In my opinion, it goes against the spirit and word of the 13th and 14th amendments, plus against all that Madison and company talked about in the Federalist papers.
However, after reading reports from election law experts who attended the oral arguments of the Texas reredistricting case, it seems that the Justices were leaning in the following directions [according to UCLA's Rick Hansen and OSU's Ned Foley]:
"1. No majority to find a partisan gerrymander (under equal protection, First Amendment, or any other clause of the Constitution) ---apparently this leaves Vieth in place [one of the least helpful opinions since Furman v. Georgia], because it does not appear that Justice Kennedy was signalling he's ready to vote for nonjusticiablity distinguish between a statewide gerrymandering claim and the distric-specific claims that Stevens was interested in... for more read here
"2. No majority to hold that mid-decade redistricting violates one person, one vote because of the failure to use updated census data.
"3. No majority to find a Shaw violation (maybe that gets only Justice Kennedy's vote)." Some find Thomas' silence "intriguing" while I find it wholly unsurprising for a me-too judge. Ginsburg and Alito were also silent, but she fell asleep at the end of arguments and Alito is probably not wanting to make a big splash. It was hard to read CJ Roberts views since he has tough questions both ways.
"4. A possible majority to hold that one or two districts violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but no majority to hold that coalitional or influence disticts count for section 2 purposes (and a possible majority to affirmatively reject that stand)." Most commenters thought this was a far fetched possibility. Sounds like Orals did not go well for the petitioners.
In a few years, when state after state reredistricts whenever there is a change of hands in the state house, the US House will change hands since the party divide in this county is pretty narrow (since I believe the 15 seat edge the GOP have will sigificantly deminish after 2006, if not turn into a deficit). Maybe the unintended consequence of this will be de facto term limits, or maybe the Congress will turn into California's legislature, where there is barely any institutional memory and choas abounds. Maybe then congress will get off their duffs and redistrict themselves in a fair fashion...or they will just protect themselves as much as possible.
As things stand, every 10 years, candidates pick their voters, instead of every two years the voters pick their representative, as the constitution mandates.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Ye almighty [Republican] Executive
Isn't it sad that the minute the White House changes party hands, the Republican congress change their tune completely? How many inquiries did we have to the silly messups of the Clinton White House? How many grand inquisitors did Congress hire for that (3)?
Yet those same folks phone in their questioning and document requests and hearings. Folks like my Senator Orin Hatch ask softballs to administration officials when they are appointed by Republicans, but when hired by Democrats, he is all over them.
Now you can say partisan politics is corrupting both sides and copy and paste that into a "moderate" washingtonian column. But reality is that if Democrats were in control of congress and the presidency, the two branches would still eat each other alive (see 1992-1994).
Yet those same folks phone in their questioning and document requests and hearings. Folks like my Senator Orin Hatch ask softballs to administration officials when they are appointed by Republicans, but when hired by Democrats, he is all over them.
Now you can say partisan politics is corrupting both sides and copy and paste that into a "moderate" washingtonian column. But reality is that if Democrats were in control of congress and the presidency, the two branches would still eat each other alive (see 1992-1994).
Monday, February 27, 2006
McCelland Democrats
Digby's right, bloggers aren't extreme in the ideological sense, they are extreme in the tactic sense.
We are tired of being asked for more troops (money) without any more action (aggressive challenges) against the Rebels (extremist Republicans). The DC pundits and consultants seem to be afriad of their own shadows.
Bush's approval rating is at 34%, an all time low. The port deal is starting to smell more and more of cronyism. For the first time ever, more of the public believes Congressional Democrats, not Bush, have their best security interests at heart. Democrats lead by fairly large margins in generic ballot tests. Democrats are poised to pick up the majority of the governorships in the country, especially in the key swingable states of Ohio and Arkansas (and possibily Florida). Race by race polls show that if the election were held today, Democrats would have 49-50 seats in the senate, and make similarlly large gains in the House.
Now is not a time for timidity, now is a time for boldness. While the GOP is divided and weak, Democrats need to strike. They need to put out a platform that shows what we are for at the end the summer (launching a nationwide campaign starting labor day).
We need more Grants, and less McCellands.
We are tired of being asked for more troops (money) without any more action (aggressive challenges) against the Rebels (extremist Republicans). The DC pundits and consultants seem to be afriad of their own shadows.
Bush's approval rating is at 34%, an all time low. The port deal is starting to smell more and more of cronyism. For the first time ever, more of the public believes Congressional Democrats, not Bush, have their best security interests at heart. Democrats lead by fairly large margins in generic ballot tests. Democrats are poised to pick up the majority of the governorships in the country, especially in the key swingable states of Ohio and Arkansas (and possibily Florida). Race by race polls show that if the election were held today, Democrats would have 49-50 seats in the senate, and make similarlly large gains in the House.
Now is not a time for timidity, now is a time for boldness. While the GOP is divided and weak, Democrats need to strike. They need to put out a platform that shows what we are for at the end the summer (launching a nationwide campaign starting labor day).
We need more Grants, and less McCellands.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Virgil [No]Goode and John Dolittle [for his constituents, but lots for his coffers]
Don't ethically challeneged GOP House members have great names?
