According to PoliticsPA, ex-Treasurer and ex-GOPer Barbara Hafer has decided not to run for Senate in 2006, nixing an all out fight over reproductive rights in the keystone state.
According to his press release current Treasurer and son of popular ex-governor Bob Casey Jr. (D) "said today that he will run" for the seat, and "will make a formal announcement of his candidacy at a later date." Citing trade and health care policies, Casey said DC GOPers "views the results of the November election as a mandate to increase the speed and severity of their push to undermine policies that protect middle-income working families. Their actions since the election played a large part in my decision to enter the Senate race. ... As Senator, I will fight everyday to put middle-class families first. ... I will fight to protect and strengthen Social Security and will oppose any privatization plan that cuts benefits, requires massive borrowing from foreign countries or does nothing to improve the solvency of the Social Security system"
Notice no talk of Abortion, as Casey is pro-life. To Rendell and co, this would be primary battle would have been a nasty one. EMILY's list had already sent up operatives to PA and about to raise money and have staff for Hafer. The one thing I really dislike about EMILY's list is that it effectively makes all their candidates seemingly one-dimensional. They are good at raising money for democratic women who otherwise went ignored pre-blogs, but I think women candidates should be considered much more than being just pro-choice and/or democrats.
Lest we forget, longshot ex-campaign strategist current-Professor Chuck Pennacchio is running in the primary as well. He is running a grassroots/netroots campaign, AKA he is kissing up to MyDD and others hoping to get some cash and recognition. Best of luck.
I wonder what Barbara got in return for not running against Casey? The promise of appointment to the Treasurer's job if Casey wins? A spot on the ticket as LG?
Meanwhile, the pro-choice zealots will now move on to their next intramural battle for 2006 senate race: Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Rep. Jim Langivin is being recruited by Sen. Schumer to run against Sen. Chaffee. The other Congressman from RI, Patrick Kennedy (son of Teddy) realizing he was too young and too dumb, decided to pass up this race. RI is 80 something percent Catholic, who are at least nominally pro-life. Personally, I believe in challenging incumbents with the best your side can offer.
If Democrats regain control of the Senate, their won't be votes on Abortion to worry about how these guys stand. Bush may nominate anti-Roe judges in his last two years, but Democrats can quash these nominees in the judiciary Committee and keep Jim and Bob off those committees. So cool your jets EMILY's listers.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
heading for the hills
The blogopshere is most effective in times like these, where the media is only semi-focused on politics. This is where an effective push on groups like USA Next, and issues like Social Security work in our favor. Being hyper technical and the press being hyper lazy, they look for press releases and little summaries. The blogosphere provides these through the prose posters provide for their readers. Plus, there are people like Josh Marshall who won't let go of an issue and tracks stuff that the media doesn't care about.
It's only March and it seems like Social Security "Reform" is doomed at least for this year, the mainstream media have picked up on the Glannon story, etc.
We even have Tom DeLay running scared in his district. He won with 55% of the vote by a candidate funded solely by the Blogosphere. He is now taking time out to campaign in his new district instead of raise money for more candidates or the GOP committees. Hopefully he will be in jail soon and we will have 1994 in the reverse in 2006.
The blogosphere also completely out manuvered Washington establishment types like ex-Rep. Tim Roemer and even Pelosi and Reid for the DNC chairmanship.
Keep up the good work folks, we got them all right where we want them.
It's only March and it seems like Social Security "Reform" is doomed at least for this year, the mainstream media have picked up on the Glannon story, etc.
We even have Tom DeLay running scared in his district. He won with 55% of the vote by a candidate funded solely by the Blogosphere. He is now taking time out to campaign in his new district instead of raise money for more candidates or the GOP committees. Hopefully he will be in jail soon and we will have 1994 in the reverse in 2006.
The blogosphere also completely out manuvered Washington establishment types like ex-Rep. Tim Roemer and even Pelosi and Reid for the DNC chairmanship.
Keep up the good work folks, we got them all right where we want them.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
read the fine print
that was the first lession I supposedly learned in law school. To read everything I signed and make sure that the contract wasn't crap first. Yet I still got snookered today thanks to Yahoo! and Baskin-Robbins.
The fine print in question said that my "free scoop of ice cream" was limited to the first 300 servings at a participating store, or "while supplies last" which ever comes first. Meaning, on a random tuesday B-R could claim they are all out of ice cream when you walk in with your Y! coupon. Or they could just put up a sign saying they maxed out on their scoop quota, like the one I went to did.
Happy birthday indeed, Yahoo! So to spite them, we went to squirell brothers, which used to be a Snelgrove's chain but lost its franchisee lincense for doing atypical things and decided to stick it out. But the man at the counter was too busy flirting with two girls, so we went to B & D Burgers (for Big and Delicious, of course) and got ourselves a "oreo and peanut butter" milkshake. Turned out it was oreo, butterfinger, and whole peanuts and vanilla soft serve. oh well, it tasted good, but made me thirstier than a Camel in the middle of the desert with his humps all used up.
Oh and while I am at it, Alias is a show I have been watching since about it went on, but I deeply dissipointed with this season. Since "lost" has been such a sucess, JJ Abhams has seemingly devoted all his time to it and lest Alias for dead. Every episode is in its own bubble with excitment but no continuous overarching storyline. Bring back the Di Vinci/Nostadamus guy stuff, back to the cliff hangers, more Sark! Everytime a writer works two shows, one always suffers, like Ally McBeal and The Practice (now Boston Legal) and later Boston Public...what is it with Boston?
The fine print in question said that my "free scoop of ice cream" was limited to the first 300 servings at a participating store, or "while supplies last" which ever comes first. Meaning, on a random tuesday B-R could claim they are all out of ice cream when you walk in with your Y! coupon. Or they could just put up a sign saying they maxed out on their scoop quota, like the one I went to did.
Happy birthday indeed, Yahoo! So to spite them, we went to squirell brothers, which used to be a Snelgrove's chain but lost its franchisee lincense for doing atypical things and decided to stick it out. But the man at the counter was too busy flirting with two girls, so we went to B & D Burgers (for Big and Delicious, of course) and got ourselves a "oreo and peanut butter" milkshake. Turned out it was oreo, butterfinger, and whole peanuts and vanilla soft serve. oh well, it tasted good, but made me thirstier than a Camel in the middle of the desert with his humps all used up.
Oh and while I am at it, Alias is a show I have been watching since about it went on, but I deeply dissipointed with this season. Since "lost" has been such a sucess, JJ Abhams has seemingly devoted all his time to it and lest Alias for dead. Every episode is in its own bubble with excitment but no continuous overarching storyline. Bring back the Di Vinci/Nostadamus guy stuff, back to the cliff hangers, more Sark! Everytime a writer works two shows, one always suffers, like Ally McBeal and The Practice (now Boston Legal) and later Boston Public...what is it with Boston?
juggling
So right now I should be 1) doing my hundreds of pages of reading 2) revising my mock appellate brief 3) writing an article about my Pro Bono experience that goes out of 400-500 people 4) interviewing High School students for Brown 5) writing up those interviews and sending them to Brown 6) helping out with the wedding 7) playing basketball twice a week with my 1L intramural team 8) working on my outlines 9) going to my grandma's birthday party....OK enough whinning. I am just feeling a bit behind in just about every catagory.
Duncan Black over at Eschaton is going after my DLC friend Ed Kilgore, basically for not going with the Liberal line that DLC=Lieberman and Lieberman=GOP-lite. We all know Lieberman is a conservative, pro-business Democrat who WAS the chairman of the DLC in the late 1990s and who ran the Democratic majority into the ground in 2002 and decided to follow that up with an equally embarrassing presidential run in 2004. Now it seems that Lieberman wants to make himself a dealmaker extraordinniare on Social Security. He is even risking a primary challenge funded solely by liberal groups and bloggers who hate him.
My problem with Joe, as I have said many times before, is not his politics, (as much as I dislike his holier than thou attack on Hollywood, they do need to curb the glorification of violence) but his tactics. He thinks he is being diplomatic, being senatorial, but all he does is fuel the GOP fire.
There is no compromising with this White House. They won't play nice back with you, they see it as a weakness to expoit. They need your vote, Joe, but use moderate to conversative Democrats like tissue paper. Haven't you learned from 4 years of this crap? I guess not.
Duncan Black over at Eschaton is going after my DLC friend Ed Kilgore, basically for not going with the Liberal line that DLC=Lieberman and Lieberman=GOP-lite. We all know Lieberman is a conservative, pro-business Democrat who WAS the chairman of the DLC in the late 1990s and who ran the Democratic majority into the ground in 2002 and decided to follow that up with an equally embarrassing presidential run in 2004. Now it seems that Lieberman wants to make himself a dealmaker extraordinniare on Social Security. He is even risking a primary challenge funded solely by liberal groups and bloggers who hate him.
My problem with Joe, as I have said many times before, is not his politics, (as much as I dislike his holier than thou attack on Hollywood, they do need to curb the glorification of violence) but his tactics. He thinks he is being diplomatic, being senatorial, but all he does is fuel the GOP fire.
There is no compromising with this White House. They won't play nice back with you, they see it as a weakness to expoit. They need your vote, Joe, but use moderate to conversative Democrats like tissue paper. Haven't you learned from 4 years of this crap? I guess not.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
No more death penalty for 16-17 year olds
So says the US Surpreme Court in Rooper v. Simmons today. This was a topic that I have mixed feelings about and especially when it comes to teens who do really terrible wanton acts.
Justice Kennedy really gets to write all the big opinions of late on social "wedge" issues. First it was Lawrence v. Texas (eleminating sodomy laws), now this case. In both opinions, he has writen marvelously and actually semi-convinced me of his arguments by the end. Especially amazing to me was that we are the ONLY country that has the death penalty for people under 18, and that the US and Somolia are the only ones to not sign the UN treaty on the rights of children (which come up during Bush I's term, so it was us and the warlords we ended up fighting in 1993 for death penalty for minors). Naturally, Kennedy pointed out that many states have banned the practice (30 or so including the "no death penalty at all" states)
Justice Scalia of course, was miffed at the mentioning of international law and other countries. But what really gets him the most is Gingberg and Stevens' concurring opinion where they state:
I like the idea of the constitution as molding to our times to some extent, yet I think we shouldn't stretch the 18th century document completely out of the Founders' intentions without an amendment. Like the the 2nd amendment, what does that mean? Well I would look to what they said at the time about it and history etc around it, not in light of modern-day guns and school violence.
On a side note, I welcome back my college friend and groomsman (there is no best man FYI) Anthony to the Blogosphere. He is a Linc Chafee GOPer, meaning socially liberal yet fiscally conservative/libertarian. Oh and Brandon a co-college friend and groomsman is also joining the Blogoshere, welcome to you too.
Justice Kennedy really gets to write all the big opinions of late on social "wedge" issues. First it was Lawrence v. Texas (eleminating sodomy laws), now this case. In both opinions, he has writen marvelously and actually semi-convinced me of his arguments by the end. Especially amazing to me was that we are the ONLY country that has the death penalty for people under 18, and that the US and Somolia are the only ones to not sign the UN treaty on the rights of children (which come up during Bush I's term, so it was us and the warlords we ended up fighting in 1993 for death penalty for minors). Naturally, Kennedy pointed out that many states have banned the practice (30 or so including the "no death penalty at all" states)
Justice Scalia of course, was miffed at the mentioning of international law and other countries. But what really gets him the most is Gingberg and Stevens' concurring opinion where they state:
"Perhaps even more important than our specific holding today is our reaffirmation of the basic principle that informs the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. If the meaning of that Amendment had been frozen when it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today. See Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 368 (1989) (describing the common [*63] law at the time of the Amendment's adoption). The evolving standards of decency that have driven our construction of this critically important part of the Bill of Rights foreclose any such reading of the Amendment. In the best tradition of the common law, the pace of that evolution is a matter for continuing debate; but that our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time has been settled since John Marshall breathed life into its text. If great lawyers of his day -- Alexander Hamilton, for example -- were sitting with us today, I would expect them to join JUSTICE KENNEDY's opinion for the Court. In all events, I do so without hesitation." ROPER v. SIMMONS, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 2200
I like the idea of the constitution as molding to our times to some extent, yet I think we shouldn't stretch the 18th century document completely out of the Founders' intentions without an amendment. Like the the 2nd amendment, what does that mean? Well I would look to what they said at the time about it and history etc around it, not in light of modern-day guns and school violence.
On a side note, I welcome back my college friend and groomsman (there is no best man FYI) Anthony to the Blogosphere. He is a Linc Chafee GOPer, meaning socially liberal yet fiscally conservative/libertarian. Oh and Brandon a co-college friend and groomsman is also joining the Blogoshere, welcome to you too.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Quote of the day
"Certainly Respondent does not intend to argue here that, just because the President states that Petitioner's detention is 'consistent with the laws of the United States, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force' that makes it so. Not only is such a statement in directcontravention to the well settled separation of powers doctrine, it is simply not the law. Moreover, such a statement is deeply troubling. If such a position were ever adopted by the courts, it would totally eviscerate the limits placed on Presidential authority to protect the citizenry’s individual liberties."--
Padilla v. Hanft, ___ F.3d ____ (D. S. Car. February 28, 2005).
Finally, some one looking seriously at the Bush administration's line of reasoning and laughing it out of the courtroom. Judge Henry Floyd, you rock my world. He was even nice enough to give the Administration 45 days to take action. After all, he was only confirmed 09/22/2003 by a GOP controlled Senate and appointed by Bush for a district court in one the most conversative states in the Union. Still, I am guessing that Floyd won't be getting a christmas card or invite to the White House this year.
FYI here is what Bush's lawyers argued:
They must really believe their own spin, eat their own poop, drool over their own press releases. It is so facist to think that whatever the executive says IS the law. We are a nation of laws, not men, and certainly not of men like George W. Bush and his pals.
Padilla v. Hanft, ___ F.3d ____ (D. S. Car. February 28, 2005).
Finally, some one looking seriously at the Bush administration's line of reasoning and laughing it out of the courtroom. Judge Henry Floyd, you rock my world. He was even nice enough to give the Administration 45 days to take action. After all, he was only confirmed 09/22/2003 by a GOP controlled Senate and appointed by Bush for a district court in one the most conversative states in the Union. Still, I am guessing that Floyd won't be getting a christmas card or invite to the White House this year.
FYI here is what Bush's lawyers argued:
Even if there were any doubt about whether the AUMF [abreviation for the congressional resolution that authorized the War on Terror]encompasses combatants seized within the United States, such doubt would be resolved in favor of the President’s determination that Congress did in fact authorize petitioner’s detention. President’s Order, Preamble (declaring that petitioner's detention is 'consistent with the laws of the United States, including the Authorization for Use of Military
Force'). Respondent's Opposition at 26.
They must really believe their own spin, eat their own poop, drool over their own press releases. It is so facist to think that whatever the executive says IS the law. We are a nation of laws, not men, and certainly not of men like George W. Bush and his pals.
Oscar thoughts
I thought it was better this year, really moved but there were no real surprises. Gone were most of the sanctamonius speeches, except for the phony-seeming thanks to the troops crap. Really, if Hollywood wants to look good, they should cut the montages, speeches by the director of the Academy, lifetime achievement guy, and just show some clips of stars on USO tours (especially Robin Williams). Oh and cut the songs too, unless you have Beyonce sing all of them, since she is so great. But lose Andrew Lloyd Webber and write some good songs next year.
Poor minor awards winners, they had to either all stand firing squad style on stage or sit in their seats and walk two-feet to a mike to speak. Still an Oscar is an Oscar. I used to like seeing little clips of the movies while they walked up.
