hard to do these things? Why does this administration go along with them more often than not?

Important things everyone should be thinking about

2005-11-15T09:20:00.000-05:00

So many ridiculously important things going on in the news lately, its hard to just do a blog post on all of them...but we should all be aware of their existence and should at least be following them closely.

First, the Graham Amendment concerning suspending habeas corpus rights for detainees. Here's a good link with explanations on the latest. If I'm reading this right (please correct me if I'm wrong) this amendment will end any challenges these detainees can make to US courts concerning their imprisonment. I don't like this amendment and it goes back to my whole argument concerning the US and torture. The US should be at the forefront of human rights, justice and the law. I don't care what other countries do, it means absolutely zero to what the US should do. If we are holding people as prisoners, detainees, enemy combatants, whatever...we should have reason for holding them. We should be giving them SOME due process. We shouldn't be torturing them. We shouldn't have 'black sites' where we can do whatever we want without anyone finding out?? Do these things actually need to be said? We should be treating them with the same treatment we expect Americans to be given, no matter their status. We should hold OURSELVES to a higher standard and we need to win the war of ideals.

Alito and abortion. Lately, I almost wish the SCOTUS would overturn Roe v. Wade, so the women in this country could go apeshit and level of protest that would ensue would shut things down. If you don't believe Roe v. Wade was decidely correctly, thats fine. But are you honestly saying that the document that defines my rights as a citizen, as a human being in this country, DOESN'T allow me to make decisions about what happens to my own body? You want me to put those decisions in the hands of voters? I have a couple of words for anyone who thinks that...F*^K OFF! Its my body and I'll make my own decisions. I realize this issue crosses some ethical boundaries...rights of fathers, rights of the unborn. I'm also in favor of a ban on late term abortions and the like. However, voters don't get to decide what I do with my own body. Thats my freedom, my pursuit of happiness, my liberty.
I know it makes me sound like a man-hating feminist, but I don't care. This would NEVER be a question if men were the ones who got pregnant. Think about that for one second and realize the truth in that. And that my friends, is what most pro-choice women believe.

I can't take it anymore

2005-11-11T08:38:00.000-05:00

There are days when I feel as though I have it all under control. Where my hatred and anger is supressed enough for me to be a functioning member of society. And then, something like this happens:

Celebrity heiress Paris Hilton', whose Bentley was damaged in a videotaped crash that spawned an Internet sensation and a police investigation, was the "only victim" of the incident, her spokesman said on Thursday.
"At the end of the day what seems to be going on here is that Paris is the only victim," Hilton publicist Elliot Mintz told Reuters. "She's going to be stuck with the tab of repairing that car."

Often, when I indiscriminantly get into my own car, allow someone who is clearly drunk to drive, get into a fender bender (on tape) and get let off by the police based solely on being 'me' and then proceed to get back into the car with said drunk driver, I like to call myself victim as well.

Really, no one knows what I go through.

It reminds me of that line from 'As Good As It Gets':
"Do you have any control over how creepy you allow yourself to get". Exchange creepy for moronic and I think Paris Hilton's answer would be the same as Jack Nicholson's....No.

Quick hits from around the Internet

2005-11-09T14:20:00.000-05:00

Just some quick hit posts...longer thoughts to come.

Maybe it was an intelligent designer who forced the icebergs to break away?

The breakup of giant icebergs may have forced minor evolutionary changes in penguins over the past 6,000 years, a new study suggests.

Speaking of intelligent design, those voters in Dover, PA sure let the school board know exactly where they stood...namely, on the side of science. Every single board member who supported the introduction of intelligent design into the science classroom was voted off the board.

Texas passed the measure for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, even though voters already passed legilation banning it. Apparently, there were afraid of those 'activist judges' again. Reason #5, 674 to hate Texas.

Not surpisingly, Corzine won the governorship here in NJ. Democrat Kaine won in Virginia. Mayor Bloomberg won a landslide in NYC. File these under 'results that should suprise no one'.

Alito confirms his respect for precedent. I still haven't seen anything worthy of a filibuster. I think a lot of Democrats will vote against him, but I think a filibuster is highly unlikely. Unlike most, I think this is because most Democrats realize there isn't much uber-extreme to Alito.