Mitchel Wade, who bribed ex-Rep. (current con) "Duke" Cunningham, has pled guilty to giving illegal contributions to Goode, to the tune of $46K [by having his employees and their wifes donate to Goode and then reembursing them]
According to TPM, "Wade asked that Goode request appropriations funding for an MZM facility in Goode's district soon after he'd just delivered most of the $46K. This was at some unspecified time "in the spring" - the contributions were mostly made in March of 2005, so it can't have been long. By June 2005, 'Representative A [Goode] confirmed to Wade that the appropriations bill would include $9M for the facility and a related program.'"
Doolittle was busy taking Abramoff-paid trips (as were his staffers), as well as the other Duke briber, Brent Wilkes. Again, TPM lays it out:
These two aren't the only ones, just ones with most scandalworthy names.
Mitchel Wade, who bribed ex-Rep. (current con) "Duke" Cunningham, has pled guilty to giving illegal contributions to Goode, to the tune of $46K [by having his employees and their wifes donate to Goode and then reembursing them]
According to TPM, "Wade asked that Goode request appropriations funding for an MZM facility in Goode's district soon after he'd just delivered most of the $46K. This was at some unspecified time "in the spring" - the contributions were mostly made in March of 2005, so it can't have been long. By June 2005, 'Representative A [Goode] confirmed to Wade that the appropriations bill would include $9M for the facility and a related program.'"
Doolittle was busy taking Abramoff-paid trips (as were his staffers), as well as the other Duke briber, Brent Wilkes. Again, TPM lays it out:
Wilkes convinced Doolittle with $85,000 (from himself, his employees, his lobbyists) in contributions over three years. In return, PerfectWave won Doolittle’s support for $37M in earmarked appropriations. In a Washington Post story on this last week, Doolittle responded with a statement that "he frequently supports 'well deserving projects throughout the state.'" And "his support of PerfectWave Technology ‘was no exception and based completely on the project's merits and the written support of the military.'"
These two aren't the only ones, just ones with most scandalworthy names.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
In response to commenters Bob, Col. Takashi and la
Here is the statement that was in the Salt Lake Tribune, they have it on tape, they have witnesses to confirm that it happened.
I don't know if this is typical, or if this guy was LDS (I assume he was, otherwise, what was he doing testifying). I was only going off an interview of the article's author (who did interview lots of people and got many replies to his article) as to the extent of the problem. My concern is about over deference to authority, not the threat of violence.
As for the comparison of what Clinton did to what Bush did: Clinton did a limited strike based on concrete information. And for all we know, this strike is what eliminated WMD's in 1999 and Saddam fudged having them until 2003. By the way, republicans wanted to see proof and talked about "Wag the Dog" when he did it. I have no way of knowing what Clinton's motivations were. I think he is a smileball for having an affair with a 23 year old intern and lying to the public about it and his staff (and wife). But I don't think it was an impeachable offense.
There is mountains of evidence that the Bush administration knew that the intelligence was not rock solid, but they ignored or whitewashed any doubts or hesitations of those officials. There is some sketchy evidence that a DoD official (Larry Franklin) shopped the fake yellow cake documents to people in Italy to get the idea that Saddam had nukes or wanted them in the for front.
I can name dozens of times Cheney, Bush, Rice, and others misled and insinated that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and had nuclear weapons or was trying to get them. All of these instances are on tape.
As to Bush as sinner. I get the redemption thing and I am sure Bush doesn't drink anymore and he believes in all the doctrines of the Southern Baptists. And hats off to him for that. But he still a liar, he still supports tabbacco companies, he still thinks he is more important than other people, and he still is jealous, vengeful, hateful, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, incompetent, and irresponsible. And to make him out as more religious than say Kerry is ridiculous. Kerry was an altar boy. He goes to mass...religiously, he went even though there were threats to deny him eucharist because of his position on abortion. Anyone and everyone can refer to God (in God we trust, etc.), and that is fine with me. But when they say to friend that God put them there to do, it bothers me. As Lincoln said, both sides of the war think they are doing God's will; they both can't be right.
I think the Church leaders ARE more moderate than their political leadership. Rumor has it that the Prophet (President Hinckley) is a Democrat. A very good Mormon (head of the mission in Vancover or Montreal) was liberal Democrat: fmr. US Rep. Wayne Owens. I knew Wayne; he was a great man who spent his last days working for middle-east peace and leading search parties for Elizabeth Smart.
I sure hope that Bush has been dropping in Utah. I don't understand what there is to like about his administration, what he has accomplished. And don't say 9/11: any president would have done that. And Iraq, well I am glad Saddam is gone, but the country is definately less stable and less secure becuase of our presence (see the bombing of a Shite holy site today in Iraq). I wouldn't consider that an accomplishment. No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, and other domestic legislation has been a disaster. The tax cuts haven't helpped anyone but the rich. I gave all of my $50 2001 tax cut to the Red Cross after 9/11, then wished I could have given it to a better organization. THe Bush presidency has been a failure and a sad example of how far partisanship will ruin our constitution and our country.
At a recent meeting in American Fork a man identifying himself as a former Green Beret stood to share his testimony.
"If you're a Democrat, I want you to understand that I support my president," he said in comments recorded by the church for homebound members. "And if you have a problem with that, we can talk behind the church."