Some of them must of really been drunk, like Dustin Hoffman, who slurred all the words for Best Picture and hogged the show from Babs. And the Country Crows, who's heart wasn't in singing this song again (I love their first two albums by the way).
Oh and for the love of humanity, get rid of Joan Rivers and the rest of the vaccuos people that interview celebraties on the red carpet. Laura Linney was trying to say something important about Human Sexuality and Dr. Kinsey when the interviewer said "you look great, who's dress is that?" As if he was really saying, "Damn it, stick to the talking points that your publist gave us!"
Oh and the next time a song is by Hispanics or other groups, don't do what they did this year or in the Sidney 2000 closing ceremonies: look there's all the famous people of this national origin idiots in middle america would recognize. The winner of the Che song did an awesome a cappella that made you wish had had sung it.
That's about it. Oh and what happened to the best custume fashion show? That was a funny experimnet.
Poor minor awards winners, they had to either all stand firing squad style on stage or sit in their seats and walk two-feet to a mike to speak. Still an Oscar is an Oscar. I used to like seeing little clips of the movies while they walked up.
Some of them must of really been drunk, like Dustin Hoffman, who slurred all the words for Best Picture and hogged the show from Babs. And the Country Crows, who's heart wasn't in singing this song again (I love their first two albums by the way).
Oh and for the love of humanity, get rid of Joan Rivers and the rest of the vaccuos people that interview celebraties on the red carpet. Laura Linney was trying to say something important about Human Sexuality and Dr. Kinsey when the interviewer said "you look great, who's dress is that?" As if he was really saying, "Damn it, stick to the talking points that your publist gave us!"
Oh and the next time a song is by Hispanics or other groups, don't do what they did this year or in the Sidney 2000 closing ceremonies: look there's all the famous people of this national origin idiots in middle america would recognize. The winner of the Che song did an awesome a cappella that made you wish had had sung it.
That's about it. Oh and what happened to the best custume fashion show? That was a funny experimnet.
Pundits: not worth a cent
"I think she's being advised secretly by Bill Clinton." -- NYT's Bill Safire revealing that Hillary Clinton may talk to her husband about politics, "Meet," NBC, 2/27.
Gee, how did you figure that one out, Bill? Which inside source did you have that a husband and wife whose whole marriage started around politics (and some would say only exists because of politics) would talk to each other about politics? What a moron. I guess this at least a fact, instead of his endless Hillary ramblings or other crap he puts in his column like his thoughts on grammar that pass as authoritative.
I am tired of hearing about who they think will win. After all, Chris Mathews showed how they were 100% wrong about Howard Dean and John Kerry. I am glad that I don't listen to them anymore. What a waste of time.
Now I should get to studying Property, which I really don't get. Why does it have to be so archaic and confusing?
Gee, how did you figure that one out, Bill? Which inside source did you have that a husband and wife whose whole marriage started around politics (and some would say only exists because of politics) would talk to each other about politics? What a moron. I guess this at least a fact, instead of his endless Hillary ramblings or other crap he puts in his column like his thoughts on grammar that pass as authoritative.
I am tired of hearing about who they think will win. After all, Chris Mathews showed how they were 100% wrong about Howard Dean and John Kerry. I am glad that I don't listen to them anymore. What a waste of time.
Now I should get to studying Property, which I really don't get. Why does it have to be so archaic and confusing?
Sunday, February 27, 2005
WRITOFF
That was the vanity plate of the bright yellow Hummer H2 in front of me today on South Temple and 7th East. My first thought was, "that is disgusting." Then I grew to respect the man's (I am sure it was a man) honesty and not pretending he bought the car for any other reason. Thank you Tom Delay. I am sure this guy is using his Hummer for "business purposes."
You know, my Dad's cousin used this same loophole to buy himself one of those BMW SUVs, what are they called the X5? Something like that. This guy's wife, I believe I told you before, voted for Bush "because he made her feel safe." Not that it mattered in Utah, where 71% voted the same way, but it is basically why Kerry lost. He didn't get enough moderate married women to trust him with national security. And don't get me wrong, these relatives are very nice and the wife has even offered to hold a bridal shower for us sometime. Although I have no idea what we would do there and whole concept of me being at a "shower" wierds me out a bit.
Speaking of wedding stuff, we went to Pottery Barn today (one of the places we are registered, hint hint) for a special morning bridal thing they were having. No, I wasn't the only guy there. It was 3 couples and a mom and bride including us and like 8 salespeople. I really hope that people had canceled because all those bored sales people orbiting us was insufferable. It was nice to have the store all to ourselves and to get some fresh fruit, juice, and a taste of a wedding cake for free, but I am glad we left after an 45 minutes or so of combing the place repeatedly to make sure we had scanned every last thing we could possibly want there. They had allotted 2 hours for us.
After that, we tried to go to Costco, but they open at 10 on Sundays, so we cruised 3rd West and 21st South until I found a place that served coffee that wasn't a Burger King or Seven-Eleven. Sconecutter was our stop, which was open 6AM to midnight every day. So we got a scone and coffee and I reminisced about how much I used to love the joint when I was in the single digits.
Costco as usual was fun; by the time we got out of the store at 10:45, the parking lot was already full. What an amazing place, they must make a killing every weekend. And I must compliment our "boxer" whose name I didn't catch, he neatly packed all our things into 3 boxes in like a minute, very impressive.
Well, its back to working on my mock appellate brief for legal methods. If you are ever fired/discriminated against because of your religion in the 10th Circuit, you might want to read it. Otherwise, only if you like to be tormented.
You know, my Dad's cousin used this same loophole to buy himself one of those BMW SUVs, what are they called the X5? Something like that. This guy's wife, I believe I told you before, voted for Bush "because he made her feel safe." Not that it mattered in Utah, where 71% voted the same way, but it is basically why Kerry lost. He didn't get enough moderate married women to trust him with national security. And don't get me wrong, these relatives are very nice and the wife has even offered to hold a bridal shower for us sometime. Although I have no idea what we would do there and whole concept of me being at a "shower" wierds me out a bit.
Speaking of wedding stuff, we went to Pottery Barn today (one of the places we are registered, hint hint) for a special morning bridal thing they were having. No, I wasn't the only guy there. It was 3 couples and a mom and bride including us and like 8 salespeople. I really hope that people had canceled because all those bored sales people orbiting us was insufferable. It was nice to have the store all to ourselves and to get some fresh fruit, juice, and a taste of a wedding cake for free, but I am glad we left after an 45 minutes or so of combing the place repeatedly to make sure we had scanned every last thing we could possibly want there. They had allotted 2 hours for us.
After that, we tried to go to Costco, but they open at 10 on Sundays, so we cruised 3rd West and 21st South until I found a place that served coffee that wasn't a Burger King or Seven-Eleven. Sconecutter was our stop, which was open 6AM to midnight every day. So we got a scone and coffee and I reminisced about how much I used to love the joint when I was in the single digits.
Costco as usual was fun; by the time we got out of the store at 10:45, the parking lot was already full. What an amazing place, they must make a killing every weekend. And I must compliment our "boxer" whose name I didn't catch, he neatly packed all our things into 3 boxes in like a minute, very impressive.
Well, its back to working on my mock appellate brief for legal methods. If you are ever fired/discriminated against because of your religion in the 10th Circuit, you might want to read it. Otherwise, only if you like to be tormented.
Friday, February 25, 2005
The FDA is broken
About a third of the people voting on whether to reinstate drugs like Vioxx have industry ties (AKA used to work for them). Reinstating a drug, especially one like Vioxx is highly political and highly subject to bias.
The Times reports: "If the 10 advisers [with Big Pharma ties] had not cast their votes, the committee would have voted 12 to 8 that Bextra should be withdrawn and 14 to 8 that Vioxx should not return to the market. The 10 advisers with company ties voted 9 to 1 to keep Bextra on the market and 9 to 1 for Vioxx's return."
I really is disgusting to see such naked corruption. My doctor sister tells me stories about those drug reps who go into hositials and conventions and try to sell the drugs to MDs via freebies, sexiness, and maybe its clinical value.
The system is broken, and I don't trust the overly corporate cozy Bush administration to fix it.
The Times reports: "If the 10 advisers [with Big Pharma ties] had not cast their votes, the committee would have voted 12 to 8 that Bextra should be withdrawn and 14 to 8 that Vioxx should not return to the market. The 10 advisers with company ties voted 9 to 1 to keep Bextra on the market and 9 to 1 for Vioxx's return."
I really is disgusting to see such naked corruption. My doctor sister tells me stories about those drug reps who go into hositials and conventions and try to sell the drugs to MDs via freebies, sexiness, and maybe its clinical value.
The system is broken, and I don't trust the overly corporate cozy Bush administration to fix it.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
The honeymoon is over
It seems like people in California realized that they have a Republican bodyguard for a governor. Arnorld's approval ratings are now 55%, which would be a gigantic mandate for George W. Bush but is an all time low for the Terminator.
And now there is more bad news for Arnold: "The Field Poll found voters approve of the idea of a special election 51 percent to 45 percent until they're told it would cost $50 million to $70 million. Then they oppose it more than 2-to-1 — 67 percent to 30 percent."
And my friends, the Field Poll never lies, it is ALWAYS right or the closest to dead on of any of the polls.
More interesting for me is that "The plan to take redistricting away from the Legislature and give those duties to a panel of retired judges was supported by 48 percent of voters and opposed by 40 percent." It might just pass, yes!
I think California is a prime example of how uncompetitive races can be if you get your computer programs right. I hate redistricting, but I don't think a special election is necessary. Let those incumbents sweat it out until November 2006.
And now there is more bad news for Arnold: "The Field Poll found voters approve of the idea of a special election 51 percent to 45 percent until they're told it would cost $50 million to $70 million. Then they oppose it more than 2-to-1 — 67 percent to 30 percent."
And my friends, the Field Poll never lies, it is ALWAYS right or the closest to dead on of any of the polls.
More interesting for me is that "The plan to take redistricting away from the Legislature and give those duties to a panel of retired judges was supported by 48 percent of voters and opposed by 40 percent." It might just pass, yes!
I think California is a prime example of how uncompetitive races can be if you get your computer programs right. I hate redistricting, but I don't think a special election is necessary. Let those incumbents sweat it out until November 2006.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
vocab quiz
That's all that property really is, an elaborate method of confusing law students and clients so that law professors and lawyers can keep raking in fees and screwing people over for something they should be able to do by themselves.
If we stopped using terms from the 14th century, maybe more of this would make sense.
On a semi-related topic (at least in my crazed mind) those taped coversations with George W. Bush reveal to me that our current president is very smart/clever indeed. All these stupid things he says are done on purpose so as to build up an image of a "regular guy," especially amoung Southerners. After all, Bush is about as elitist and east coast establistment as John Forbes Kerry, but Kerry only speaks in Senate and Bush speaks in fake drawl. Look which one worked.
If we stopped using terms from the 14th century, maybe more of this would make sense.
On a semi-related topic (at least in my crazed mind) those taped coversations with George W. Bush reveal to me that our current president is very smart/clever indeed. All these stupid things he says are done on purpose so as to build up an image of a "regular guy," especially amoung Southerners. After all, Bush is about as elitist and east coast establistment as John Forbes Kerry, but Kerry only speaks in Senate and Bush speaks in fake drawl. Look which one worked.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Quote of the day
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table"--President Bush today.
Trying to have it both ways again George?
Trying to have it both ways again George?
Draft Condi?
One of the weirdest and funniest things to me is conservatives' obsession with Condi Rice as a political candidate (before Arnold, they wanted her to run for governor in her native California). Sure she is good at lying through that big gap in her front teeth, and sure she is loyal to Bush, but what else does she have going for her? Being a black woman? Ask Carol Mosley-Braun how that worked out. Other black GOPers haven't fared so well, like Clarence Thomas (laughing stock of the supreme court), Colin Powell (laughing stock of the international community) and JC Watts (what ever happened to him?).
Condi's in love with GW, and that is about it. She's been dead wrong on nearly every call she's made in the White House, and incompetent to boot. If GOPers really think this is their best match-up to Hillary in 2008, we are going to win in a walk. [as is Hillary in 2006 in NY: she has 69% approval ratings, 49% among GOPers]
Among the highlights of the 32nd Annual CPAC [Conservative PAC] event was a WH '08 straw poll conducted by GOP pollster Tony Frabrizio and his firm. Rudy Giuliani came out on top with 19%, narrowly edging Sec/State Condi Rice at 18%. Rice was the beneficiary of "intensive campaigning by her supporters, who donned 'Draft Rice in 2008' buttons and stickers. Bill Frist tied for third place with George Allen and John McCain at 11%. Other GOPers on the ballot were Newt Gingrich and George Pataki. [American Conservative Union] ACU pres. David Keene said it was significant that no candidate topped 20%. And Keene emphasized that the question to CPAC participants was not who do you want to be the WH '08 GOP nominee, but who do you think will be the WH '08 nominee. Giuliani is "not considered conservative."
MSGOP's Scarborough: "I have got to tell you, again, I've been to CPAC before. These are the true believers. They drink the Kool-Aid" ("Scarborough Country," 2/21).
The Draft Condi Rice for POTUS folks were all over the CPAC conference, telling anyone who would listen that they were a serious organization (registered as a 527, no less) and that they were starting radio ads on 2/18 on every Clear Channel [read: Republican] station in IA. The folks at Americans for Rice-Dot Com have posted their 15-second radio ad. Full transcript:
ANNCR: "AmericansforRice.com is the website for the 527 organization dedicated to electing Dr. Condoleezza Rice President in 2008. AmericansforRice.com is not approved by any candidate or party. Visit AmericansforRice.com today."
In addition to the radio spot, one can download a rock song ("Condoleeza Will Lead Us") supporting Rice for just $.99 (Hotline reporting, 2/18).
AmericansforRice.com's Crystal Dueker, on their reception at CPAC: "And there were about 30 young women who came up to me, basically as a group, and wanted to get the campaign buttons, they wanted to get the bumper stickers"
Maybe they wanted them as memorabilia. I once thought of getting a Kuchinich sticker or a Braun button, but I would have never voted for those clowns.
Condi's in love with GW, and that is about it. She's been dead wrong on nearly every call she's made in the White House, and incompetent to boot. If GOPers really think this is their best match-up to Hillary in 2008, we are going to win in a walk. [as is Hillary in 2006 in NY: she has 69% approval ratings, 49% among GOPers]
Among the highlights of the 32nd Annual CPAC [Conservative PAC] event was a WH '08 straw poll conducted by GOP pollster Tony Frabrizio and his firm. Rudy Giuliani came out on top with 19%, narrowly edging Sec/State Condi Rice at 18%. Rice was the beneficiary of "intensive campaigning by her supporters, who donned 'Draft Rice in 2008' buttons and stickers. Bill Frist tied for third place with George Allen and John McCain at 11%. Other GOPers on the ballot were Newt Gingrich and George Pataki. [American Conservative Union] ACU pres. David Keene said it was significant that no candidate topped 20%. And Keene emphasized that the question to CPAC participants was not who do you want to be the WH '08 GOP nominee, but who do you think will be the WH '08 nominee. Giuliani is "not considered conservative."
MSGOP's Scarborough: "I have got to tell you, again, I've been to CPAC before. These are the true believers. They drink the Kool-Aid" ("Scarborough Country," 2/21).
The Draft Condi Rice for POTUS folks were all over the CPAC conference, telling anyone who would listen that they were a serious organization (registered as a 527, no less) and that they were starting radio ads on 2/18 on every Clear Channel [read: Republican] station in IA. The folks at Americans for Rice-Dot Com have posted their 15-second radio ad. Full transcript:
ANNCR: "AmericansforRice.com is the website for the 527 organization dedicated to electing Dr. Condoleezza Rice President in 2008. AmericansforRice.com is not approved by any candidate or party. Visit AmericansforRice.com today."