And todays most ridiculous use of politics:

Regulators may need months to review public comments on Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s application to sell the Plan B "morning-after" contraceptive without a prescription, a Food and Drug Administration official said on Tuesday.
The FDA received thousands of comments after it indefinitely postponed a ruling on Plan B in August and asked for public input, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, FDA deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, said.
"It could take months to go through those comments," Gottlieb said at the Reuters Health Summit, held in New York.

Months? Hmmm...I wonder why the public gets to comment on something that has already been decided by a scientific advisory council:

An FDA advisory panel recommended allowing over-the-counter sales in December 2003.

Thats right...two years ago, it was recommended for over the counter sales. TWO YEARS.
Some background on Lester Crawford, the man, who until recently, was responsible for the holdup, here.

Venting needed...rant ahead

2005-11-04T11:02:00.000-05:00

Its never enough for Michelle Malkin. I read her everday to my own detriment and she is by the far the biggest whiner on the internet. It is NEVER enough. She demands apologies, she recieves them, they are never enough for her. She then demands apologies from parties that had nothing to do with things. She is a complete and utter hypocrite and a worthless addition to punditry. She has nothing original to say and prides herself on the latest 'coining' of a scandal.

Earlier this week, it was this:

After readers informed the clueless Messner that Krauthammer has been a paraplegic since 1972, Messner substituted Krauthammer's name with George Will's. Messner added a footnote:

"My sincerest apologies for the Krauthammer touchdown dance remark. It was unintentionally insensitive -- I had no idea he was disabled."

On the one hand, as Mark at Marked Up points out, it is a good thing that Messner "had no idea" about Krauthammer's physical condition. On the other hand, she's a Washington Post politics writer, for God's sake.
And imagine the uproar if a conservative writer had made the touchdown remark about Max Cleland or the late Christopher Reeve...

Yes, imagine the uproar. Michelle, you were pretty upset when they accused Max Cleland of being a traitor and causing his own injuries in Vietnam weren't you? I mean, as long as you are sticking up for the disabled and all. Once again, the apology doesn't satisy Michelle, the keeper of integrity within the MSM.

Today its this highlighting of the Steve Gilliard debacle here:

Will top Democrats apologize for the vicious "Sambo" smear leveled at GOP Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is running for Senate in my home state of Maryland?
The New York Post's Deborah Orin reports today that Steele is seeking an apology from Sen. Chuck Schumer, head of the DSCC, for the racist slam by a liberal blogger who doctored a photo of Steele with minstrel makeup.

I commented as well on the 'simple sambo' post by Gilliard. Someone tell me again what the hell it has to do with Chuck Schumer. Top Democrats should apologize for what a lefty blogger does on his website? If that were the way things were run, Republicans and Democrats would be apologizing all day for blogs. As Michelle likes to put it: GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.

Michelle also demanded an apology from him regarding the theft of his personal information by some of his staffers, who promptly resigned. At least that time it had something to do with him.

Michelle, here's a free bit of advice. Get over yourself.

A Dangerous Precedent

2005-11-01T16:38:00.000-05:00

Is this what it has come down to in today's USA?

The judge in Rep. Tom DeLay's conspiracy case was removed at the congressman's request Tuesday because of his donations to Democratic candidates and causes.
A new judge will be appointed to preside over the case, a judge who came out of retirement to hear the dispute ruled.
The ruling came after a hearing in which attorneys for the former House Republican leader argued that state District Judge Bob Perkins' political donations called his impartiality into question. Perkins, a Democrat, has contributed to candidates such as
John Kerry and the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org.
"The public perception of Judge Perkins' activities shows him to be on opposite sides of the political fence than Tom DeLay," defense attorney Dick DeGuerin told Judge C.W. Duncan, who was called out of retirement to decide the matter.
Perkins had declined to withdraw from the case, and prosecutor Rick Reed argued at the hearing that DeLay must prove that a member of the public would have a "reasonable doubt that the judge is impartial" before Perkins could be removed.
"Judges are presumed to be impartial," Reed said.
Judges are elected in Texas and are free to contribute to candidates and political parties. DeGuerin said no one contends Perkins did anything wrong, but "to protect the integrity" of the judicial system, he should not preside over a trial for someone to whom he is opposed politically.