I don't know if this is typical, or if this guy was LDS (I assume he was, otherwise, what was he doing testifying). I was only going off an interview of the article's author (who did interview lots of people and got many replies to his article) as to the extent of the problem. My concern is about over deference to authority, not the threat of violence.
As for the comparison of what Clinton did to what Bush did: Clinton did a limited strike based on concrete information. And for all we know, this strike is what eliminated WMD's in 1999 and Saddam fudged having them until 2003. By the way, republicans wanted to see proof and talked about "Wag the Dog" when he did it. I have no way of knowing what Clinton's motivations were. I think he is a smileball for having an affair with a 23 year old intern and lying to the public about it and his staff (and wife). But I don't think it was an impeachable offense.
There is mountains of evidence that the Bush administration knew that the intelligence was not rock solid, but they ignored or whitewashed any doubts or hesitations of those officials. There is some sketchy evidence that a DoD official (Larry Franklin) shopped the fake yellow cake documents to people in Italy to get the idea that Saddam had nukes or wanted them in the for front.
I can name dozens of times Cheney, Bush, Rice, and others misled and insinated that Saddam was connected to 9/11 and had nuclear weapons or was trying to get them. All of these instances are on tape.
As to Bush as sinner. I get the redemption thing and I am sure Bush doesn't drink anymore and he believes in all the doctrines of the Southern Baptists. And hats off to him for that. But he still a liar, he still supports tabbacco companies, he still thinks he is more important than other people, and he still is jealous, vengeful, hateful, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, incompetent, and irresponsible. And to make him out as more religious than say Kerry is ridiculous. Kerry was an altar boy. He goes to mass...religiously, he went even though there were threats to deny him eucharist because of his position on abortion. Anyone and everyone can refer to God (in God we trust, etc.), and that is fine with me. But when they say to friend that God put them there to do, it bothers me. As Lincoln said, both sides of the war think they are doing God's will; they both can't be right.
I think the Church leaders ARE more moderate than their political leadership. Rumor has it that the Prophet (President Hinckley) is a Democrat. A very good Mormon (head of the mission in Vancover or Montreal) was liberal Democrat: fmr. US Rep. Wayne Owens. I knew Wayne; he was a great man who spent his last days working for middle-east peace and leading search parties for Elizabeth Smart.
I sure hope that Bush has been dropping in Utah. I don't understand what there is to like about his administration, what he has accomplished. And don't say 9/11: any president would have done that. And Iraq, well I am glad Saddam is gone, but the country is definately less stable and less secure becuase of our presence (see the bombing of a Shite holy site today in Iraq). I wouldn't consider that an accomplishment. No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D, and other domestic legislation has been a disaster. The tax cuts haven't helpped anyone but the rich. I gave all of my $50 2001 tax cut to the Red Cross after 9/11, then wished I could have given it to a better organization. THe Bush presidency has been a failure and a sad example of how far partisanship will ruin our constitution and our country.
a pattern emerges
When did they bother to tell the president? That has become the question of the last couple of weeks and might as well be the question of the Bush presidency.
When Cheney shot a man accidently in the face, Bush didn't hear about it for several hours, and he had to beg Cheney to go on Fox News. When Katrina hit New Orleans, it was several days until someone explained to the vacationer in chief that the levees had failed. When we were attacked on 9/11, Bush's detail waited 9 minutes until they bothered to tell George to stop reading "my pet goat" to Florida school children. When a plane accidentally entered restricted airspace and officials evacuated the White House and Capitol, no one interupted Bush's bike ride in nearby Maryland. When DHS has outsourced our port security in key cities to a company controlled by a royal family that met with Bin Laden in 1999, no one tells the president until the information is leaked to the public and a fury erupts from everywhere.
Cheney sees himself as the co-president I guess, getting the right to call the shots from the situation room with Lynne on 9/11 while Bush is on Air Force One running away, and declassifying matters of national security for political purposes. Meanwhile, White House officials don't seem to think informing the president is that crucial in terms of decision making on major policy issues.
Is it because he doesn't like to hear bad news? His input is unnecessary if Cheney has given his? They don't want to scare/confuse him? Or Bush isn't really in charge? If the last one is true, then who is? Cheney? Some senior WH official? A cabinet level guy like Rumsfeld? Who elected these people?
Because when Bush is asleep at the wheel, bad stuff happens politically. And when he is on the ball, bad stuff happens administratively, and eventually politically.
When Cheney shot a man accidently in the face, Bush didn't hear about it for several hours, and he had to beg Cheney to go on Fox News. When Katrina hit New Orleans, it was several days until someone explained to the vacationer in chief that the levees had failed. When we were attacked on 9/11, Bush's detail waited 9 minutes until they bothered to tell George to stop reading "my pet goat" to Florida school children. When a plane accidentally entered restricted airspace and officials evacuated the White House and Capitol, no one interupted Bush's bike ride in nearby Maryland. When DHS has outsourced our port security in key cities to a company controlled by a royal family that met with Bin Laden in 1999, no one tells the president until the information is leaked to the public and a fury erupts from everywhere.
Cheney sees himself as the co-president I guess, getting the right to call the shots from the situation room with Lynne on 9/11 while Bush is on Air Force One running away, and declassifying matters of national security for political purposes. Meanwhile, White House officials don't seem to think informing the president is that crucial in terms of decision making on major policy issues.