In addition to the radio spot, one can download a rock song ("Condoleeza Will Lead Us") supporting Rice for just $.99 (Hotline reporting, 2/18).
AmericansforRice.com's Crystal Dueker, on their reception at CPAC: "And there were about 30 young women who came up to me, basically as a group, and wanted to get the campaign buttons, they wanted to get the bumper stickers"
Maybe they wanted them as memorabilia. I once thought of getting a Kuchinich sticker or a Braun button, but I would have never voted for those clowns.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Ranking the Presidents
In honor of the holiday which keeps me at home instead of in class this Monday I thought I would rank the presidents.
BEST
1. Lincoln: kept the border states from leaving, won the bloodiest American war, freed the slaves, had a crazy wife, and still managed to lead in tough times.
2. FDR: lead us out of the Great Depression, won WWII (at least with against the Nazis), created Social Security and many other New Deal programs.
3. Madison: saved the US from destruction at the hands of the British, Dolly risked her life to save Washington's portrait, created national pride and indirectly the national anthem.
4. Teddy Roosevelt: took on big monolopolies and other robber barrons, fought in the Spanish-American war. Downside: he named Taft his VP and ran as a "BullMoose" in 1912, ensuring Wilson's victory.
5. Kennedy (vis vis Johnson): his death and vision laid the foundation for most of what Johnson actually accomplished including the Apollo mission and Civil Rights.
WORST:
1. George W. Bush: plunged us from surplus into deficit, reversed safety measures and other sound policy to reward donors, ignored Al-Qaeda until it was too late, bungled the war on Terror, started an optional war and bungled that too, allowed a gay prostitute into the white house to ask slanted questions, organized a propagana effort that would make Kim Il-Sung blush. Plus: Signed McCain-Finegold, but then again he never vetoed a single bill.
2. Nixon: showed what the framers were worried about with tyranny and blind lust for power, started illegal wars in Laos and South America. Plus: signed bills keeping cigarette ads off TV.
3. Grant: twiddled his thumbs while the temporary progress in civil rights for blacks was underminded, a setback that would last a century. He also was ignorant of scandals going on all around him. plus: signed feckless anti-lynching bill
4. Andrew Jackson: personal slaughtered and promoted the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans in the biggest corrupt land grab of American history, destroyed the bank of US and set back commerce for decades.
5. Coolige/Hoover: sat around while the impeding/imploding doom of the Great Depression came.
HONERABLE MENTIONS (good and bad):
Washington: first president, walked away from life tenure to create the office. But was ineffectual to the growing partisan divide in his own cabinet and the nascent country.
Reagan: Conservatives love him, but do they know he raised taxes, unleashed homeless people upon our streets in the form of the mentally ill, was good pals with Saddam Hussien and Augusto Pinochet (at least his allies in Honduras), picked easy victories against weak dictators, funded and armed the Proto-Tailban in Afgahnistan, balloned the deficit, and was senile towards the end?
Clinton: Is the most talented and brilliant politican of our time and arguably the best American in these fields of all time. But couldn't make a decision promptly, couldn't control his desires, and tried too hard to please everyone-- leading to the 1994 debacle which cost the Democrats the house for at least a dozen years. On the other hand, he figured out foriegn policy by 1996 and created the environment for the longest lasting boom in American history.
Jefferson: bought 2/3s of this country from cash strapped France at a great price, promoted exploration and learning, pardoned those emprisioned by the Alien and Sedition Act. Minuses: the author of the Decoration of Independece fathered mullato children via his slave, never freed them like Washington did, and was deeply in debt from his Clintonian overexuberance.
Wilson: his 14 points presaged World War II. His arguments to the French and British, though they feel on deaf ears, where dead on. He stupidly hung his hat on the League of Nations which had no teeth and had a stroke towards the end.
BEST
1. Lincoln: kept the border states from leaving, won the bloodiest American war, freed the slaves, had a crazy wife, and still managed to lead in tough times.
2. FDR: lead us out of the Great Depression, won WWII (at least with against the Nazis), created Social Security and many other New Deal programs.
3. Madison: saved the US from destruction at the hands of the British, Dolly risked her life to save Washington's portrait, created national pride and indirectly the national anthem.
4. Teddy Roosevelt: took on big monolopolies and other robber barrons, fought in the Spanish-American war. Downside: he named Taft his VP and ran as a "BullMoose" in 1912, ensuring Wilson's victory.
5. Kennedy (vis vis Johnson): his death and vision laid the foundation for most of what Johnson actually accomplished including the Apollo mission and Civil Rights.
WORST:
1. George W. Bush: plunged us from surplus into deficit, reversed safety measures and other sound policy to reward donors, ignored Al-Qaeda until it was too late, bungled the war on Terror, started an optional war and bungled that too, allowed a gay prostitute into the white house to ask slanted questions, organized a propagana effort that would make Kim Il-Sung blush. Plus: Signed McCain-Finegold, but then again he never vetoed a single bill.
2. Nixon: showed what the framers were worried about with tyranny and blind lust for power, started illegal wars in Laos and South America. Plus: signed bills keeping cigarette ads off TV.
3. Grant: twiddled his thumbs while the temporary progress in civil rights for blacks was underminded, a setback that would last a century. He also was ignorant of scandals going on all around him. plus: signed feckless anti-lynching bill
4. Andrew Jackson: personal slaughtered and promoted the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans in the biggest corrupt land grab of American history, destroyed the bank of US and set back commerce for decades.
5. Coolige/Hoover: sat around while the impeding/imploding doom of the Great Depression came.
HONERABLE MENTIONS (good and bad):
Washington: first president, walked away from life tenure to create the office. But was ineffectual to the growing partisan divide in his own cabinet and the nascent country.
Reagan: Conservatives love him, but do they know he raised taxes, unleashed homeless people upon our streets in the form of the mentally ill, was good pals with Saddam Hussien and Augusto Pinochet (at least his allies in Honduras), picked easy victories against weak dictators, funded and armed the Proto-Tailban in Afgahnistan, balloned the deficit, and was senile towards the end?
Clinton: Is the most talented and brilliant politican of our time and arguably the best American in these fields of all time. But couldn't make a decision promptly, couldn't control his desires, and tried too hard to please everyone-- leading to the 1994 debacle which cost the Democrats the house for at least a dozen years. On the other hand, he figured out foriegn policy by 1996 and created the environment for the longest lasting boom in American history.
Jefferson: bought 2/3s of this country from cash strapped France at a great price, promoted exploration and learning, pardoned those emprisioned by the Alien and Sedition Act. Minuses: the author of the Decoration of Independece fathered mullato children via his slave, never freed them like Washington did, and was deeply in debt from his Clintonian overexuberance.
Wilson: his 14 points presaged World War II. His arguments to the French and British, though they feel on deaf ears, where dead on. He stupidly hung his hat on the League of Nations which had no teeth and had a stroke towards the end.
Friday, February 18, 2005
2006 senate ruminations
There has been a debate about the PA senate race(s), should Senate Judicary Chair Arlen Specter retire. It goes like this: do you give state Treasurer and son of popular ex-Gov. Bob Casey Jr. a layup against and open seat and let some poor schmuck (probabbly) lose to Senate Buffoon Rick Santorum? Or do you pit Casey against Santorum and let either ex-GOPer Barbara Hafer or 2004 Senate Candidate and ex-Rep. Joe Hoeffel run for the open seat against either Club for Growth pet project ex-Rep. Pat Toomey or ex-DHS ex-Gov Tommy Ridge?
Personally, I favor giving Santorum the toughest battle possible, because he demeans the Senate and the Commonwealth with his presence, which means pro-lifer Casey jr. should take up the gauntlet. Hopefully Arlen will get healthy, but if he has to retire, or tragically dies, then whom should Governor Rendell appoint? Casey, so he can be an incumbent running against Santorum and be even stronger? Or Hafer/Hoeffel, so they will have a better shot at the open seat? I say let the H's have their fun, Casey already has tons of built in advantages, like his Pittsburgh base, which is the same as Santorum which really hurts the old dog-on-man-love guy (since you have to have either Pitts or Philly to be competitive statewide, and Lord knows Philly ain't going GOP on Rendell's watch).
Now on to other senate races, there will be lots to defend, but first and foremost, Democrats have to make sure golden oldies like Byrd don't retire. Stay on buddy, isn't it fun to make speeches against Bush on C-SPAN? Next, fill in some good people to protect open seats, like MN. After that, help the vulerable incumbents, like Ben Nelson in Nebraska, or Bill Nelson in Florida. Then you can target more folks like little Rhodie's Linc Chafee, or other blue state GOPers or DINOs/putzes like Joe Liberman.
Personally, I favor giving Santorum the toughest battle possible, because he demeans the Senate and the Commonwealth with his presence, which means pro-lifer Casey jr. should take up the gauntlet. Hopefully Arlen will get healthy, but if he has to retire, or tragically dies, then whom should Governor Rendell appoint? Casey, so he can be an incumbent running against Santorum and be even stronger? Or Hafer/Hoeffel, so they will have a better shot at the open seat? I say let the H's have their fun, Casey already has tons of built in advantages, like his Pittsburgh base, which is the same as Santorum which really hurts the old dog-on-man-love guy (since you have to have either Pitts or Philly to be competitive statewide, and Lord knows Philly ain't going GOP on Rendell's watch).
Now on to other senate races, there will be lots to defend, but first and foremost, Democrats have to make sure golden oldies like Byrd don't retire. Stay on buddy, isn't it fun to make speeches against Bush on C-SPAN? Next, fill in some good people to protect open seats, like MN. After that, help the vulerable incumbents, like Ben Nelson in Nebraska, or Bill Nelson in Florida. Then you can target more folks like little Rhodie's Linc Chafee, or other blue state GOPers or DINOs/putzes like Joe Liberman.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
from the "you've gotta be kidding" dept
Bush nominated Negroponte to be the Director of National Intelligence. That's right, the man whose prints are all over Iran-Contra and other fun, yet illegal covert activities is the man in charge of all our intelligence thanks to the 9/11 bill.
"Negroponte began his diplomatic career in 1960 and served in South Vietnam before becoming an aide to Henry Kissinger during negotiations in Paris with North Vietnam. From 1981 to 1985, he was U.S. ambassador to Honduras, where he helped carry out the Reagan administration’s efforts, using the Contra rebels, to oust the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. He also served as ambassador to Mexico and the Philippines."
This is just like Bush naming Kissinger as the head of the 9/11 commission. Yet somehow I doubt the media will make as much fuss. Why should Negroponte get anywhere near controlling intelegence information and resources, let alone have CIA director Porter Goss report to him?
The Bush Administration is getting closer and closer to fulfilling the fears of George Orwell's "1984" government. Where's the outrage? And why does everything Joe Lieberman touch turn to crap?
"Negroponte began his diplomatic career in 1960 and served in South Vietnam before becoming an aide to Henry Kissinger during negotiations in Paris with North Vietnam. From 1981 to 1985, he was U.S. ambassador to Honduras, where he helped carry out the Reagan administration’s efforts, using the Contra rebels, to oust the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. He also served as ambassador to Mexico and the Philippines."
This is just like Bush naming Kissinger as the head of the 9/11 commission. Yet somehow I doubt the media will make as much fuss. Why should Negroponte get anywhere near controlling intelegence information and resources, let alone have CIA director Porter Goss report to him?
The Bush Administration is getting closer and closer to fulfilling the fears of George Orwell's "1984" government. Where's the outrage? And why does everything Joe Lieberman touch turn to crap?
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
fed up with the lies
According to a Wall Street Journal poll, "1,008 adults, conducted Feb. 10-14, found that 51% Americans consider it 'a bad idea' to change Social Security by allowing workers to invest payroll taxes in the stock market, while 40% think it's a "good idea." That is essentially unchanged since January, despite Mr. Bush's attempt to drum up support for the idea in the State of the Union address and a cross-country tour. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points." 60% of those say their position on the matter is "firm."
People are now finally amenable to my idea of removing the upper cap on Social Security taxes to fund the "crisis" by a 64%-32% margin. Why should Bill Gates pay less than one half of one 100th of a percent of his income and people earning minimum wage have pay much, much more than that (percentage wise)?
51% say the Iraqi election was legitimate...let's see what they think after Iraq turns into Iran, Jr. or there is a major civil war. Meanwhile, Bush is about where he was pre-9/11 50%. I still don't get how this guy won on some level.
People are now finally amenable to my idea of removing the upper cap on Social Security taxes to fund the "crisis" by a 64%-32% margin. Why should Bill Gates pay less than one half of one 100th of a percent of his income and people earning minimum wage have pay much, much more than that (percentage wise)?
51% say the Iraqi election was legitimate...let's see what they think after Iraq turns into Iran, Jr. or there is a major civil war. Meanwhile, Bush is about where he was pre-9/11 50%. I still don't get how this guy won on some level.
the Net best thing
National Journal's Chuck Todd notes, "These 'netroot' groups will do the same for one or more of the candidates -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- in 2008. The netroot groups are as potentially powerful a base in a primary as labor and/or blacks for the Democrats. And this time, the media is going to take netroot groups more seriously, thereby increasing their influence in the next cycle." Todd points to Feingold, Gore, and Clark on the Democratic side and Brownback, Sanford & Schwarzenegger on the GOP side (as well as Thune and Toomey).
And given that Chris Bowers, Markos and other prominant bloggers' dream of Dean as DNC chair has come true, who will be the blogosphere's candidate in 2008?
Well according to a poll on MyDD, it's General Wesley Clark. This isn't a huge surprise since Clark was drafted over the internet and had the second best internet strategy going in 2004, raising tens of millions of dollars online, having his own MyDD/DailyKos style community (called ForClark), and generally a very enthusiastic level of support from bloggers everywhere, being the Deaniac's second choice mostly and the choice of internet folks who didn't jive with Dean like myself.
Feingold is a cool guy, and I liked him when I met him at a Matheson fundraiser in 2000. But he has a couple problems that will be hard to overcome: 1) he's short 2) he's a senator 3) he's jewish. Maybe Joe Lieberman made it ok for Jewish folks to run for the highest office in the land, but I still worry. The things he has going for him are 1) McCain/Campaign Finance Reform 2) no vote on the PATRIOT Act 3) he is from the swingable state of Wisconsin.
As for Gore, his biggest problem is 1) he's Al Gore, the most famous loser of our time 2) he's Al Gore, about as charasmatic as John Kerry [man, what is with Democratic primary voters? Why support such duds?] 3) He has gone off with the noisy but ineffectual MoveOn.org and become a screaming red faced banchee. Pluses, 1) he has a great accent that is coming back 2) When he trashes Bush, people listen 3) Hello, name recognition?
I don't want to go into all the same for the other side, other than Arnold has to get a consitutional amendment through before he can run for President or VP (plus, he is too far left on cultural issues to make it through the primary).
And given that Chris Bowers, Markos and other prominant bloggers' dream of Dean as DNC chair has come true, who will be the blogosphere's candidate in 2008?
Well according to a poll on MyDD, it's General Wesley Clark. This isn't a huge surprise since Clark was drafted over the internet and had the second best internet strategy going in 2004, raising tens of millions of dollars online, having his own MyDD/DailyKos style community (called ForClark), and generally a very enthusiastic level of support from bloggers everywhere, being the Deaniac's second choice mostly and the choice of internet folks who didn't jive with Dean like myself.
Feingold is a cool guy, and I liked him when I met him at a Matheson fundraiser in 2000. But he has a couple problems that will be hard to overcome: 1) he's short 2) he's a senator 3) he's jewish. Maybe Joe Lieberman made it ok for Jewish folks to run for the highest office in the land, but I still worry. The things he has going for him are 1) McCain/Campaign Finance Reform 2) no vote on the PATRIOT Act 3) he is from the swingable state of Wisconsin.