Is this where we are in the partisanship wars? Does this mean that any politician should never have to face a judge who isn't in ideological agreement with them?

To go even further, should any citizen?

Lets go further. Judges shouldn't preside over cases in which they don't agree with things defendants agree with. For instance, judges presiding over murder cases should recuse themselves if they find murder abhorrent.

This is complete ridiculousness. I would think so if it was done within the opposite ideological realm as well. What are we saying as a country. Now even partisanship trumps the right to a fair trial?

Someone help me out and explain the reasoning behind this.

Its 12:34pm and I've already decided

2005-10-31T12:31:00.000-05:00

that I'm tired of the SCOTUS/Alito coverage. Because until he is confirmed, every single day in the blogosphere is going to be as ridiculous as this:

Bill Frist on Fox News:

"If the Democrats are looking for a fight, we'll be up for the fight. We won't back down... We're gonna get an up or down vote on the Senate floor and if the Democrats want a fight, they'll get one."
I guess Miers didn't deserve one? Or maybe she didn't deserve one because conservatives think she didn't deserve one. Then..its ok.

And then this, via Michelle Malkin:

1110amEDT Schumer...Will Alito use his seat like Rosa Parks did to change history for the better?...raises real questions about his commitment to civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights...blah blah blah...America needs unity now...the president seems to want to hunker down..soothing the ruffled feathers of the extreme right wing of his party...[Alito] would make the court less diverse...whines about need to fill the seat with someone in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor...Judge Alito does not appear to be another Sandra Day O'Connor...
[Indeed.]
More Schumer on timing: When there is a controversial nominee for a pivotal swing vote on the high court, the procedure should not be...rushed...this is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court...for decades to come...we need to review his 15 years of judicial opinions...it will take time to assemble those documents...and review them...a lot to fit in between now and Christmas...no one should seek to delay for the sake of delay...but no one should seek to rush these hearings through simply to make a point, distract from issues of the day or avoid thorough review of this nominee...
Jason Smith writes: "How shamless of Chuck Schumer to have converted Rosa Parks' casket into a soapbox to stand upon and give a partisan-hack speech about Alito."
Ditto that.
Hugh Hewitt: Schumer hits bottoms.

Yes, how disgusting of Schumer.

Oooppss...(via AmericaBlog):

Wasting no time, the White House arranged for Alito to go to the Capitol after the announcement.The schedule called for Senate Majority Leader Bill First to greet him and accompany the nominee to the Capitol Rotunda to go to the coffin of the late civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

Did I say tired? I meant sick to my stomach. The far left and the far right have been dying to have an ideological battle--not for right or wrong--but for the battle's sake and here it is. Anyone who thinks the many on the right are happy for the sole reason that this nominee makes the left angry is kidding themselves. Its the same thing with the left's tepid 'support' of Miers. It was there because she made so many on the right angry.

The NEW most qualified nominee

2005-10-31T08:42:00.000-05:00

is Judge Alito. Now, I'm writing this post before having read any other blogs at all with the exception of the SCOTUS Blog. In some of the notable opinions they highlight, I don't see anything that stands out as extreme and Judge Alito seems very qualified for the position. However, I will definitely be looking for more highlights from some of his decisions before I even begin to form an opinion.

More to come.

Friday Fun

2005-10-28T15:47:00.000-05:00

Via Justus for All, here is the fun:

1. Go into your archives.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Post the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag five other people to do the same thing.

Well, here goes nuttin.

My 23rd post was a doozy!! The 5th sentence:

You self-serving partisan ass!

And no, I'm not kidding!!!

The Indictments are Out

2005-10-28T14:38:00.000-05:00

And Scooter Libby has resigned after being indicted on five counts. I said before that I would be somewhat disappointed if this investigation only turned up crimes of 'making false statements', even though I do recognize the seriousness of the crimes committed.

Over at TPM, Josh notes a paragraph in the indictment that could have very far reaching consequences considering the investigation isn't over:

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

Josh notes that the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is a division of the CIA's Directoate of Operations, not the Direcorate of Intelligence. Why is this important? Because 'analysts' come from Intelligence and 'spies', for lack of a better term, come from Operations. Josh concludes that because both Cheney and Libby are long time national security men, this fact was certainly not lost on them. Take from that what you will.