Is it because he doesn't like to hear bad news? His input is unnecessary if Cheney has given his? They don't want to scare/confuse him? Or Bush isn't really in charge? If the last one is true, then who is? Cheney? Some senior WH official? A cabinet level guy like Rumsfeld? Who elected these people?
Because when Bush is asleep at the wheel, bad stuff happens politically. And when he is on the ball, bad stuff happens administratively, and eventually politically.
Monday, February 20, 2006
America's spoiled brats in Torino
I know a million bloggers must have said this already, but I am tired of hearing about seeing or thinking about Bode Miller. All talk and hype (on the cover of TIME and Newsweek and probabbly sports illustrated) and nothing. The most impressive thing I saw from Miller was after he hit a gate and was already disqualified how he stayed on his feet with only one ski on the course (the other he was trying to get back in front of him). He doesn't seem to care about being there or winning or anything. He just wants to try some crazy way down the hill instead of finishing.
Even worse is Shani Davis, the speedskater. I know I am supposed to be all jazzed that he is the first black man and the first individual African-American winter olympian to win anything, let alone gold, but he is a jerk. And it isn't just that he decided last minute not to do the team race. That was his call and really all those speedskaters do their own thing. But it was another to be annoyed to talk to the NBC people after he won. The lady asked softballs, tried to get him to say something memorable, something positive. His answers were "yeah," "uh huh" and so on. Then he claimed "I am at a loss for words" when his tone was completely flat and there was zero smile on his face. The facial expression of his interviewer after tossing it back to the booth was priceless. To me it said, "I gave it my all guys, but he just is too cool to talk to, what the heck is his deal?" He was the moodiest gold medalist I have ever seen.
Shani could have turned his gold into more gold for him and his mother. He could have been nice and happy and flashed a smile and said something funny or memorable and gotten a nike endorsement. He could have even played the race card and been discussed. Now he just comes off as a bratty only child. His mama smeared the US speed skating organization, but didn't elaborate on how they "operate by intimindation, and I am not going to be intimidated." He trains with some guy in Canada most of the time, why doesn't he just join the Canadian team since he doesn't seem to care for the American one. And he isn't a poor black kid from the bad part of town in Chicago, they live in Evanston, one of the wealthiest areas of Chicagoland.
Meanwhile, the guy that got a silver in Shani's race, Joey Cheek, gave the bonus money he won from his medal (and the gold bonus money from the 500m race he won too) to a non-profit that allows kids in war-torn areas play sports. He asked the NBC people to talk about the non-profit and especially Darfur. They didn't even really interview Joey, too busy focusing on the bitch off between Shani and an ex-inline skater on the American team. Why aren't we celebrating Joey Cheek, NBC? He seems like an average guy who is humble, nice, good looking, and "All-American." Seems like perfect sponsorship material.
Watching this year reminds me of how cool it was to have the games in Salt Lake, and how magical it was to fly out from college and be able to see some events and go to the German house etc. There is talk about bringing the games back to SLC in 2014 or so. Hoepfully the city by then will normally feel like the city did during those 2 magical weeks in 2002.
Even worse is Shani Davis, the speedskater. I know I am supposed to be all jazzed that he is the first black man and the first individual African-American winter olympian to win anything, let alone gold, but he is a jerk. And it isn't just that he decided last minute not to do the team race. That was his call and really all those speedskaters do their own thing. But it was another to be annoyed to talk to the NBC people after he won. The lady asked softballs, tried to get him to say something memorable, something positive. His answers were "yeah," "uh huh" and so on. Then he claimed "I am at a loss for words" when his tone was completely flat and there was zero smile on his face. The facial expression of his interviewer after tossing it back to the booth was priceless. To me it said, "I gave it my all guys, but he just is too cool to talk to, what the heck is his deal?" He was the moodiest gold medalist I have ever seen.
Shani could have turned his gold into more gold for him and his mother. He could have been nice and happy and flashed a smile and said something funny or memorable and gotten a nike endorsement. He could have even played the race card and been discussed. Now he just comes off as a bratty only child. His mama smeared the US speed skating organization, but didn't elaborate on how they "operate by intimindation, and I am not going to be intimidated." He trains with some guy in Canada most of the time, why doesn't he just join the Canadian team since he doesn't seem to care for the American one. And he isn't a poor black kid from the bad part of town in Chicago, they live in Evanston, one of the wealthiest areas of Chicagoland.
Meanwhile, the guy that got a silver in Shani's race, Joey Cheek, gave the bonus money he won from his medal (and the gold bonus money from the 500m race he won too) to a non-profit that allows kids in war-torn areas play sports. He asked the NBC people to talk about the non-profit and especially Darfur. They didn't even really interview Joey, too busy focusing on the bitch off between Shani and an ex-inline skater on the American team. Why aren't we celebrating Joey Cheek, NBC? He seems like an average guy who is humble, nice, good looking, and "All-American." Seems like perfect sponsorship material.
Watching this year reminds me of how cool it was to have the games in Salt Lake, and how magical it was to fly out from college and be able to see some events and go to the German house etc. There is talk about bringing the games back to SLC in 2014 or so. Hoepfully the city by then will normally feel like the city did during those 2 magical weeks in 2002.
Friday, February 17, 2006
What is wrong with Utah?