As for Gore, his biggest problem is 1) he's Al Gore, the most famous loser of our time 2) he's Al Gore, about as charasmatic as John Kerry [man, what is with Democratic primary voters? Why support such duds?] 3) He has gone off with the noisy but ineffectual MoveOn.org and become a screaming red faced banchee. Pluses, 1) he has a great accent that is coming back 2) When he trashes Bush, people listen 3) Hello, name recognition?
I don't want to go into all the same for the other side, other than Arnold has to get a consitutional amendment through before he can run for President or VP (plus, he is too far left on cultural issues to make it through the primary).
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
my fifteen minutes
This morning, I had my interview. Out of the 14 firms I applied to, it looks like this is the only one that wants to talk to me. Still, I am lucky and happy to have had it. It was a good idea to talk to this guy for a while during a on campus recruiting event and a good idea that I put my middle name (and my father's first name) on my resume, since the first question was "are you related to X from Y firm?" It was good to bring my transcripts and resume, because it showed that I had better grades in college and that college was Brown.
I tried to demonstate my knowledge of issues and the law and their firm and them personally. Hopefully, it worked.
Of course, everyone of my friends at law school came up and asked if I had an interview, and I did the same to people before and after. Everyone is a bit nervous about the whole situation and all have no idea what to expect. The interviews are so short (15 min.) and so high stress, combined with wearing suits and heals for girls.
Who knows...anyway, it is nice to have it over with and to have the opportunity to try to win them over. I figure it is hard to forget a 6'3" red head who is a flaming Democrat in a flaming GOP state. At least I stick out.
I tried to demonstate my knowledge of issues and the law and their firm and them personally. Hopefully, it worked.
Of course, everyone of my friends at law school came up and asked if I had an interview, and I did the same to people before and after. Everyone is a bit nervous about the whole situation and all have no idea what to expect. The interviews are so short (15 min.) and so high stress, combined with wearing suits and heals for girls.
Who knows...anyway, it is nice to have it over with and to have the opportunity to try to win them over. I figure it is hard to forget a 6'3" red head who is a flaming Democrat in a flaming GOP state. At least I stick out.
Monday, February 14, 2005
The fool and his money
Give to the DNC if you want. But don't give to it because of Howard Dean. A lot of Dean-o-philes have being pouring in money (about $100,000 via places like MyDD and DailyKos) to the committee over the weekend solely because the good doctor is now in charge.
The trouble is, Dean is now the chair of the entire big tent party. He can't and won't move the party ideologically. He might have some luck with some reforms, most of which will be giving some power back to the state parties. As far as consultants, he will not hire Shrum et al, but he will still hire the same old people that worked for his presidential campaign sans Trippi (I bet). I think will do a pretty job. I hope he keeps his word not to run for 2008. All democrats, even bitter Tim Roemer, should wish him well and good luck.
To Matt Stoller and Donnie's kids: good work, nice try, it might have happened but for Howard Dean. DFA was too big and established to counter with a overnight blog shop and personal connection. DNC members alright liked Howard since he gave his "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" speech as a candidate that launched him from obscurity to frontrunner in early 2003.
Happy Valentine's Day everyone. Even if no one got you flowers or candy or dinner or a card or whatever, remember: The Third Avenue loves you. In a Platonic way, but keep coming back and reading.
The trouble is, Dean is now the chair of the entire big tent party. He can't and won't move the party ideologically. He might have some luck with some reforms, most of which will be giving some power back to the state parties. As far as consultants, he will not hire Shrum et al, but he will still hire the same old people that worked for his presidential campaign sans Trippi (I bet). I think will do a pretty job. I hope he keeps his word not to run for 2008. All democrats, even bitter Tim Roemer, should wish him well and good luck.
To Matt Stoller and Donnie's kids: good work, nice try, it might have happened but for Howard Dean. DFA was too big and established to counter with a overnight blog shop and personal connection. DNC members alright liked Howard since he gave his "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" speech as a candidate that launched him from obscurity to frontrunner in early 2003.
Happy Valentine's Day everyone. Even if no one got you flowers or candy or dinner or a card or whatever, remember: The Third Avenue loves you. In a Platonic way, but keep coming back and reading.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Clarke '08
As much as I like Wesley Clark, I think Richard Clarke would make an awesome presidential canididate. When he came out with his book and testified before the 9/11 commission, he blew everyone away with his story and the honesty of it all.
The Republican Noise Machine tried to drown him out and question his knowledge and motives, but they came off looking despirate and disjointed. Rice and Hadley (her deputy) had their hats handed to them on 60 minutes and in other forums where they were seriously questioned. The lies and incompetency of Rice and Hadley showed through, despite their denials.
It is too bad that Clarke foreswore working in another White House or running himself. Maybe we could draft him. Even though he is more like a old-fashioned George H.W. Bush-style Republican, I think those are the type of people Democrats need to win these days to recapture the presidency.
Remember his claim that he sent Condi a memo in January 2001 saying the terrorist are a real threat and this is what we need to do about them? And Condi claimed she got no such memo? Well the Times has the scoop on the now-declassified memo:
Exactly like told us in his book and testimony, and exactly opposite of Rice's claims, not even close:
"the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations." The article explained that the Federal Aviation Administration "received 52 intelligence reports" that mentioned Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001, and that the FAA warned airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."
Fifty-two? What was she doing when Clarke was banging down her door, Tenent's "hair was on fire" and the FAA had sent her 52 warnings, which included a method and other reports which said SOON in the summer of 2001...clearing brush with Dubya in Crawford? She did call him "my husband" once. Did she not want to hurt his feelings, interupt his runs, naps or solitare games? (he used to play the windows version as governor)
At least some of the blood from those 3,000 people who died on September 11 is on her hands (and Clarke's hands as he will admit). At the very least, GOPers have to admit that it is oftly coincidential that all these damaging things were blocked by the Bush administration until after the inauguration.
If only the American people had had all the facts in front of them, the entire senate intelligence committe report, the entire 9/11 report, all of Clarke's memos...I wonder if voters would have still felt that George W. Bush had/would keep them more safe than John Kerry.
The Republican Noise Machine tried to drown him out and question his knowledge and motives, but they came off looking despirate and disjointed. Rice and Hadley (her deputy) had their hats handed to them on 60 minutes and in other forums where they were seriously questioned. The lies and incompetency of Rice and Hadley showed through, despite their denials.
It is too bad that Clarke foreswore working in another White House or running himself. Maybe we could draft him. Even though he is more like a old-fashioned George H.W. Bush-style Republican, I think those are the type of people Democrats need to win these days to recapture the presidency.
Remember his claim that he sent Condi a memo in January 2001 saying the terrorist are a real threat and this is what we need to do about them? And Condi claimed she got no such memo? Well the Times has the scoop on the now-declassified memo:
The 13-page proposal presented to Dr. Rice by her top counterterrorism adviser, Richard A. Clarke, laid out ways to step up the fight against Al Qaeda, focusing on Osama bin Laden's headquarters in Afghanistan. The ideas included giving "massive support" to anti-Taliban groups "to keep Islamic extremist fighters tied down"; destroying terrorist training camps "while classes are in session" and then sending in teams to gather intelligence on terrorist cells; deploying armed drone aircraft against known terrorists; more aggressively tracking Qaeda money; and accelerating the F.B.I.'s translation and analysis of material from surveillance of terrorism suspects in American cities.
Exactly like told us in his book and testimony, and exactly opposite of Rice's claims, not even close:
"the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations." The article explained that the Federal Aviation Administration "received 52 intelligence reports" that mentioned Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001, and that the FAA warned airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."
Fifty-two? What was she doing when Clarke was banging down her door, Tenent's "hair was on fire" and the FAA had sent her 52 warnings, which included a method and other reports which said SOON in the summer of 2001...clearing brush with Dubya in Crawford? She did call him "my husband" once. Did she not want to hurt his feelings, interupt his runs, naps or solitare games? (he used to play the windows version as governor)
At least some of the blood from those 3,000 people who died on September 11 is on her hands (and Clarke's hands as he will admit). At the very least, GOPers have to admit that it is oftly coincidential that all these damaging things were blocked by the Bush administration until after the inauguration.
If only the American people had had all the facts in front of them, the entire senate intelligence committe report, the entire 9/11 report, all of Clarke's memos...I wonder if voters would have still felt that George W. Bush had/would keep them more safe than John Kerry.
Friday, February 11, 2005
glad to be in UT
Today I went to an ABA thing at the law school; they are having their convention here in SLC this weekend. Anyway, they were supposed to tell us tip on how to get our first job and we were supposed to schmooze with the panelists.
Instead, 90% were windbags reeling off their resume and how great thier firm is ("the first law office in France, the first law office in Russia...and that was in 1987, when we weren't even sure if it would [go capitalist]") Who cares? There is another reason not to go to NYC and deal with pompous blowhards who think they are God's gift to the law and to you.
There were some interesting people who told of their tale of cold calling and tiny salaries. The trouble is, I am not that extroverted and have trouble going donwtown to chat up a buttload of attorneys this weekend, or anyone for that matter. I prefer small groups, where I can find out what interests them and mention my one bit of knowledge on their area of expertise and ask smart sounding questions. But going up to people is the hardest thing to me. I am no Bill Clinton, I sweat just thinking about picking up a phone, let alone getting high on going into a room filled with people.
I got to talk to my hopefully supervising attorney this morning and am pumped to try to get a fellowship to reform our attrocious election laws. Wish me luck.
Instead, 90% were windbags reeling off their resume and how great thier firm is ("the first law office in France, the first law office in Russia...and that was in 1987, when we weren't even sure if it would [go capitalist]") Who cares? There is another reason not to go to NYC and deal with pompous blowhards who think they are God's gift to the law and to you.
There were some interesting people who told of their tale of cold calling and tiny salaries. The trouble is, I am not that extroverted and have trouble going donwtown to chat up a buttload of attorneys this weekend, or anyone for that matter. I prefer small groups, where I can find out what interests them and mention my one bit of knowledge on their area of expertise and ask smart sounding questions. But going up to people is the hardest thing to me. I am no Bill Clinton, I sweat just thinking about picking up a phone, let alone getting high on going into a room filled with people.
I got to talk to my hopefully supervising attorney this morning and am pumped to try to get a fellowship to reform our attrocious election laws. Wish me luck.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Photo of the day
What happened to Al Franken? this morning I was so happy that he was running for Minn.'s senate seat and then he chickened out! Here's to you Al:
While you were sleeping...
Surprise! North Korea has nuclear weapons! Not surprised? Nor am I. They have been about a hairs breath from getting such weapons since 1994 at least, when Carter staved off a Clintonian military strike (AKA no ground troops) with an agreement that seemed to slow things down.
On Secretary of State Albright's exit in 2001, she warned the incoming Bush Administration that North Korea was probabbly the biggest threat to world peace and wanted nukes. So what did they do? Plotted to attack Iraq and ignored Korea until they jumped up and down in a meeting saying they had cheated on the 1994 agrement.
Did this sound the alarm bells? No, just a Condi Rice speech slamming the Clinton Administration for being soft on North Korea. Her solution? Just ignore them/refuse to talk with them until they give in to US demands and talk through China and with Japan and Russia (and the US and China). It also gave Bush the excuse to pump more money (at least 10 billion) down the toilet knows as Missle Defease.
The North Koreans starve their own people while building freeways for the Dear Leader's cars and nuclear weapons to threaten food support out of South Korea, Japan, and China. This guy is complete irrational, incompetant, and has built a cult around him filled with propaganda and lies...why does this sound familiar?
On Secretary of State Albright's exit in 2001, she warned the incoming Bush Administration that North Korea was probabbly the biggest threat to world peace and wanted nukes. So what did they do? Plotted to attack Iraq and ignored Korea until they jumped up and down in a meeting saying they had cheated on the 1994 agrement.
Did this sound the alarm bells? No, just a Condi Rice speech slamming the Clinton Administration for being soft on North Korea. Her solution? Just ignore them/refuse to talk with them until they give in to US demands and talk through China and with Japan and Russia (and the US and China). It also gave Bush the excuse to pump more money (at least 10 billion) down the toilet knows as Missle Defease.
The North Koreans starve their own people while building freeways for the Dear Leader's cars and nuclear weapons to threaten food support out of South Korea, Japan, and China. This guy is complete irrational, incompetant, and has built a cult around him filled with propaganda and lies...why does this sound familiar?
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Real mature
This theory of mine that Republican elected officials and party operatives are fundamentally immature keeps getting backed up by events like this:
In Maryland, Governor Bob Ehrlich's longtime aide was caught spreading false rumors that (future Democratic gubinatorial candidate wannabe) Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley is having/had an extramarital affair. "I have always been faithful to my wife, from our first date to this date," O'Malley said.
Ehrlich, to his credit, fired that bum once it was obvious that his aide Joseph Steffen was the one doing the posting on conservative blogs and speading the rumors to TV stations, Annapolis lobbyists, etc. "Let me tell you, I don't put up with this, and I will not put up with this. Bottom line," Ehrlich said.
But was the whole thing sanctioned by Ehrlich anyway? "I began to suspect very strongly that it was something concerted and orchestrated and sustained," O'Malley said. "It became a drumbeat and then was relentless. And the common theme and language used to push it on Web sites and the like were some of the things about it that made me feel it was orchestrated." Steffen? "No Comment"
Until yesterday, the Post Steffen was the spokesman for the Insurance Administration and made $72,453.
During the GOP convention in NYC, a delegate sold purple band-aids to make fun of John Kerry's three purple hearts. Every state of the union shows GOPers either booing loudly, pouting, or cheering wildly, depending on who is president. And then of course when Democrats try to boo this year, Republicans throw a hissy fit.
They called Al Gore "Sore Loserman" in November/December 2000, but they were the ones whining on every corner with their "Brooks Brothers Riot" about how the votes shouldn't be counted and complaining all the way to the US Supreme Court. I could go on, but I need to go to class.
In Maryland, Governor Bob Ehrlich's longtime aide was caught spreading false rumors that (future Democratic gubinatorial candidate wannabe) Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley is having/had an extramarital affair. "I have always been faithful to my wife, from our first date to this date," O'Malley said.
Ehrlich, to his credit, fired that bum once it was obvious that his aide Joseph Steffen was the one doing the posting on conservative blogs and speading the rumors to TV stations, Annapolis lobbyists, etc. "Let me tell you, I don't put up with this, and I will not put up with this. Bottom line," Ehrlich said.
But was the whole thing sanctioned by Ehrlich anyway? "I began to suspect very strongly that it was something concerted and orchestrated and sustained," O'Malley said. "It became a drumbeat and then was relentless. And the common theme and language used to push it on Web sites and the like were some of the things about it that made me feel it was orchestrated." Steffen? "No Comment"
Steffen discussed the rumors on the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com during the summer of 2004. He posted them under the name NCPAC, a reference to one of his early employers, the National Conservative Political Action Committee...."They call me the Prince of Darkness," Steffen said in the interview... Several of Steffen's co-workers said in interviews that he parachuted into agencies, set up an office with a statue of the grim reaper on his desk and began assembling lists of people who should be fired.
"I had been advised by my boss that he had a hit list," said Tom Burgess, a former state Department of Human Resources administrator who was fired after Ehrlich took office. "We were all very concerned about him."
Until yesterday, the Post Steffen was the spokesman for the Insurance Administration and made $72,453.
During the GOP convention in NYC, a delegate sold purple band-aids to make fun of John Kerry's three purple hearts. Every state of the union shows GOPers either booing loudly, pouting, or cheering wildly, depending on who is president. And then of course when Democrats try to boo this year, Republicans throw a hissy fit.