Over at Environmental Republican, Scott notes that he doesn't remember people getting this excited when someone else lied under oath (3 guesses who). I agree, and note the hypocrisy. However, as I said in the comments, the cases are apples and oranges.

Clinton perjured himself during a sexual harrassment case. Not to downplay the important of sexual harrassment, but its importance lies somewhere beneath the ant I stepped on outside when compared to WMD's, the US intelligence community and potential outing of undercover agents. He points out the Clinton was an elected official and that Libby isn't, and that Libby resigned. However, if politicians should resign EVERY time they lied, we'd be left with no politicians.

Its up to the American people to decide the consequence of the lie. To the dismay of many on the right, the American people were NOT behind Clinton's impeachment and did not want him to resign. That is just a fact. Whether Libby is on the radar of the American public remains to be seen. But I think this investigation will go somewhere further, I just don't know where.

Coming in at 3 Hours...

2005-10-28T09:55:00.000-05:00

Is the new King Kong remake by Peter Jackson. I dont mind long movies...as long as they are good. I loved every second of the Lord of the Rings movies...but that could just be because I'm a fan.
However, not being a huge King Kong fan, this part struck me as promising...

After flying to Jackson's home base in Wellington, New Zealand where Kong was shot to watch a sneak peak of the film, studio executives were reportedly elated with the results and agreed to release the three-hour Kong as scheduled Dec. 14--despite the possibility that the length might eat into the monkey movie's box office, allowing for fewer screenings each day.

When business men aren't worried...I think thats gonna be a good movie!

Padilla's Case

2005-10-27T09:36:00.000-05:00

A tangent story to the War on Terror is the case of Jose Padilla. I think this illustrates the Bush Administration's stance on the War on Terror as a whole--namely, we can do whatever we want (torture, hold American's without charges, etc.) as long as its framed by 'fighting the War on Terror' or the Presidents ability to do such.
I think American's should be outraged by the treatment of Padilla. There is no doubt he is dangerous. However, how can an American citizen, be jailed for over 3 years, without being charged and without given due process. It is an outrage and a complete violation of his rights. And YES, he does have rights. Rights guaranteed in the Constitution for him no matter what. If no charges have been brought, is their evidence against him? If so, charge him.

I don't agree with the administration's stance on 'enemy combatants'...this is no surprise. However, Padilla is an American citizen and his rights should NEVER be in question.

Depends on what 'reluctant' means

2005-10-27T08:00:00.000-05:00

"President Bush "reluctantly" accepts Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's request to withdraw her nomination."

I guess just like he 'reluctantly' accepts the resignations of people that work under him. I guess Harriet didn't deserve a fair 'up or down' vote. I thought some of the, to be quite frank, bullying of Miers was a bit unseemly. How many blogs said a form of the following: "Harriet Miers should withdraw her name for the good of the President/Republican/Conservatism".

Next thought, how do you claim the next person is 'the most qualified'??

Ridiculousness at its best

2005-10-26T12:59:00.000-05:00

I usually don't go in for the cries from the right about the left being racist or sexist or whatever. But this post is complete tasteless and unexcuseable. I mean, what the hell was he thinking? This doesn't mean the left is racist, it means a blogger is a complete idiot and possibly racist. Disgusting.

**Update: I've been informed that Steve Gilliard is black. I don't think that excuses his post at all, because I don't think he would have ever posted that had it been a Democratic black politician. However, I concede he probably isn't a racist--experiencing temporary insanity? Still very possible.

My favorite stupid comment this week

2005-10-24T15:12:00.000-05:00

Kay Bailey Hutchinson...what the hell were you thinking. I realize, you are a Senator and have a busy schedule. But, you have plenty of people working for you. You employ people whose only job is to make sure you don't sound like a complete idiot. Now yes, there are legitimate criticisms to be made about the Plame investigation, if you are so inclined. However saying this:

I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.

After knowingly having said this (as part of her statement defending her 'guilty' votes for impeachment of President Clinton for, surprisingly enough, perjury and obstruction of justice):

I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our Country are applicable to us all, including the President, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.