In 49 states, 98 percent of the states that make up the United States of America, Bush is at or below 50 percent. The only one where a majority of its residents support the President is Utah with a 58% to 39% approval-disapproval rating. (source: SurveyUSA - 50 State POTUS 02/06 Sort By State )
Why? Does it have to do with the general conservatism of Utah, and its overwhelming support of him in 2004 (I believe he got around 75% in the Beehive State)? Does it have to do with Bush's religious conservatism, which match up nicely on a great many "moral values" with Utah (drinking, gays, death penalty, abortion, etc.)? Or does it have to do with the nature of the LDS religion itself and the way it manifests itself in Utah?
I have talked to many LDS people living outside of Utah who tell me that they have been to or lived in Utah and they just couldn't stand the Utah "version" of their faith. Some said it was holier than thou, others that it was overly conformist and Orwellian in feel. Could it be that a desire to follow the herd, to blindly support authorities is more prevalent in Utah and in particular LDS Utahns? I don't know and I am not going to conjecture any further, since I don't want to be accused of bigotry.
I respect the LDS religion and my LDS friend's faith and devotion to their Church. I can understand their feelings on abortion, the death penalty, drinking, smoking, and a few other things. That is not to say that I agree with their viewpoints or beliefs, although I must say that I love the restrictions on drinking and smoking in this state. I think it makes for a cleaner, safer society.
But what I don't get is their support of Bush. This is a man that routinely lies, swears, was an alcoholic until age 40, might have done illegal drugs, got himself out of war via connections, supports cigarette companies and other polluters, who has stated that he is acting on God's blessing when he lies to get us into war, and so on. I can't find much Christian in Bush the man or Bush the office. He is jealous, vengeful, hateful, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, incompetent, and irresponsible.
In a ward meeting in American Folk, a man got up to testify and stated that he was a green beret, and that if anyone spoke ill of the president (or his policies) or the war specifically, he would like to "finish it outside." That is, he threatened physical violence. Others have reported that similar (although less blatant) statements have been made at their local ward/stakehouse. So too have other LDS Utahns said that their meeting house is more tolerant. But the tolerant ones, at least anecdotally, seem to be outnumbered by the intolerant according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
I think it is sad that there is no room for discussion of the war when the LDS Presidency has not taken any official stance on it. Sure, they have said support the troops and support the commander in chief, but even the Unitarians would agree with that.
[Correction: on closer inspection, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Alabama approve of Bush with a 50+% rating. However, Utah's is still the highest and has never sunk.]
Why? Does it have to do with the general conservatism of Utah, and its overwhelming support of him in 2004 (I believe he got around 75% in the Beehive State)? Does it have to do with Bush's religious conservatism, which match up nicely on a great many "moral values" with Utah (drinking, gays, death penalty, abortion, etc.)? Or does it have to do with the nature of the LDS religion itself and the way it manifests itself in Utah?
I have talked to many LDS people living outside of Utah who tell me that they have been to or lived in Utah and they just couldn't stand the Utah "version" of their faith. Some said it was holier than thou, others that it was overly conformist and Orwellian in feel. Could it be that a desire to follow the herd, to blindly support authorities is more prevalent in Utah and in particular LDS Utahns? I don't know and I am not going to conjecture any further, since I don't want to be accused of bigotry.
I respect the LDS religion and my LDS friend's faith and devotion to their Church. I can understand their feelings on abortion, the death penalty, drinking, smoking, and a few other things. That is not to say that I agree with their viewpoints or beliefs, although I must say that I love the restrictions on drinking and smoking in this state. I think it makes for a cleaner, safer society.
But what I don't get is their support of Bush. This is a man that routinely lies, swears, was an alcoholic until age 40, might have done illegal drugs, got himself out of war via connections, supports cigarette companies and other polluters, who has stated that he is acting on God's blessing when he lies to get us into war, and so on. I can't find much Christian in Bush the man or Bush the office. He is jealous, vengeful, hateful, hypocritical, deceitful, arrogant, incompetent, and irresponsible.
In a ward meeting in American Folk, a man got up to testify and stated that he was a green beret, and that if anyone spoke ill of the president (or his policies) or the war specifically, he would like to "finish it outside." That is, he threatened physical violence. Others have reported that similar (although less blatant) statements have been made at their local ward/stakehouse. So too have other LDS Utahns said that their meeting house is more tolerant. But the tolerant ones, at least anecdotally, seem to be outnumbered by the intolerant according to the Salt Lake Tribune.
I think it is sad that there is no room for discussion of the war when the LDS Presidency has not taken any official stance on it. Sure, they have said support the troops and support the commander in chief, but even the Unitarians would agree with that.
[Correction: on closer inspection, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Alabama approve of Bush with a 50+% rating. However, Utah's is still the highest and has never sunk.]
head of the class
So today we taught again this mornning. A large portion of that was eaten up by a test we gave as part of the mid-terms and the requirement thereof. I was amazed by how many kids got 55% or below (1/3 at least). Some questions were a bit tricky now that I think about it if you weren't paying attention in class, but really, if you listened and took notes (we let them have a 1 page cheat sheet), you should have been fine.
In fact, because of extra credit, one kid got a 103. Many kids just gave up or made up crazy answers. And spelling was out of this world. But hey, I appreciate the effort for the most part. I think we have them whipped into some sort of shape after my partner gave them a pop quiz next time.