They called Al Gore "Sore Loserman" in November/December 2000, but they were the ones whining on every corner with their "Brooks Brothers Riot" about how the votes shouldn't be counted and complaining all the way to the US Supreme Court. I could go on, but I need to go to class.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
that's why he said it
Remember back to the last SOTU? The one that nobody clapped at and even the GOP were wondering if they backed the wrong guy? George W. Bush talked about a fanatasy land he called "America" and some how manage to thrown in an attack on Major League Baseball and steriod use, which seemed like a cheap shot, equivant to saying "I am against these Catholic Priests who molest children."
Here's what Bush said last year: "The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports ... sends the wrong message: that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character." Takes one to know shortcuts to accomplishment, doesn't it?
But anyway back to the point. Today on Sportscenter, ESPN reported that ex-monster hitter Jose Canseco has a tell all book oh-so-subtley titled "Juiced" which recalls the days when he saw Mark McGuire shoot up, Jason Giambi shoot up, and the two shoot up each other (how cute), as well as Viarga spokesman and Texas Ranger Ralphio Palmero and MVP Ivan Rodregez. Then Canseco went on to say that Bush as the then-owner of the Texas Rangers knew or should have known this was happening.
Of course, they all deny it. But Steriod use was rampant in the MLB in the late 90s. Just like the stock market bubble and the resulting Enrons and WorldComs, everyone in the know could tell it was all too good to be true. But there was pressure to perform, and everyone with an interest looked the otherway.
There's no pretending anymore.
Here's what Bush said last year: "The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports ... sends the wrong message: that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character." Takes one to know shortcuts to accomplishment, doesn't it?
But anyway back to the point. Today on Sportscenter, ESPN reported that ex-monster hitter Jose Canseco has a tell all book oh-so-subtley titled "Juiced" which recalls the days when he saw Mark McGuire shoot up, Jason Giambi shoot up, and the two shoot up each other (how cute), as well as Viarga spokesman and Texas Ranger Ralphio Palmero and MVP Ivan Rodregez. Then Canseco went on to say that Bush as the then-owner of the Texas Rangers knew or should have known this was happening.
Of course, they all deny it. But Steriod use was rampant in the MLB in the late 90s. Just like the stock market bubble and the resulting Enrons and WorldComs, everyone in the know could tell it was all too good to be true. But there was pressure to perform, and everyone with an interest looked the otherway.
There's no pretending anymore.
Monday, February 07, 2005
A note on spelling
Dear Brian Watkins (and other annoyed readers),
I am deeply sorry that I continuously have typos, misspellings, and improper diction in my posts. The causal style in which I write leaves much room for error. I would like to claim that is this is purposeful style and that, like e.e. cummings, I am rebelling in my own small way against grammar and spelling.
Unfortunately, I merely sloppy and unskilled. Please read in missing words, read out misplaced words, homonyms, and the like. I devout much thought to my posts as to their subject matter and general flow, but very little time actually typing them. True, this is deeply unprofessional but then again I have yet to see a penny from my Google Ads in the corner. Writing daily about my thoughts, "adventures" and frustrations is a joy that I am happy to share with all of you, but my spelling and grammar is not something I intend to inflict on anyone.
Please take this long rambling post as an apology for transgressions past and present. Hopefully, in the future I can devote more time to reading them over and correcting. But in the meantime, drop the red pencil and let me know more privately so I can fix the mistake(s) that bother you. Thanks again.
I am deeply sorry that I continuously have typos, misspellings, and improper diction in my posts. The causal style in which I write leaves much room for error. I would like to claim that is this is purposeful style and that, like e.e. cummings, I am rebelling in my own small way against grammar and spelling.
Unfortunately, I merely sloppy and unskilled. Please read in missing words, read out misplaced words, homonyms, and the like. I devout much thought to my posts as to their subject matter and general flow, but very little time actually typing them. True, this is deeply unprofessional but then again I have yet to see a penny from my Google Ads in the corner. Writing daily about my thoughts, "adventures" and frustrations is a joy that I am happy to share with all of you, but my spelling and grammar is not something I intend to inflict on anyone.
Please take this long rambling post as an apology for transgressions past and present. Hopefully, in the future I can devote more time to reading them over and correcting. But in the meantime, drop the red pencil and let me know more privately so I can fix the mistake(s) that bother you. Thanks again.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Postcards from different worlds
Last night, my fiancee and I went to Bountiful. This town is pretty homogeneous: over 95% white and probably at least as high percentage belong to the LDS faith.
We went up North to participate in student group that is designed primarily for spouses/partners who would like to get out and talk to adults everyonce in a while (read: stay-at-home moms). The ones there were 3Ls and gave us a snapshot of where we would be in two years. We talked, ate pizza and other snacks, played games and had a good time with nice people.
This are very conservative people. We played a comparison game called Apples-to-Apples. The word was "Trustworthy" and you were to choose among your cards of nouns which word you thought the judge would deem the most apt. Someone choose "Republicans," and my fiancee and I held back our shock and laughter given the record of lies by George W. Bush's administration and the homegrown version ex-SL Co. Mayor Nancy Workman, who is currently on trial for defrauding the county of money to pay her daughter for a do-nothing job.
The other one was a word somewhere between "evil" and "untrustworthy" (I can't remember the exact word) and someone chose "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as there card. Now some time HRC bothers me, but other than being ambitious and cut-throat, I can't think of many negative things about her...She had bad hair styles at times but she was hyperscrutinized. She is brilliant (probably smarter than Bill, and that is saying something), a good senator (in terms of getting stuff done and working with GOPers etc.), shying away from the spotlight that follows her around, and passionate about her causes.
This morning was completely the opposite politcally. Wellesley Professor (emeritus) Alan Schechter was speaking at an alumnae's house near us. Schechter was Hillary's mentor and got appointed to the Fulbright committee by Clinton. The man is from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" but his wife was even more of an activist. Yet I had Wesley Clark in common with them. They had campaigned in Portsmouth while I was Derry last winter. We reminisced about how cold it was and talked about gearing up for Clark '08. In the crowd we had my contracts professor (class of '67), the dean of the law school/ Democratic gubenatorial candidate/husband of '76 alumna Robyn Matheson, lawyers, artists, PhD candidates and more prominant alumnae. A very powerful group of women assembled around Schechter and the muffins we bought from Costco.
Schechter talked about how we got to where we are today. His synopsis: we are in a backlash that started in the 1960s and 1970s where LBJ and the Warren/Marshall court changed the cultural landscape: allowing blacks to vote, women equal protection, abortion, banning the death penalty (and recently allowing gay marriage in places like SF and MA).
The Democratic majority from the '30s until '94 in Congress was a false, corrupt bargain between the "Solid South," filled with conservative (and racist) members/senators and the emerging coastal liberals. It was the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (combined with the court rulings) that sealed the eventual fate of that Democratic party. Almost all of these same conservatives slowly, but surely joined the GOP starting with Goldwater, then Reagan and eventually Bush 43.
While Reagan played lipservice to the evangelicals, Bush 43 actually is a born-again, as is many in his staff. Schechter sees no hope of the GOP's strange marriage between Wall-Street Republicans and evangelicals because they are mutually dependent on each other to achieve their goals.
The White House, he said, is up for grabs, but the Congress is out of reach for the foreseeable future. He believes Hillary is susceptible to a Draft movement like Clark was and both have the same view of running for the presidency: that they would run if their country called them.
Like me, Schechter knew Kerry was a loser from the get-go because a) his lack of person magnetism needed to win over marginal voters b) his Vietnam history c) his ability to make every position seem two-faced and flip-floppy, even if he was consistent d) the fact that he was a senator for 20 years, and finally e) the fact that he represented Massachusetts. Thus, he liked Clark because he a) he charismatic (more than the the other candidates save Sharpton and Edwards) b) his clear pro-Vietnam history c) is lack of track record d) not a senator e) the fact that he was from flippable Arkansas. The idea was, with no voting history, Clark could be consistent and make up his positions as he went along. Of course, it didn't work out that way (see "Help, Mary!").
Clark learned from his mistakes, I believe, like Schetcher thinks that Dean learned from his. Schechter thinks that Dean will watch his mouth more and not try to change the party ideologically. But hopefully structurally Howard.
We went up North to participate in student group that is designed primarily for spouses/partners who would like to get out and talk to adults everyonce in a while (read: stay-at-home moms). The ones there were 3Ls and gave us a snapshot of where we would be in two years. We talked, ate pizza and other snacks, played games and had a good time with nice people.
This are very conservative people. We played a comparison game called Apples-to-Apples. The word was "Trustworthy" and you were to choose among your cards of nouns which word you thought the judge would deem the most apt. Someone choose "Republicans," and my fiancee and I held back our shock and laughter given the record of lies by George W. Bush's administration and the homegrown version ex-SL Co. Mayor Nancy Workman, who is currently on trial for defrauding the county of money to pay her daughter for a do-nothing job.
The other one was a word somewhere between "evil" and "untrustworthy" (I can't remember the exact word) and someone chose "Hillary Rodham Clinton" as there card. Now some time HRC bothers me, but other than being ambitious and cut-throat, I can't think of many negative things about her...She had bad hair styles at times but she was hyperscrutinized. She is brilliant (probably smarter than Bill, and that is saying something), a good senator (in terms of getting stuff done and working with GOPers etc.), shying away from the spotlight that follows her around, and passionate about her causes.
This morning was completely the opposite politcally. Wellesley Professor (emeritus) Alan Schechter was speaking at an alumnae's house near us. Schechter was Hillary's mentor and got appointed to the Fulbright committee by Clinton. The man is from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" but his wife was even more of an activist. Yet I had Wesley Clark in common with them. They had campaigned in Portsmouth while I was Derry last winter. We reminisced about how cold it was and talked about gearing up for Clark '08. In the crowd we had my contracts professor (class of '67), the dean of the law school/ Democratic gubenatorial candidate/husband of '76 alumna Robyn Matheson, lawyers, artists, PhD candidates and more prominant alumnae. A very powerful group of women assembled around Schechter and the muffins we bought from Costco.
Schechter talked about how we got to where we are today. His synopsis: we are in a backlash that started in the 1960s and 1970s where LBJ and the Warren/Marshall court changed the cultural landscape: allowing blacks to vote, women equal protection, abortion, banning the death penalty (and recently allowing gay marriage in places like SF and MA).
The Democratic majority from the '30s until '94 in Congress was a false, corrupt bargain between the "Solid South," filled with conservative (and racist) members/senators and the emerging coastal liberals. It was the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (combined with the court rulings) that sealed the eventual fate of that Democratic party. Almost all of these same conservatives slowly, but surely joined the GOP starting with Goldwater, then Reagan and eventually Bush 43.
While Reagan played lipservice to the evangelicals, Bush 43 actually is a born-again, as is many in his staff. Schechter sees no hope of the GOP's strange marriage between Wall-Street Republicans and evangelicals because they are mutually dependent on each other to achieve their goals.
The White House, he said, is up for grabs, but the Congress is out of reach for the foreseeable future. He believes Hillary is susceptible to a Draft movement like Clark was and both have the same view of running for the presidency: that they would run if their country called them.
Like me, Schechter knew Kerry was a loser from the get-go because a) his lack of person magnetism needed to win over marginal voters b) his Vietnam history c) his ability to make every position seem two-faced and flip-floppy, even if he was consistent d) the fact that he was a senator for 20 years, and finally e) the fact that he represented Massachusetts. Thus, he liked Clark because he a) he charismatic (more than the the other candidates save Sharpton and Edwards) b) his clear pro-Vietnam history c) is lack of track record d) not a senator e) the fact that he was from flippable Arkansas. The idea was, with no voting history, Clark could be consistent and make up his positions as he went along. Of course, it didn't work out that way (see "Help, Mary!").
Clark learned from his mistakes, I believe, like Schetcher thinks that Dean learned from his. Schechter thinks that Dean will watch his mouth more and not try to change the party ideologically. But hopefully structurally Howard.
Friday, February 04, 2005
The church's fingers
Today there is a story in the Salt Tribune which I doubt has a corresponding article in the Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS church (along with a couple radio stations and a local NBC affilate, which has correspondingly opted out of showing Saturday Night Live).
The Mormon church is the most powerful and influencial lobbyist on Salt Lake's Capital Hill. While that is not a shocking statement, the level of their power is unlike any other church in any other state. Bills are routinely nixed or boosted by the church's support and they are in many areas a de facto branch of state government, who's veto power kills stuff before they even get a committee vote.
This case revolves around charter schools, which I am mixed about. As with anything in education, it seem ideology drive the research and it is difficult to tell if progress is actually being made or if there is regressions.
The Salt Lake Arts Academy right now resides in the old main branch of the SL Library, but their lease is up this summer to make way for a cool new perminant exhibit called Leonardo. Academy officials and city representatives (city councilmembers, the mayor, state representatives and senators) want them to stay downtown so students would "take TRAX, use the city library and mix with the business crowd." The problem? "[S]tate law prohibits alcohol establishments from opening within 600 feet of parks, libraries or schools for kindergartners through 12th-graders...If local zoning allows, there's no state law against a school opening near a bar. But if the city, which does not allow schools downtown, were to change its zoning to allow them, it would prevent new bars and restaurants from opening - running counter to redevelopment efforts."
State Senator and democratic LG candidate (in 2000 and 2004) Karen Hale (who's also LDS) proposed a bill to exempt charter schools to get around such laws and let more than one bar exist on a block. But then word got out that the church didn't like it (and MADD too). And then Hale dropped it, but she wouldn't say that it was the church that made her do it, or MADD, but the writing is on the wall.
Constroversal mayor Rocky Anderson was pissed: "The church, like anybody else, certainly has a right to make its views known," Anderson said Thursday, but added: "It's the only organization, I think, that seems to automatically get its way among most elected officials."
Just two days ago, the mayor "held his last public forum on bridging the divide among Mormons and others and one theme was the alienation some non-Mormons feel when they believe Mormon values run the state. To heal, Anderson said it is 'crucial' to move away public officials allowing the church to 'control' public policy."
Some times it seems that church has too much power. Any group, when it has total control in an area tends to get tryannical, just look at the Democratic party in Massachusetts.
The Mormon church is the most powerful and influencial lobbyist on Salt Lake's Capital Hill. While that is not a shocking statement, the level of their power is unlike any other church in any other state. Bills are routinely nixed or boosted by the church's support and they are in many areas a de facto branch of state government, who's veto power kills stuff before they even get a committee vote.
This case revolves around charter schools, which I am mixed about. As with anything in education, it seem ideology drive the research and it is difficult to tell if progress is actually being made or if there is regressions.
The Salt Lake Arts Academy right now resides in the old main branch of the SL Library, but their lease is up this summer to make way for a cool new perminant exhibit called Leonardo. Academy officials and city representatives (city councilmembers, the mayor, state representatives and senators) want them to stay downtown so students would "take TRAX, use the city library and mix with the business crowd." The problem? "[S]tate law prohibits alcohol establishments from opening within 600 feet of parks, libraries or schools for kindergartners through 12th-graders...If local zoning allows, there's no state law against a school opening near a bar. But if the city, which does not allow schools downtown, were to change its zoning to allow them, it would prevent new bars and restaurants from opening - running counter to redevelopment efforts."
State Senator and democratic LG candidate (in 2000 and 2004) Karen Hale (who's also LDS) proposed a bill to exempt charter schools to get around such laws and let more than one bar exist on a block. But then word got out that the church didn't like it (and MADD too). And then Hale dropped it, but she wouldn't say that it was the church that made her do it, or MADD, but the writing is on the wall.