I do not hold to the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation, and to the American people, and gross abuses of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader.

C'mon now! Either be consistent or shut the hell up. I wish there was an IQ requirement for Congress sometimes.

Most of my readers know I think that someone should go to jail for outing Valerie Plame, if it is shown that indeed she was classified as NOC (non-official cover) by the CIA and that information was classified. A perjury or obstruction of justice charge I think is serious, but I think quite possibly would be a waste of time and money to come out with. All that investigation and the only charge would be for someone lying during the investigation? A serious charge, no doubt, but not one, I think, worthy of the effort.

Back to Business

2005-10-23T20:36:00.000-05:00

Ok, just a quick post to inform everyone (hello? Bueller...Bueller??) that blogging will resume tomorrow. I didn't have much blogging left in me for a while there after the loss of a fellow blogger and dear friend. But I have to get back to business and will resume tomorrow.

You want to know how I'm feeling about Miers? Plame-gate? Torture? Tom & Katie's baby? Stay Tuned!

George Ely has left the building

2005-10-09T13:05:00.000-05:00

Today I try and do justice to the intellect and mind of George Ely...better known to some as Zorpack or Z.

Great thinker of ideas, creator of music and beauty, challenger of conformity, bastard extraordinaire, veteran, father of two beautiful daughters and one son, husband and best friend. I don't want to get sappy in trying to write what I think of Mr. Ely (as I affectionately called him), because he would hate that and I hope in my heart he already knew those things; I think he did. From the moment I met him, he challenged me and those around him to see things from a different perspective; to challenge what you were taught; to think differently and to be the person you are. It didn't matter to Mr. Ely if it was the government pressuring you, your parents, your best friend or, quite often, him. He loved to discuss, he loved to sit around, beer in hand and hash it out. He loved to enlighten your mind with a fact here and there (and he had plenty of them) that turned your world, and everything you believed, upside down. He was a 'challenger' in every sense of the word. A grumpy bastard whose long gray hair and and great laugh will be missed more than can be imagined by those he loved and who loved him.

Please do yourself a favor and go read his blog. He would love that more than anything. With that, his last post:

Since I also can't spend a lot of time surfing the web, if you happen to find something that catches your eye or interest, please feel free to add a comment, with the web address, after this message and I'll follow it up as my health allows. Thanks a million, one and all, and stay on guard against tyranny and injustice wherever it raises its ugly head, because, we are the People. One final thing as a parting gift for the voracious among you.I'd like to recommend a book that I'm reading for the third time through. Everytime I read it I'm stunned and amazed by its shear beauty of language (almost poetry I'd say) and the depth of its insights into the ways of humans. It's fairly short, very fast and as satisfying as dinner at Per Se."The Razor's Edge"by W. Somerset Maugham. I declare it an absolute "must read." Enjoy, and goodbye for now.

It really is only for 'now' Mr. Ely.

The Religious Test

2005-10-07T14:03:00.000-05:00

Paul Mirengoff from Powerline argues that its not 'hypocrisy' for conservatives to use Harriet Miers faith to convince other conservatives of her 'conservative' ideals. He insists that in an information-poor environment, people will use whatever information they can to try and divine what the nominees stance on certain issues would be. He says its analagous to the intense interest in John Roberts membership in the Federalist Society.

Dionne and Captain Ed raise a serious point, but in the end I don't see the hypocrisy. When a president nominates a Supreme Court with a scant record of publicly stated beliefs, it's natural to try to read the tea leaves. Thus, with Chief Justice Roberts, we all (on both sides) were curious as to whether he was a member of the Federalist Society. To the extent that he was (or had been), some conservatives would have been more comfortable with him and many liberals less so.

To make a long story short, Paul is wrong.

First, while information on Roberts' legal or judicial philosophy might have been lacking, we had plenty of legal briefings to peruse and uparallelled information on his background. In Miers case, we have none of this. His membership in the Federalist Society was more of a 'intriguiging tidbit' if you will...a 'was he or wasn't he' moment whereupon ideologues on both sides could use to either bolster support for the nomination or rejection.