Fridays are always joke days for me at the law school, so I too half-listened while grading the High Schoolers tests. I am happy for the nicer weather after this bitter snow days and even happier for a long weekend and positive blood test results on my kidneys. (oh and I don't have HIV or Hep, which is good too). My sister the doctor ordered lots of tests but I had enough blood to spare.
In political news, I am amazed to some degree that Harry Wittingham appologized to Cheney for Cheney shooting him in the face. Notice in the photos you see of him his face is bruised but that the side that is shown in the left side, and he was hit on the right. So who knows what that side looks like. I hope Harry is feeling fine, and can go back to being an evil GOP lawyer soon.
In fact, because of extra credit, one kid got a 103. Many kids just gave up or made up crazy answers. And spelling was out of this world. But hey, I appreciate the effort for the most part. I think we have them whipped into some sort of shape after my partner gave them a pop quiz next time.
Fridays are always joke days for me at the law school, so I too half-listened while grading the High Schoolers tests. I am happy for the nicer weather after this bitter snow days and even happier for a long weekend and positive blood test results on my kidneys. (oh and I don't have HIV or Hep, which is good too). My sister the doctor ordered lots of tests but I had enough blood to spare.
In political news, I am amazed to some degree that Harry Wittingham appologized to Cheney for Cheney shooting him in the face. Notice in the photos you see of him his face is bruised but that the side that is shown in the left side, and he was hit on the right. So who knows what that side looks like. I hope Harry is feeling fine, and can go back to being an evil GOP lawyer soon.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
McCain hypocrisy watch
So remember first off that McCain was a member of the Keating Five before he "got religion" and became a campaign finance crusader. It was a goal to save his own skin.
So then McCain signed up with liberal and contrarian Sen. Russ Feingold to eliminate soft money and close each and every loophole...once someone got in trouble (see the sudden desire to close the 'American Indian' loophole or 527 or sham 501(c)(3)s).
But now that he is running for president, he tossing aside foibles, hiring Bush fundraisers and pioneers left and right (today he hired Bush's NH fundraiser, someone who will be useful to prove support for a candidate inside the Granite State). More hypocritically, he letting himself be a money raising prop to people who gather funds in largely unregulated (or compared to the federal system underregulated) amounts.
That's a pretty fine line. McCain isn't soliciting large donations for himself, but soliciting them for his friends, whom he can later ask political favors from in the primaries.
Let's say the GOP 2008 primary is between George Allen and John McCain (which CPAC straw polls show are by far the most liked candidates) and that McCain took NH but Allen took SC, the rest of the other states have been pretty even but now it is Super Tuesday and California is the biggest prize. Don't you think helping out Arnold get re-elected (let's hope CA voters aren't that dumb twice) would mean that the Governor would endorse and work for McCain?
So then McCain signed up with liberal and contrarian Sen. Russ Feingold to eliminate soft money and close each and every loophole...once someone got in trouble (see the sudden desire to close the 'American Indian' loophole or 527 or sham 501(c)(3)s).
But now that he is running for president, he tossing aside foibles, hiring Bush fundraisers and pioneers left and right (today he hired Bush's NH fundraiser, someone who will be useful to prove support for a candidate inside the Granite State). More hypocritically, he letting himself be a money raising prop to people who gather funds in largely unregulated (or compared to the federal system underregulated) amounts.
In seeking to reach his goal [of raising $120 Million], Schwarzenegger is offering large donors personal access. Invitations to a March 20 dinner in Beverly Hills offer "head table seating with the governor" for two and six photos of couples with the governor for those who contribute at least $100,000 to his reelection campaign and the state GOP. The dinner's star speaker is Sen. John McCain..."The important thing is that all the rules within the state are followed, and the senator himself is not soliciting large donations," said John Weaver, a McCain strategist.
That's a pretty fine line. McCain isn't soliciting large donations for himself, but soliciting them for his friends, whom he can later ask political favors from in the primaries.
Let's say the GOP 2008 primary is between George Allen and John McCain (which CPAC straw polls show are by far the most liked candidates) and that McCain took NH but Allen took SC, the rest of the other states have been pretty even but now it is Super Tuesday and California is the biggest prize. Don't you think helping out Arnold get re-elected (let's hope CA voters aren't that dumb twice) would mean that the Governor would endorse and work for McCain?
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
a peek inside the mad house
From Hotline on Call:
So they couldn't even swallow the lies that they were preparing to give on the story. I wonder what it said, because the story that they did come out with via a lobbyist and an appointed ambassador, was pretty pathetic. Maybe they thought saying the same thing through a different source really would be more believable.
Meanwhile, when did the President hear about it? What about Scotty? Was Scotty's communications team crafting the story? Was Karl Rove? These folks are pathalogical lairs. Forthcommingness and honesty is just about the last thing that would come to mind.
Sure, Clinton's first reaction was to duck the hard truth about his womanizing nature, but he didn't shoot anyone in the face, neck, and chest. Nor did he lie to go to war in Kosovo or Haiti. As far as I can tell the CYA of the Clinton White House was on unnecessary non-scandals that were turned into scandals by zealous GOPers like Barbara Comstock. The CYA of the Bush White House involve Iraq, outing a CIA agent for political gain, information on key legislation (Medicare plan B, Energy policy, spending bills for Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.), warrantless domestic spying, Katrina, and much more.