Constroversal mayor Rocky Anderson was pissed: "The church, like anybody else, certainly has a right to make its views known," Anderson said Thursday, but added: "It's the only organization, I think, that seems to automatically get its way among most elected officials."
Just two days ago, the mayor "held his last public forum on bridging the divide among Mormons and others and one theme was the alienation some non-Mormons feel when they believe Mormon values run the state. To heal, Anderson said it is 'crucial' to move away public officials allowing the church to 'control' public policy."
Some times it seems that church has too much power. Any group, when it has total control in an area tends to get tryannical, just look at the Democratic party in Massachusetts.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Gonzales round-up
After an exciting and agressive debate on my comment board regarding the Torture Memo, we finially heard from people who had a say in the matter, our 100 US Senators. Armando and Kos have a nice handy sheet of Democrats who voted yea or nay or abstained.
I disagree with some of their conclusions and will make some of mine. First, lets go to the "yea" votes for Gonzales by Democrats (GOPers are irrelevant because they all voted with their president, even people like Linc Chafee who supposidly didn't even vote for Bush).
(1) Senator Ken Salazar (CO). His excuse? The "he's hispanic" argument/"American Dream" argument. Dick Durbin (IL) had a great rebuttal to the "American Dream" part:
(2) Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT).OK well Joe is like George Kastanza and always manages to stick his finger in the air, and feel it blowing the wrong way. He is after all, the sole member of the "loyal JOE-position." Sorry, couldn't resist another Joe joke, he brought this on himself.
(3) Senator Ben Nelson (NE). He is running for reelection in a hyper-Red state. His biggest competition (the Governor) is now the new Secretary of Agriculture. But then again, Martinez was Bush's HUD secretary and that didn't stop him from running for FL's open senate seat. Just what we need another Bush puppet in the senate. I feel bad for Ben Nelson because some other dude with the same last name is now also a senator (see below) and it must be really annoying, but it is no excuse to vote for torture.
(4) Senator Mary Landrieu (LA) I hear her kids are real brats and she won't control them on airplanes. So I guess she is really into torturing mild-mannered law-abiding citizens on their way from Washington DC to New Orleans, so why not Iraqis Afghans and various other Arabs?
(5) Senator Pryor (AR) He will be up for a tough bout in 2008, the only reason he won last time was the guy he ran against was a holier-than-thou type who was porking his staffer and then dumped his wife for the staffer (who was like 20 years younger than him too). Nevertheless, Pryor also won because people liked his Daddy and might have thought they were voting for him.
(6) Senator Bill Nelson (FL) Bill, the other senator named Nelson. Wasn't there a band named Nelson, with long WWE hair? Oh right, they sucked. He too is up for reelection like his twin from Nebraska. Florida has seemingly gone Red on us since 2000, and Nelson is the only statewide Democratic elected offical (the legislature and the House delegation has been nicely gerrymandered to ensure a GOP majority for the next decade). Translation: he is taking a dump in his pants, and doesn't want to seem like a wuss against those terrorists to people in Pensacola.
Phew...now on to the Nay or Abstained, with particular focus on our Red state Democratic senators.
Evan Bayh (D-IN) Running for President in 2008...good luck.
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) one of those guys who nobody really knows what he does in the Senate, until now.
Robert Byrd (D-WV) the old man rules despite being ex-KKK.
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) He's got senority
Tom Harkin (D-IA) The last liberal of "the Heartland"
Tim Johnson (D-SD)it takes guts when you won by a few hundred votes...and your benefactor just lost by a few hundred.
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) you go girl!
Harry Reid (D-NV) Minority Leader with cajoines
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Yes, that Rockefeller. The last of the Rockefeller Democrats.
Not present (fighting off Bush misinformation in their home states)
Max Baucus (D-MT) His wife hit someone over a bag of soil once, caused quite a stir in Washington society.
Kent Conrad (D-ND) I think I had an LSAT class with his daughter, she was nice to me.
And there you have it. Enjoy and have a great weekend.
I disagree with some of their conclusions and will make some of mine. First, lets go to the "yea" votes for Gonzales by Democrats (GOPers are irrelevant because they all voted with their president, even people like Linc Chafee who supposidly didn't even vote for Bush).
(1) Senator Ken Salazar (CO). His excuse? The "he's hispanic" argument/"American Dream" argument. Dick Durbin (IL) had a great rebuttal to the "American Dream" part:
I respect and admire Alberto Gonzales for his inspiring life story and the many obstacles he has overcome. Some of my colleagues suggested his life story embodies the American dream. But there is more to the American dream than overcoming difficult circumstances to obtain prominence and prosperity. We also must honor Fred Korematsu's dream that our country be true to the fundamental principle upon which it was founded: the rule of law...I cannot in good conscience vote to reward a man who ignored the rule of law and the demands of human decency and created the permissive environment that made Abu Ghraib possible....When the history of these times are recorded, I believe that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will join the names of infamous Japanese-American internment camps such as Manzanar, Heart Mountain, and Tule Lake where Fred Korematsu and over thousands of others were detained. I cannot in good conscience vote to make the author of such a terrible mistake the chief law enforcement officer of our great Nation and the guardian of our God-given and most cherished rights.As for the "he's hispanic and I'm hispanic" argument, I would hope this country has come far enough that you don't have to vote for someone just because you share their race/ethnicity if you are a minority Member/Senator. I think that is insulting to all Hispanics out there that people can't tell the difference between a Cuban-American who will do whatever this President wants him to do and a guy like Caesar Chavez.
(2) Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT).OK well Joe is like George Kastanza and always manages to stick his finger in the air, and feel it blowing the wrong way. He is after all, the sole member of the "loyal JOE-position." Sorry, couldn't resist another Joe joke, he brought this on himself.
(3) Senator Ben Nelson (NE). He is running for reelection in a hyper-Red state. His biggest competition (the Governor) is now the new Secretary of Agriculture. But then again, Martinez was Bush's HUD secretary and that didn't stop him from running for FL's open senate seat. Just what we need another Bush puppet in the senate. I feel bad for Ben Nelson because some other dude with the same last name is now also a senator (see below) and it must be really annoying, but it is no excuse to vote for torture.
(4) Senator Mary Landrieu (LA) I hear her kids are real brats and she won't control them on airplanes. So I guess she is really into torturing mild-mannered law-abiding citizens on their way from Washington DC to New Orleans, so why not Iraqis Afghans and various other Arabs?
(5) Senator Pryor (AR) He will be up for a tough bout in 2008, the only reason he won last time was the guy he ran against was a holier-than-thou type who was porking his staffer and then dumped his wife for the staffer (who was like 20 years younger than him too). Nevertheless, Pryor also won because people liked his Daddy and might have thought they were voting for him.
(6) Senator Bill Nelson (FL) Bill, the other senator named Nelson. Wasn't there a band named Nelson, with long WWE hair? Oh right, they sucked. He too is up for reelection like his twin from Nebraska. Florida has seemingly gone Red on us since 2000, and Nelson is the only statewide Democratic elected offical (the legislature and the House delegation has been nicely gerrymandered to ensure a GOP majority for the next decade). Translation: he is taking a dump in his pants, and doesn't want to seem like a wuss against those terrorists to people in Pensacola.
Phew...now on to the Nay or Abstained, with particular focus on our Red state Democratic senators.
Evan Bayh (D-IN) Running for President in 2008...good luck.
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) one of those guys who nobody really knows what he does in the Senate, until now.
Robert Byrd (D-WV) the old man rules despite being ex-KKK.
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) He's got senority
Tom Harkin (D-IA) The last liberal of "the Heartland"
Tim Johnson (D-SD)it takes guts when you won by a few hundred votes...and your benefactor just lost by a few hundred.
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) you go girl!
Harry Reid (D-NV) Minority Leader with cajoines
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Yes, that Rockefeller. The last of the Rockefeller Democrats.
Not present (fighting off Bush misinformation in their home states)
Max Baucus (D-MT) His wife hit someone over a bag of soil once, caused quite a stir in Washington society.
Kent Conrad (D-ND) I think I had an LSAT class with his daughter, she was nice to me.
And there you have it. Enjoy and have a great weekend.
A better way to spend SOTU night
Instead of watching a series of illogical reasoning for bad policies, deceptive use of numbers, and outright lies (along with mandatory juvenile boos and cheers), I went to CostCo last night. The workers there are always so happy, genuinely so, unlike the creeped out feeling you get at a Wal-Mart (where they speaking to you in code that they want out of this miserable existence).
After that, we went searching for dinner, as the hot dogs and pizza didn't seem like our cup of tea last night. In search of something "healthy" we went to Wild Oats, the blue state grocery store. And who did we see but local celebrity Bill Gephardt (not to be confused with Dick Gephardt, two time presidential loser and unemployed Cardinals fan.), the local TV channel's "consumer reports investigator." He looked pretty grumpy and tired gathering some food for the checkout counter, so I didn't bother him with some scam that had been pulled on me.
Ironically (not Atlantis Morrisette Ironic), we ended up eating at Taco Bell and Burger King. And although I regretted the feeling in my stomach while I tossed and turned, it was still better than watching the Bush's weltanshauung.
After that, we went searching for dinner, as the hot dogs and pizza didn't seem like our cup of tea last night. In search of something "healthy" we went to Wild Oats, the blue state grocery store. And who did we see but local celebrity Bill Gephardt (not to be confused with Dick Gephardt, two time presidential loser and unemployed Cardinals fan.), the local TV channel's "consumer reports investigator." He looked pretty grumpy and tired gathering some food for the checkout counter, so I didn't bother him with some scam that had been pulled on me.
Ironically (not Atlantis Morrisette Ironic), we ended up eating at Taco Bell and Burger King. And although I regretted the feeling in my stomach while I tossed and turned, it was still better than watching the Bush's weltanshauung.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
The most depressing thing I've read...today
That great title is owned by a Newsweek article entitled Dream On America.
The basic gist of the article is that America is in decline. We have lost our moral compass, and the world no longer looks to us as a beacon of freedom. Our economy is not doing as well as the EU, our health care system ranks 37th best in the world (according to WHO), "behind Colombia (22nd) and Saudi Arabia (26th), and on a par with Cuba." The gulf between the rich and the poor in the US has widened faster than in EU countries. "In Sweden, you are three times more likely to rise out of the economic class into which you were born than you are in the U.S."
The same thing happened in South Africa, Kosovo, other African countries, and South America. They all prefer a European-style constitution over a American-style one.
The rest of the world is hating us more and more, and not just President Bush. "A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country."
One of the main reasons I supported Wesley Clark and opposed George Bush this last election was that Clark understood the worldview, and Bush couldn't care less. Now I am not saying the UN or the EU or whatever gets to have "veto power" over US policy, but I am saying there are lots of good things that come out of listening to ones Allies seriously beyond good will: increased trading, more foreigners studying in our colleges and universities (they are now going to Europe more instead), increased military support for missions around the world, increased influence on the world stage, moral authority to push American Ideals and our version of Democracy. I am afraid that if we continue down this road of Bush-ism, in my lifetime we will see the US surpassed by China or the EU.
The basic gist of the article is that America is in decline. We have lost our moral compass, and the world no longer looks to us as a beacon of freedom. Our economy is not doing as well as the EU, our health care system ranks 37th best in the world (according to WHO), "behind Colombia (22nd) and Saudi Arabia (26th), and on a par with Cuba." The gulf between the rich and the poor in the US has widened faster than in EU countries. "In Sweden, you are three times more likely to rise out of the economic class into which you were born than you are in the U.S."
When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in. They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies," he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories."
The same thing happened in South Africa, Kosovo, other African countries, and South America. They all prefer a European-style constitution over a American-style one.
Much in American law and society troubles the world these days. Nearly all countries reject the United States' right to bear arms as a quirky and dangerous anachronism. They abhor the death penalty and demand broader privacy protections. Above all, once most foreign systems reach a reasonable level of affluence, they follow the Europeans in treating the provision of adequate social welfare is a basic right. All this, says Bruce Ackerman at Yale University Law School, contributes to the growing sense that American law, once the world standard, has become "provincial." The United States' refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain terrorist suspects, to ratify global human-rights treaties such as the innocuous Convention on the Rights of the Child or to endorse the International Criminal Court (coupled with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) only reinforces the conviction that America's Constitution and legal system are out of step with the rest of the world.
The rest of the world is hating us more and more, and not just President Bush. "A plurality of voters (the average is 70 percent) in each of the 21 countries surveyed by the BBC oppose sending any troops to Iraq, including those in most of the countries that have done so. Only one third, disproportionately in the poorest and most dictatorial countries, would like to see American values spread in their country."
One of the main reasons I supported Wesley Clark and opposed George Bush this last election was that Clark understood the worldview, and Bush couldn't care less. Now I am not saying the UN or the EU or whatever gets to have "veto power" over US policy, but I am saying there are lots of good things that come out of listening to ones Allies seriously beyond good will: increased trading, more foreigners studying in our colleges and universities (they are now going to Europe more instead), increased military support for missions around the world, increased influence on the world stage, moral authority to push American Ideals and our version of Democracy. I am afraid that if we continue down this road of Bush-ism, in my lifetime we will see the US surpassed by China or the EU.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Iraqification
I am so happy that the voting went off with nary a hitch this weekend. Too bad it will be a while before we know who won and at some will doubt the authenticity of the outcome given the low participation by Sunnis. The real winner will be Sistani in my boat, he will be the power broker not too far from the glare of the flashbulbs.
It is also unfortunate that we had to spend over $150 billion so that 26 million people would have the chance to vote. Is that really why we invaded the country, spent blood and treasure? I wonder if people really are aware of how much history repeats itself with the second Nixon Administration...I mean the second Bush Administration.
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout inSouth Vietnam[Iraq]'s presidential election despite a Vietcong [insurgent] terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting."
-- New York Times, September 4, 1967. Here's the PDF of the original article. Courtesy of Political Wire and DailyKos
It is also unfortunate that we had to spend over $150 billion so that 26 million people would have the chance to vote. Is that really why we invaded the country, spent blood and treasure? I wonder if people really are aware of how much history repeats itself with the second Nixon Administration...I mean the second Bush Administration.
"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in
-- New York Times, September 4, 1967. Here's the PDF of the original article. Courtesy of Political Wire and DailyKos
Monday, January 31, 2005
site of the day
Hot or Not for US Senators!
via Political Wire
I don't know where these photos were dug up but they are hilarious and extremely unflatering for just about everyone of them.
Go ahead see how your senator ranks.
via Political Wire
I don't know where these photos were dug up but they are hilarious and extremely unflatering for just about everyone of them.
Go ahead see how your senator ranks.
much to do about nothing
Senator Hillary Clinton's speech over abortion have been labeled "triangulation" and an attempt to position herself for 2008.
In reality, this is the same position on reproductive choice that she's held since those halycon days of "It Takes a Village." Abortion, Clinton said, is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."
The new twist, according to Slate's William Saletan is the idea of never.
My favorite quote of his? "Many profound things are at stake in the abortion debate. Afternoon delight isn't high on the list."
Anyway, this is the same old same old. Hand it to Hillary to have her "Sistah Soldier" moment in 2005 in front of the pro-choice crowd instead of in 2007 or 2008, if she really is running for president, which I doubt.
In reality, this is the same position on reproductive choice that she's held since those halycon days of "It Takes a Village." Abortion, Clinton said, is "a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," said Clinton. Then she went further: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."
The new twist, according to Slate's William Saletan is the idea of never.
Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband's presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I'm sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that's the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.
My favorite quote of his? "Many profound things are at stake in the abortion debate. Afternoon delight isn't high on the list."