The difference with Miers is that there is virtually no information at all. No legal briefings, no articles written (save one I belive), no 'on the job' experience...well, that we are privy to anyway. So instead, some conservatives and the Bush Administration are touting her religion as a way to appease other social conservatives into believing that she will be 'conservative'. If this works for you as a conservative, thats fine. However, you should be asking yourself this: Is that enough to convince me and quite frankly, is that the way I want to be convinced?

The second point Paul makes is also wrong.

But what about the Article VI, Clause of the Constitution which states in part that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"? As I understand this provision, it protects Miers and other nominees from having to disclose their beliefs about religion. It also prohibits Senators from basing their votes on a nominee's beliefs. It would offend the Constitution if, for example, Senator Schumer voted against William Pryor out of fear that his deeply held Catholic views would cause him to violate his oath to uphold the Constitution. The same would be true if a Senator voted against a nominee because she is an atheist. But I'm hard-pressed to see a problem with private citizens using such bits of information to try to form a sense of a nominee.

If there's a hypocite here, surely it's Dionne. He advocated (ed. link removed) that the Senate interrogate Roberts regarding the implications of his Catholicism on his judging. Now he thnks it's "good news" that some conservatives think the White House shouldn't even mention Miers' religion.

The difference that Dionne seems to be pointing out is this. While acceptable to question and clarify how a nominee feels their personal religion would influence their judicial decisions is certainly not out of bounds and, in this day and age, almost a necessity; it is NOT acceptable to tout their religion as a 'qualification' (be it conservative or not) for a judicial appointment and NOT acceptable to vote one way or the other based on no other information than their religion.

It is exactly the latter that the Bush Administration is doing.

Common Sense Prevailed

2005-10-06T13:42:00.000-05:00

Via Balloon Juice we get this bit of very welcome news:

A controversial proposed bill to prohibit gays, lesbians and single people from using medical procedures to become pregnant has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.
State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement this afternoon saying: “The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission.”
Under her proposal, couples who need assistance to become pregnant -- such as through intrauterine insemination; the use of donor eggs, embryos and sperm; in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer or other medical means -- would have to be married to each other. In addition, married couples who needed donor sperm and eggs to become pregnant would be required to go through the same rigorous assessment process of their fitness to be parents as do people who adopt a child.

One crazy thing down...6,987,456 to go.

90-9

2005-10-06T11:44:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the Senate did something that I wasn't expecting...got some cojones!

It is worth printing McCain's statement in its entirety because I think its monumentally important and also very eloquent.

Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don’t think I’m naïve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.

I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.

What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives – what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence – we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength – that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea – not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion – but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.

Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.

God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.

See also Colin Powell's support letter for the ammendment. How many high ranking military officials will it take before torture apologists realize how important this legislation is.

Hat tip...Andrew Sullivan

Just a note...

2005-10-05T09:57:00.000-05:00

I'd just like to point out that today is officially incoherant rant day. Apparently, my only point in any posts today is to point out other people's total ridiculousness.

Just a disclaimer.

Its for the children

2005-10-05T09:52:00.000-05:00

Is this for real?

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will makemarriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana,including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who dobecome pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, everywoman in Indiana seeking to become a mother throu gh assistedreproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation,and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" intheir local county probate court.
Only women who are married will be considered for the "gestationalcertificate" that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates thepregnancy. Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be givento married couples that successfully complete the same screeningprocess currently required by law of adoptive parents.
As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "whoknowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproductionprocedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorizedreproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will bethe same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice ofartificial reproduction."

Please tell me this is a joke and that we aren't living in some Orwellian/Handmaidens Tale nightmarish future!!

I'm no legal mind, but here is the draft law...see if any of you can make sense of it.

Sen. Miller believes the requirement of marriage for parenting isfor the benefit of the children that result from infertilitytreatments.
"We did want to address the issue of whether or not the law shouldallow single people to be parents. Studies have shown that a childraised by both parents - a mother and a father - do better. So, wedo want to have laws that protect the children," she explained.
When asked specifically if she believes marriage should be arequirement for motherhood, and if that is part of the bill'sintention, Sen. Miller responded, "Yes. Yes, I do."

For the children people....for the children.