Dick Cheney firmly believes that the executive can do whatever it wants and doesn't have to share any information. In fact, information sharing is a sin or necessary evil in the Cheney world view. And this was just the latest example.
We heard Mike Allen refer to this on Larry King Live, and this morning, The Note offers up this nugget: "Sources close to the Vice President say that there was actually a statement prepared either by Cheney, or with his help, to be delivered Sunday morning after the accident. It was something the White House suggested -- and might have been prepared with some White House help. But it was determined by his advisors and by him that morning that it was too 'convoluted,' and might not be the best way to proceed. They decided it might be best to have somebody who actually witnessed the accident explain what happened. For some reason, they thought that would seem more 'credible,' hence, the involvement of Katherine Armstrong. They now see that this was likely bad judgment."
Here's what Allen said last night: "And, Larry, the vice president and one of the staff members actually had worked up a statement that they considered releasing on Sunday morning but it was so obtuse and elliptical that it was decided that that would just cause even more of a frenzy, so they waited to do it this way."
So they couldn't even swallow the lies that they were preparing to give on the story. I wonder what it said, because the story that they did come out with via a lobbyist and an appointed ambassador, was pretty pathetic. Maybe they thought saying the same thing through a different source really would be more believable.
Meanwhile, when did the President hear about it? What about Scotty? Was Scotty's communications team crafting the story? Was Karl Rove? These folks are pathalogical lairs. Forthcommingness and honesty is just about the last thing that would come to mind.
Sure, Clinton's first reaction was to duck the hard truth about his womanizing nature, but he didn't shoot anyone in the face, neck, and chest. Nor did he lie to go to war in Kosovo or Haiti. As far as I can tell the CYA of the Clinton White House was on unnecessary non-scandals that were turned into scandals by zealous GOPers like Barbara Comstock. The CYA of the Bush White House involve Iraq, outing a CIA agent for political gain, information on key legislation (Medicare plan B, Energy policy, spending bills for Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.), warrantless domestic spying, Katrina, and much more.
Dick Cheney firmly believes that the executive can do whatever it wants and doesn't have to share any information. In fact, information sharing is a sin or necessary evil in the Cheney world view. And this was just the latest example.
Monday, February 13, 2006
friendly fire
by using this title, i can link together various semi-related topics.
Like Dick Cheney accidently shooting a 78-old friend from 30 feet away while the Abassador to Switzerland looked on. And then no one wanted to report it, except the campaign donor whose land they were on at the time 18-hours later. Oh and the man is still in intensive care. Much has already been said about this, and even my sleepy East High students knew about it and asked me what happened.
And now for the main thrust of my article, I ask that there be no more pieces from bloggers on how DINO one primary candidate is, and how the other is so much better, without laying out any policy positional differences. The number one offender of this is Michael in Chicago on MyDD. I have no way of judging other than money and polling at this point which candidate is better for Henry Hyde's seat. But just because the D-trip supports Duckworth over Celigis (sp?) doesn't mean that Duckworth is enherantly worse. There may be reasons to support Duckworth other than the fact that the bloggers liked the other canidate last time (fundraising ability, appealability to more voters, etc.). Same goes with Sharrod Brown and Paul Hacket.
I personally like Hacket in this one more than Brown, if only because Hacket got in first and didn't pretend like he wasn't going to enter the race only to enter in later. Brown just strikes me as more of a stereotypical pol than Hacket. Of course, whatever Ohio democrats decide is ok with me. Ditto for IL primary voters.
It is just completely unproductive to smear candidates without actually having any real policy discussion. I am fine with people not supporting Casey in PA because of his abortion stance, or is support of Alito (again on abortion most likely), but you can't deny that he stands the best chance against Santorum based on polls.
Again, go ahead and bash Lieberman and Cuegular (sp?) for their support of Bush policy's and contrast the differing positions of their oposition.
But don't bash John Morrison in Montana because the DLC named him as a new dem of the week (I did) or because he was a member of the DLC's 100 to watch a couple years in arow. The DLC supported Morrison because he looked like he would run for governor or senator down the road, and was vaguely in line with their political philosophy. I haven't heard much about Tester's positions other than his support by (1) Kos and (2) Pearl Jam. I like both, but that doesn't do it for me. Morrison supported ways of increasing health insurance coverage for Montana's children, he knows about water issues and western issues and can explain it to easterns in a way that will get positive changes made in Washington. Tester is an organic farmer whose district was republican in the state senate. That's about all I know of him. That, and as Kos points out, he has a donkey and the word "democrat" in his web banner. Who cares?
Oh and Morrison is currently polling ahead of Burns, while Tester is behind Burns (and Morrison has more money than Tester).
Whomever wins these contested primaries will need our support come November in order to have a chance of taking back either house of Congress. So please, if you prefer a candidate, state your reasons why in policy terms, not conspiracy/slur terms.
Like Dick Cheney accidently shooting a 78-old friend from 30 feet away while the Abassador to Switzerland looked on. And then no one wanted to report it, except the campaign donor whose land they were on at the time 18-hours later. Oh and the man is still in intensive care. Much has already been said about this, and even my sleepy East High students knew about it and asked me what happened.