Anyway, this is the same old same old. Hand it to Hillary to have her "Sistah Soldier" moment in 2005 in front of the pro-choice crowd instead of in 2007 or 2008, if she really is running for president, which I doubt.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
don't fear the national ID
I don't get the liberatian fear of a national ID card. The ACLU has another one of their scare campaigns on the subject. Ellen from BOPNews and the Draft Clark movement is concerned about the issue.
Even if we were to make smart cards like PPI folks like Shane Ham want, I doubt we would ever get close to the ACLU 1984-esque ad. It makes sense to have one uniform ID across the US, instead of 50 different systems with varying degrees of security. It was find in the old days when people were just making fake IDs to buy beer before they turned 21 or work if they were illegal immigrants. But now terrorists could pick on a state were the standards are lax and make lots of IDs that won't be immediately recognizable. Futher, more security would help prevent identity theft, a rapidly growing crime in the information age.
Sure, at first the costs would be high to retool ever state, but the savings would be great. One swipe, and the bar tendor could know you are old enough to drink and who you say your are. We don't want criminals evading the law via changing IDs either. The government is too incompetant to compile that much data on the man in the ALCU pizza ad, nor would any Congress ever let them.
Companies already sell each other what magazines you read, what catalogues you order from what stuff you buy online to each other. So far, none of their targeted messaging has been effective on me. Maybe they base too much on the fact that I bought one philosophy book for college freshman year.
Just think, in nearly every other big, industrialized country, they have a national ID system and has anyone heard of the government listening in on people in those countries that don't have such a strong liberitarian past? Such fears are misplaced and while pure in motive, wasted in effort.
Even if we were to make smart cards like PPI folks like Shane Ham want, I doubt we would ever get close to the ACLU 1984-esque ad. It makes sense to have one uniform ID across the US, instead of 50 different systems with varying degrees of security. It was find in the old days when people were just making fake IDs to buy beer before they turned 21 or work if they were illegal immigrants. But now terrorists could pick on a state were the standards are lax and make lots of IDs that won't be immediately recognizable. Futher, more security would help prevent identity theft, a rapidly growing crime in the information age.
Sure, at first the costs would be high to retool ever state, but the savings would be great. One swipe, and the bar tendor could know you are old enough to drink and who you say your are. We don't want criminals evading the law via changing IDs either. The government is too incompetant to compile that much data on the man in the ALCU pizza ad, nor would any Congress ever let them.
Companies already sell each other what magazines you read, what catalogues you order from what stuff you buy online to each other. So far, none of their targeted messaging has been effective on me. Maybe they base too much on the fact that I bought one philosophy book for college freshman year.
Just think, in nearly every other big, industrialized country, they have a national ID system and has anyone heard of the government listening in on people in those countries that don't have such a strong liberitarian past? Such fears are misplaced and while pure in motive, wasted in effort.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
The Clinton's throw in the towel
For a while there, it seemed Bill and Hill were deserately groaping around looking for someone, ANYONE other than Howard Dean. But now that we heard Ex-Clinton Aide Hardold Ickes, Jr backs Dean for DNC we know they have given up on finding their own Tim Roemer.
To be sure, their fear of Dean was different than say, Al From's. The Clintons liked the old chair, not because of his ideology, but because he was their guy. Having a wide-open race for DNC chair meant that they had lost their control over the party to a degree.
It reality though, it could have been a smart vote. Howard was on the cusp of winning for sure, but he was also "a lock" about this time of year for the Nomination too and look out that worked out. Now, in theory, the good doctor "owes" the Clintons for his victory.
The timing of Ickes was impecible, just before the ASDC was about to endorse on Monday, which might or might not of sealed the deal for Howard anyway. This way, the Clintons can at least claim they influenced that outcome.
This is all very bad news for people like Frost or Roemer, who had hoped the Clintons would endorse them in the last minute and save their candiacy from an uncertain (Frost) or certain (Roemer) fate.
All the wannabes like Rosenberg and Fowler must be quite dissipointed too. They will never know if their complex strategies for taking down Dean without attacking Deanism would have worked.
Now the real question is, who will this help in the 2008 primaries? Certainly not Kerry or Bayh or Biden, maybe Boxer, maybe Clark, Clinton if she gets in, I doubt it would help Edwards, and rest of the cast of characters have yet to emmerge.
``I think all the candidates who are running have strong attributes, but Dean has more of the attributes than the others,'' said Ickes, who considered running for chairman himself before dropping out in early January. ``Many people say Howard Dean is a northeastern liberal, he is progressive, but his tenure as governor of Vermont was that of a real moderate.''
Ickes, who heads the political action committee of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton....While Ickes would not comment on the Clintons' preferences, he is a close ally and would not be endorsing Dean against their strong objections."
To be sure, their fear of Dean was different than say, Al From's. The Clintons liked the old chair, not because of his ideology, but because he was their guy. Having a wide-open race for DNC chair meant that they had lost their control over the party to a degree.
It reality though, it could have been a smart vote. Howard was on the cusp of winning for sure, but he was also "a lock" about this time of year for the Nomination too and look out that worked out. Now, in theory, the good doctor "owes" the Clintons for his victory.
The timing of Ickes was impecible, just before the ASDC was about to endorse on Monday, which might or might not of sealed the deal for Howard anyway. This way, the Clintons can at least claim they influenced that outcome.
This is all very bad news for people like Frost or Roemer, who had hoped the Clintons would endorse them in the last minute and save their candiacy from an uncertain (Frost) or certain (Roemer) fate.
All the wannabes like Rosenberg and Fowler must be quite dissipointed too. They will never know if their complex strategies for taking down Dean without attacking Deanism would have worked.
Now the real question is, who will this help in the 2008 primaries? Certainly not Kerry or Bayh or Biden, maybe Boxer, maybe Clark, Clinton if she gets in, I doubt it would help Edwards, and rest of the cast of characters have yet to emmerge.
Friday, January 28, 2005
9 years and counting
The quote of the day:
-- Bush, asked by C-SPAN's Brian Lamb if he sees "ghosts of past Presidents"
George doesn't have a reflective bone in his body, and I think that is what some people like about him. But there is a big drawback to moving ever forward without looking back or admitting mistakes: repeating past mistakes over and over again.
Bush likes loyalty, but what he has gotten in return has been good (Rove) in parts, but mostly horribly incompetant (Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, etc.). To have yet another trite but true saying, "be careful for what you wish for, just might get it."
"Well, I quit drinking in '86"
-- Bush, asked by C-SPAN's Brian Lamb if he sees "ghosts of past Presidents"
George doesn't have a reflective bone in his body, and I think that is what some people like about him. But there is a big drawback to moving ever forward without looking back or admitting mistakes: repeating past mistakes over and over again.
Bush likes loyalty, but what he has gotten in return has been good (Rove) in parts, but mostly horribly incompetant (Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, etc.). To have yet another trite but true saying, "be careful for what you wish for, just might get it."
Remember the days?
The GOP increased the majority they gained in '94 this cycle, but with the retirements in '04, there are even fewer GOPers who remember life in the minority. Only 79 GOPers have served as the minority party. On the Dem side, 88 members served in the majority. Less than 40% of House members have memory of what it's like on the other side -- one wonders if any institutional memory will be utilized in the GOP's aggressive agenda for the 109th Congress.
--From National Journal's House Race Hotline.
This is the major problem with the Democrats in the House, they keep acting like they are in a decade-long nightmere and that sooner or later, they will awake to see they still have an overwhelming majority in the House. Meanwhile, their GOP counterparts have lost their way and forgotten what got them to power: the Contract with America. "To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace." Look down the list of their pledges and you will see that the majority of them never came to be and GOPers have actually gone backwards towards accomplishing these goals, which are basically copied from H. Ross Perot.
All of a sudden, the majority isn't interested in term limits or having the rules apply to them, they aren't interested in anything but Tax Cuts for corporations and other forms of Corporate Welfare (see Social Security Privatization).
On one side there is a stench of arrogance, on the other, handwriting and speechifying with no results. Chris Bowers at myDD says that the DCCC targeted 13 races last year, and they were down 13 races PLUS they were bound to lose some in Texas. In other words, they had consigned themselves to defeat. I feel sad for many House Democrats I really do, but many of them have been there for decades and really done all they could to stall progress in order to enhance their careers (see Dingell, John). I have trouble feeling pity for those who win with over 80% of the vote and sit on their hands when others who barely win or lose come begging for help.
We need to clean house on both aisles. If we truely want reform, we will have to through the bums out, all of them (those who are bums that is). I would do this through redistricting reform.
Another interesting development in redistricting is the "compromise" legislation that would give Utah another seat in exchange for letting DC's delegate be a real House member and vote on bills. In theory, it would be a wash for both parties and thus amenable to all. I bet Jim Matheson would run in the new 4th district. The state legislature already has made a map of a 4-district state in case they won that Supreme Court challenge involving the uncounted missioniares and North Carolina. The 4th district would basically be Taylorsville and surrounding areas of Salt Lake County exurbs(like Draper) and involve much of Jim's 2000-2002 district which he did well. This would be a compact district again like his old district and urban versus the incredibly rural-urban mix of the current 2nd district.
I wish I could find a map of the old plan, but I can't here is the bill, but not the map. Oh and the governor signed that too, so this should be a speedy process.
So if Jim does run in the 4th or against Cannon (another favorite option of mine, since the man is an idiot and has never had a real race), who runs in the new 2nd? I doubt Scott Matheson would run again and I can't think of anyone who they could get to run, maybe St. Sen. Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich (sp?) who basically owns the Price-area. Further South than that, and the pickings get really slim for Utah Democrats.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
The first firing?
Good news. The biggest incompetent of the War in Iraq, the War on Terror and just about everything else, is "resigning" to be "closer to his family." Maybe this is the way Bush likes to fire idiots who are loyal to him.
Feith had the Midas touch, turning everything he got himself involved in, whether it was warplanning, post-war planning, troop training, intelligence gathering to find proof for the war, finding the non-existent Saddam-9/11 connection, into a complete disaster for the President.
Douggie even got entwined in an FBI investigation over DOD being too cozy with Israeli intelligence via IPAC.
The man was a wrecking ball at the DOD policy shop. This is what happens when you put ideologies in positions of power where they should be off writing nasty letters instead. Like Bush, it seems Doug didn't bother himself with "facts" he just went about his business to prove the unprovable to make plan with so many built-in erroneous assumptions that they were bound to fail. He was too busy worrying how many roses the Iraqis would use up to greet American soldiers as liberators to worry about guarding arms depos or the Iraqi Museum or provide enough armor for the troops.
Now I have another reason to look forward to the summer. Good riddance.
Douglas J. Feith, the Pentagon's top policy official who became a lightning rod for issues including intelligence on Iraq and information warfare, said Wednesday that he would resign this summer.
Feith had the Midas touch, turning everything he got himself involved in, whether it was warplanning, post-war planning, troop training, intelligence gathering to find proof for the war, finding the non-existent Saddam-9/11 connection, into a complete disaster for the President.
Douggie even got entwined in an FBI investigation over DOD being too cozy with Israeli intelligence via IPAC.
The man was a wrecking ball at the DOD policy shop. This is what happens when you put ideologies in positions of power where they should be off writing nasty letters instead. Like Bush, it seems Doug didn't bother himself with "facts" he just went about his business to prove the unprovable to make plan with so many built-in erroneous assumptions that they were bound to fail. He was too busy worrying how many roses the Iraqis would use up to greet American soldiers as liberators to worry about guarding arms depos or the Iraqi Museum or provide enough armor for the troops.
Now I have another reason to look forward to the summer. Good riddance.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
A cry for help
St. Louis mayoral candidate/school board member Bill Haas (D) says in his blog "that loneliness, depression and financial problems have led him to consider suicide." Haas writes that his blog "his 'last day' may come sometime this spring or early summer after he euthanizes his three-legged cat and other pets." Haas: "In a nutshell, I'm 60 years old, still all alone. ... Unless something breaks professionally in the next couple of months, I'm going to be out of money and then I'm going to put the animals to sleep and take my life."
Haas "confirmed" to the Saint Louis Post Dispatch 1/25 "that he posted the blog and has contemplated suicide." Haas: "Being out of money and alone are bad things for me. I'm not going to be on the street and watch my life spiral down." Haas "has moonlighted as a sex columnist" while on the School Board, "ran ads for a rich wife" to help fund his '97 mayoral bid, applied for "American Candidate," ran for the House, the MO Legislature and circuit atty, "and continues to bombard the city's media daily with meandering e-mails." His blog is titled "Run Bill Run." The subtitle: "Bill Haas' journey in the Mayor's Race of St. Louis, but mostly about his life, and possible death."
Haas, who has two Ivy League degrees, is an adjunct instructor at Harris-Stowe State College "and a customer service manager at Wal-Mart" (Wagman, St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1/25).
I don't know if I should be drawing any further attention to him, since clearly that is what he wants. He seems to crave public attention and perhaps even sympathy. I am sorry that his life hasn't panned out the way he hoped but sucicide and in particular killing your pets is NOT the way to go.
Haas "confirmed" to the Saint Louis Post Dispatch 1/25 "that he posted the blog and has contemplated suicide." Haas: "Being out of money and alone are bad things for me. I'm not going to be on the street and watch my life spiral down." Haas "has moonlighted as a sex columnist" while on the School Board, "ran ads for a rich wife" to help fund his '97 mayoral bid, applied for "American Candidate," ran for the House, the MO Legislature and circuit atty, "and continues to bombard the city's media daily with meandering e-mails." His blog is titled "Run Bill Run." The subtitle: "Bill Haas' journey in the Mayor's Race of St. Louis, but mostly about his life, and possible death."
Haas, who has two Ivy League degrees, is an adjunct instructor at Harris-Stowe State College "and a customer service manager at Wal-Mart" (Wagman, St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1/25).
I don't know if I should be drawing any further attention to him, since clearly that is what he wants. He seems to crave public attention and perhaps even sympathy. I am sorry that his life hasn't panned out the way he hoped but sucicide and in particular killing your pets is NOT the way to go.
Down the line
It looks like the spine transplants were sucessful: every Democrat in the Senate Judicary Committee voted against confirming Alberto "Torture Memo" Gonzales.
While Rice will probabbly sail though, the vote on Gonzales will be much closer. Thank goodness. We want our allies across the world to know that at least 48% of the population don't think it is ok to torture some one in the name of "the war on terrorism" (sorry I hate the name).
I am looking forward to watching the Battle Royale on C-SPAN, but I am a politics nerd.
While Rice will probabbly sail though, the vote on Gonzales will be much closer. Thank goodness. We want our allies across the world to know that at least 48% of the population don't think it is ok to torture some one in the name of "the war on terrorism" (sorry I hate the name).
I am looking forward to watching the Battle Royale on C-SPAN, but I am a politics nerd.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
IA Docs Say No to Pharma
great news from the Hawkeye statevia Yahoo! News:
"It's just plain ethically wrong and it's designed to color our judgment," Dr. Dean Abramson of Gastroenterologists P.C. said of the practice. "I don't think patients realize how much drug companies spend on this." Accordingly, he and other doctors in Iowa have made a pact to not accept all those free trinkets and lunches from drug companies. In fact he called it "a bribe."
CalPIRG claims that Pharma spends as much as $5 billion annually, whose costs are passed on to consumers.
If you thought the lobbying groups do to politicans is bad, I would have to say Pharma peddling drugs is far worse. All those "free samples" to get people on their product can lead to incedents like those with Vioxx.
This isn't candy folks, these medicines could save your life, give you complications, or even kill you.
"It's just plain ethically wrong and it's designed to color our judgment," Dr. Dean Abramson of Gastroenterologists P.C. said of the practice. "I don't think patients realize how much drug companies spend on this." Accordingly, he and other doctors in Iowa have made a pact to not accept all those free trinkets and lunches from drug companies. In fact he called it "a bribe."
CalPIRG claims that Pharma spends as much as $5 billion annually, whose costs are passed on to consumers.
If you thought the lobbying groups do to politicans is bad, I would have to say Pharma peddling drugs is far worse. All those "free samples" to get people on their product can lead to incedents like those with Vioxx.
This isn't candy folks, these medicines could save your life, give you complications, or even kill you.
Rice v. Gonzales
It seems like Senators will do a bit of speechifying (their favorite thing) on Rice, but I doubt more than 10-20 senators will vote against her, even though she should have been fired, let alone promoted.
However, the real fight seems to be Alberto Gonzales. Even Joe Biden, who whimped out on Condi, will vote no on Gonzales. I urge all my readers to contact their senators to ask them to condem Gonzales as a supporter of Torture. We hear more stories daily about how bad things are in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan holding cells. All this is a direct result of Gonzales giving his blessing to torture. Gonzales should also be disbared for lying to a judge and prosecutor to get then-Gov. Bush out of jury duty in 1996. Furthermore, he failed to do his duty as council to then-Gov. Bush to look at the clemency cases and properly brief Bush. This man is directly responsible for the miscarriage of justice, the death, and torture of people.
How could any one sleep at night if they voted for him? Count me in as a NO vote.
However, the real fight seems to be Alberto Gonzales. Even Joe Biden, who whimped out on Condi, will vote no on Gonzales. I urge all my readers to contact their senators to ask them to condem Gonzales as a supporter of Torture. We hear more stories daily about how bad things are in Gitmo, Iraq, and Afghanistan holding cells. All this is a direct result of Gonzales giving his blessing to torture. Gonzales should also be disbared for lying to a judge and prosecutor to get then-Gov. Bush out of jury duty in 1996. Furthermore, he failed to do his duty as council to then-Gov. Bush to look at the clemency cases and properly brief Bush. This man is directly responsible for the miscarriage of justice, the death, and torture of people.
How could any one sleep at night if they voted for him? Count me in as a NO vote.
AARP is back
After being embaressed by backing Bush's Rx drug plans, the group is coming out strong against Social Security Destruction/Privatization. The GOP for its part is quibbling over the term "personal accounts" versus "private accounts." You don't have to spin your plan if it is good at first glance.
Conducted 12/6-23 by Roper Public Affairs; surveyed 1,501 adults 30 or older; margin of error +/- 3% (release, 1/24).
Would You Favor Private Accounts If It Meant ...? Favor Oppose
No withdrawals prior to retirement 33% 56%
Lower Social Security benefit in retirement 27 64
Stock market fluctuations result in decreased money 25 62
Still need to reform Soc/Sec to meet financial needs 24 62
Losers of private accounts will need more help from govt 22 65
Workers pay management fees associated with accounts 21 67
$1T needed to pay benefits of current retirees 18 68
Children will be confronted with two bills: one for
current shortfall another to meet additional shortfall 17 68
New government agency created to administer program 18 70
Keeping Soc/Sec As Is? All 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Strongly support 37% 27% 30% 35% 53%
Smwht support 29 35 27 30 26
Smwht oppose 14 16 17 16 8
Strongly oppose 11 16 14 12 5
Not Confident Soc/Sec Will Be There When You Retire?
30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Not too confident 28% 40% 31% 13%
Not at all confident 44 25 18 9
Agree Strongly/Smwht Strongly Smwht
Private accounts will hurt Social Security 32% 22%
It is not fair to saddle children with additional debt
created by private accounts 58 14
Soc/Sec should be protected as a guaranteed benefit 63 15
Soc/Sec should be strengthened not replaced 66 17
Problems with Social Security can be fixed 68 24
Problems should be fixed sooner rather than later 71 20
We have a responsibility to meet our obligation to
children to make sure that Soc/Sec is there for them 77 15
We have a responsibility to meet obligation to people
currently on Soc/Sec 84 11
Overall View Of Soc/Sec Trust AARP For Accurate Soc/Sec Info?
Very fav 15% 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Smwht fav 47 Strongly 19% 27% 35% 32%
Not too fav 23 Smwht trust 57 55 42 46
Not at all fav 12
From release: "Approximately 4 in 10 respondents (43%) initially favored private accounts. However, those who initially favored private accounts dropped off substantially once they were exposed to any of the consequences associated with the implementation of private accounts. Opposition to private accounts increased to as much as 70% depending on the items or 'consequences' presented" (1/24).
courtesy of the National Journal
Conducted 12/6-23 by Roper Public Affairs; surveyed 1,501 adults 30 or older; margin of error +/- 3% (release, 1/24).
Would You Favor Private Accounts If It Meant ...? Favor Oppose
No withdrawals prior to retirement 33% 56%
Lower Social Security benefit in retirement 27 64
Stock market fluctuations result in decreased money 25 62
Still need to reform Soc/Sec to meet financial needs 24 62
Losers of private accounts will need more help from govt 22 65
Workers pay management fees associated with accounts 21 67
$1T needed to pay benefits of current retirees 18 68
Children will be confronted with two bills: one for
current shortfall another to meet additional shortfall 17 68
New government agency created to administer program 18 70
Keeping Soc/Sec As Is? All 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Strongly support 37% 27% 30% 35% 53%
Smwht support 29 35 27 30 26
Smwht oppose 14 16 17 16 8
Strongly oppose 11 16 14 12 5
Not Confident Soc/Sec Will Be There When You Retire?
30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Not too confident 28% 40% 31% 13%
Not at all confident 44 25 18 9
Agree Strongly/Smwht Strongly Smwht
Private accounts will hurt Social Security 32% 22%
It is not fair to saddle children with additional debt
created by private accounts 58 14
Soc/Sec should be protected as a guaranteed benefit 63 15
Soc/Sec should be strengthened not replaced 66 17
Problems with Social Security can be fixed 68 24
Problems should be fixed sooner rather than later 71 20
We have a responsibility to meet our obligation to
children to make sure that Soc/Sec is there for them 77 15
We have a responsibility to meet obligation to people
currently on Soc/Sec 84 11
Overall View Of Soc/Sec Trust AARP For Accurate Soc/Sec Info?
Very fav 15% 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Smwht fav 47 Strongly 19% 27% 35% 32%
Not too fav 23 Smwht trust 57 55 42 46
Not at all fav 12
From release: "Approximately 4 in 10 respondents (43%) initially favored private accounts. However, those who initially favored private accounts dropped off substantially once they were exposed to any of the consequences associated with the implementation of private accounts. Opposition to private accounts increased to as much as 70% depending on the items or 'consequences' presented" (1/24).
courtesy of the National Journal
Smokey Valley
This is what the Utes (or was it Piutes), the native Americans to the Salt Lake Valley, called the area. This is a good description because every winter, high pressure fronts trap clouds and, nowadays our polution, in the valley for weeks at a time.
For the past two weeks, I have not seen the sky or the sun and the weather has stayed about 35 degrees with toxic air. In Park City, a thousand feet or so above Salt Lake, is sunny and in the 40s. So all the Hollywood types up at Sundance are enjoying themselves, blistfully unware.
I had so many books and gear to haul over to the law school today that I rode my bicycle over. Big mistake. I couldn't catch my breath it was so smoggy and disguesting. It has been about 30 minutes and I can still feel it in my chest, and would say I am in decent shape.
According to the local TV news, it yesterday was the most depressing day in Utah, due to the weather. No wonder I have been feeling down these last days; Bush only made it worse.
These days I have gotten myself entwined in another DLC-related comment thread on myDD, which seems determined to churn up the hate toward the organization while making a half hearted effort to inform the bloggers of what the group really does and does not do.
For the past two weeks, I have not seen the sky or the sun and the weather has stayed about 35 degrees with toxic air. In Park City, a thousand feet or so above Salt Lake, is sunny and in the 40s. So all the Hollywood types up at Sundance are enjoying themselves, blistfully unware.
I had so many books and gear to haul over to the law school today that I rode my bicycle over. Big mistake. I couldn't catch my breath it was so smoggy and disguesting. It has been about 30 minutes and I can still feel it in my chest, and would say I am in decent shape.
According to the local TV news, it yesterday was the most depressing day in Utah, due to the weather. No wonder I have been feeling down these last days; Bush only made it worse.
These days I have gotten myself entwined in another DLC-related comment thread on myDD, which seems determined to churn up the hate toward the organization while making a half hearted effort to inform the bloggers of what the group really does and does not do.
Monday, January 24, 2005
List of the Day
www.mcsweeneys.net :
THINGS I'D PROBABLY SAY
IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WERE JUST
A WEEKLY TV SHOW AND I WERE
A REGULAR VIEWER.
By Eric Maierson
"Now, see, you can't just go and do something like that. That would be illegal."
"Boy, someone's gonna get fired for that."
"Wasn't that the one who made all the mistakes? Why is she getting promoted?"
"Come on, in real life you'd never get away with something like that."
"They really expect us to believe that?"
"Am I the only one confused here?"
"Does this make any sense to you?"
"Why is this still on?"
IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WERE JUST
A WEEKLY TV SHOW AND I WERE
A REGULAR VIEWER.
By Eric Maierson
"Now, see, you can't just go and do something like that. That would be illegal."
"Boy, someone's gonna get fired for that."
"Wasn't that the one who made all the mistakes? Why is she getting promoted?"
"Come on, in real life you'd never get away with something like that."
"They really expect us to believe that?"
"Am I the only one confused here?"
"Does this make any sense to you?"
"Why is this still on?"
Pro Bono
This morning, I went down to the Rocky Mountain Innocence Project to begin volunteering . This place is dedicated to helping truly wrongfully convicted inmates in Nevada, Idaho, and Utah get out of prison. Two of my classmates also had stopped in and it seems like it will be an interesting and worthwhile use of my Monday mornings. For about 2 hours each week, we will read through letters that inmates and their relatives send us, and decide whether their case is worth investigating further.
The center is not in the habbit of defending "innocent" people or ones who write enough letters, but only actually innocent people who we can prove that they are not guilty-- i.e. convicted rapists whose DNA doesn't match the rape kit or the like.
We spent most of the time this morning discussing a case involving a man who was visiting a convience store/gas station at early in the morning out on the Westside of the Valley somewhere. Appearantly one guy saw him, and other guy saw the perpetrator, and the two witnesses agreed that this was the same guy. The victim's head was appearantly stomped to death, yet there was no blood found on the clothing or shoes the inmate claims he was wearing that night (moreover, his shoes don't match the bloody footprints found on the scene, both in size and type).
The timeline via the survielence camera gives the inmate 5 minutes to knock the victim down to ground and beat him to death with his feet (his middle finger of his right hand was broken a week prior to the incident and he was right handed). In letters and interviews he claims was waiting for his girlfriend to pick him up. No blood or trace evidence was found in her car or his car afterwards.
Sounds like he is innocent right? No real evidence other than two witnesses collaporating to describe what they saw early in the morning in the dark 75-232 feet away. But since our inmate wasn't picked up until a few days later, this gives the prosecutor a chance to argue that he threw away the murder clothes. My guess is that a gang of thugs with bats and the like (who were spotted in the area earlier in the evening by residents and by the suspect himself upon reflection) were the ones who did the horrific deed, either by group or group pressure on one.
Personally I don't see how he could have knocked down and then beaten to death a man in five minutes yet have no blood on him when he came back into the store nor be out of breath. Just goes to show you, don't hang out at the gas station in a "bad neighborhood" late at night.
The center is not in the habbit of defending "innocent" people or ones who write enough letters, but only actually innocent people who we can prove that they are not guilty-- i.e. convicted rapists whose DNA doesn't match the rape kit or the like.
We spent most of the time this morning discussing a case involving a man who was visiting a convience store/gas station at early in the morning out on the Westside of the Valley somewhere. Appearantly one guy saw him, and other guy saw the perpetrator, and the two witnesses agreed that this was the same guy. The victim's head was appearantly stomped to death, yet there was no blood found on the clothing or shoes the inmate claims he was wearing that night (moreover, his shoes don't match the bloody footprints found on the scene, both in size and type).
The timeline via the survielence camera gives the inmate 5 minutes to knock the victim down to ground and beat him to death with his feet (his middle finger of his right hand was broken a week prior to the incident and he was right handed). In letters and interviews he claims was waiting for his girlfriend to pick him up. No blood or trace evidence was found in her car or his car afterwards.
Sounds like he is innocent right? No real evidence other than two witnesses collaporating to describe what they saw early in the morning in the dark 75-232 feet away. But since our inmate wasn't picked up until a few days later, this gives the prosecutor a chance to argue that he threw away the murder clothes. My guess is that a gang of thugs with bats and the like (who were spotted in the area earlier in the evening by residents and by the suspect himself upon reflection) were the ones who did the horrific deed, either by group or group pressure on one.
Personally I don't see how he could have knocked down and then beaten to death a man in five minutes yet have no blood on him when he came back into the store nor be out of breath. Just goes to show you, don't hang out at the gas station in a "bad neighborhood" late at night.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
We are locked in
It is official, I am going to Oslo and Copenhagen and Hamburg for the honeymoon. Now all we have to do is find a way to pay for it. The usual spacy guy who misspells and leaves out crucial words here managed to book hotel rooms, buy a Eurail pass, and a ferry berth for two.
This past week was difficult for me, partially the school work and partially the events going on in the real world. I keep hoping that I will wake up and Bush won't have won, that Condi Rice won't be our new Secretary of State, or that Alberto Gonzales won't be our new Attorney General. At least in Ashcroft we got a guy who was more interested in seeming important than slavishly following the orders from the President. At least in Powell we got a guy trying rather weakly to have his views spread around the world, instead of slavishly parroting the Presidents.
Another interesting Washington Parlor game, who will replace Colin's son, Michael at the FCC? Which White House puppet will it be? How much money will Michael make in the private sector? Even if Colin wanted to run against Hillary or Spitzer in his native Empire State, would he have a ghost of a chance? I think not. After all, he bungled miserably on the international stage. I would say he is a good man but a terrible leader and terribly weak and indecisive. He failed to pursuade the President when it counted. While his people tried to get the press to say going to the UN was his idea, it really was the one requirement of Tony Blair's, not Powell's.
To think he could have been either parties' Nominee when he retired from the Army, to think that he might have beaten Bill Clinton in 1996 for the presidency. Colin Powell will now go down in history as one of the least effective, least influential Secretary of States in our history, especially considering the circumstances. Maybe his tell-all biography will recast his image some, but I expect it to tarnish Bush more than shine Powell.
This past week was difficult for me, partially the school work and partially the events going on in the real world. I keep hoping that I will wake up and Bush won't have won, that Condi Rice won't be our new Secretary of State, or that Alberto Gonzales won't be our new Attorney General. At least in Ashcroft we got a guy who was more interested in seeming important than slavishly following the orders from the President. At least in Powell we got a guy trying rather weakly to have his views spread around the world, instead of slavishly parroting the Presidents.
Another interesting Washington Parlor game, who will replace Colin's son, Michael at the FCC? Which White House puppet will it be? How much money will Michael make in the private sector? Even if Colin wanted to run against Hillary or Spitzer in his native Empire State, would he have a ghost of a chance? I think not. After all, he bungled miserably on the international stage. I would say he is a good man but a terrible leader and terribly weak and indecisive. He failed to pursuade the President when it counted. While his people tried to get the press to say going to the UN was his idea, it really was the one requirement of Tony Blair's, not Powell's.
To think he could have been either parties' Nominee when he retired from the Army, to think that he might have beaten Bill Clinton in 1996 for the presidency. Colin Powell will now go down in history as one of the least effective, least influential Secretary of States in our history, especially considering the circumstances. Maybe his tell-all biography will recast his image some, but I expect it to tarnish Bush more than shine Powell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