And now for the main thrust of my article, I ask that there be no more pieces from bloggers on how DINO one primary candidate is, and how the other is so much better, without laying out any policy positional differences. The number one offender of this is Michael in Chicago on MyDD. I have no way of judging other than money and polling at this point which candidate is better for Henry Hyde's seat. But just because the D-trip supports Duckworth over Celigis (sp?) doesn't mean that Duckworth is enherantly worse. There may be reasons to support Duckworth other than the fact that the bloggers liked the other canidate last time (fundraising ability, appealability to more voters, etc.). Same goes with Sharrod Brown and Paul Hacket.
I personally like Hacket in this one more than Brown, if only because Hacket got in first and didn't pretend like he wasn't going to enter the race only to enter in later. Brown just strikes me as more of a stereotypical pol than Hacket. Of course, whatever Ohio democrats decide is ok with me. Ditto for IL primary voters.
It is just completely unproductive to smear candidates without actually having any real policy discussion. I am fine with people not supporting Casey in PA because of his abortion stance, or is support of Alito (again on abortion most likely), but you can't deny that he stands the best chance against Santorum based on polls.
Again, go ahead and bash Lieberman and Cuegular (sp?) for their support of Bush policy's and contrast the differing positions of their oposition.
But don't bash John Morrison in Montana because the DLC named him as a new dem of the week (I did) or because he was a member of the DLC's 100 to watch a couple years in arow. The DLC supported Morrison because he looked like he would run for governor or senator down the road, and was vaguely in line with their political philosophy. I haven't heard much about Tester's positions other than his support by (1) Kos and (2) Pearl Jam. I like both, but that doesn't do it for me. Morrison supported ways of increasing health insurance coverage for Montana's children, he knows about water issues and western issues and can explain it to easterns in a way that will get positive changes made in Washington. Tester is an organic farmer whose district was republican in the state senate. That's about all I know of him. That, and as Kos points out, he has a donkey and the word "democrat" in his web banner. Who cares?
Oh and Morrison is currently polling ahead of Burns, while Tester is behind Burns (and Morrison has more money than Tester).
Whomever wins these contested primaries will need our support come November in order to have a chance of taking back either house of Congress. So please, if you prefer a candidate, state your reasons why in policy terms, not conspiracy/slur terms.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Long days
Wednesdays are long for me, but made only longer when they are sandwiched by long Tuesdays and long Thursdays like this week. Yesterday, I taught in the morning (7:45) with my fellow law student, worked for 4 hours at the DA's office, then went to school until 7:30. After that, I played basketball from 8:30 to 9:30 (I ate dinner and changed at a Subway restaurant). I didn't get home until 10 PM.
Today, I didn't get home until 8:45 and I had been going since 9 AM. Tomorrow's schedule is just like Tuesdays. At least Friday will be light, with a mid morning class, a lunch meeting and a afternoon class. I have the opening ceremonies to watch up at my parent's house while they are away. The big screen awaits.
In other commentary, I am impressed at how quickly messages can be solidified for the Democratic party/liberals on the lefty blogostan. [For example, see the reaction to the furor over CS King's funeral] Great talking points emerge from the big blogs, and evidence to back up the ideas emerge either within the group blogs or becomes linked to the big ones. Now all Democrats need is the ability to get this honed message out to the non-blogging public.
That requires getting real air time on cable news channels, which are becoming angry conservative AM talk radio with pictures and fancy graphics, or newsprint, which is filled sniveling cowardly bootlickers like the NYTimes staff and the WaPo editorial board. Occasionally, there are some good journalists, like ex-TIME now Slate's John Dickerson. Dickerson, while still a creature of the beltway, at least has a code of ethics and knows a rat when he smells one (and isn't afraid to point out the rat).
Soon, TV and radio may die away as effective messengers to the voters/opinion shapers. Blogs like Daily Kos are growing so rapidly that soon their "circulation" numbers will trump not just big papers like NYTimes, but all papers COMBINED.
Democrats have a built in advantage as consensus builders who like to argue out crap forever, while GOPers like the unity of top down messengers like talk radio, cable news, or op-ed columnists. Democrats need to learn how to use free tools effectively, and not just spam us bloggers for money twice a week. Like I care about the LG race in Alabama.
Today, I didn't get home until 8:45 and I had been going since 9 AM. Tomorrow's schedule is just like Tuesdays. At least Friday will be light, with a mid morning class, a lunch meeting and a afternoon class. I have the opening ceremonies to watch up at my parent's house while they are away. The big screen awaits.
In other commentary, I am impressed at how quickly messages can be solidified for the Democratic party/liberals on the lefty blogostan. [For example, see the reaction to the furor over CS King's funeral] Great talking points emerge from the big blogs, and evidence to back up the ideas emerge either within the group blogs or becomes linked to the big ones. Now all Democrats need is the ability to get this honed message out to the non-blogging public.
That requires getting real air time on cable news channels, which are becoming angry conservative AM talk radio with pictures and fancy graphics, or newsprint, which is filled sniveling cowardly bootlickers like the NYTimes staff and the WaPo editorial board. Occasionally, there are some good journalists, like ex-TIME now Slate's John Dickerson. Dickerson, while still a creature of the beltway, at least has a code of ethics and knows a rat when he smells one (and isn't afraid to point out the rat).
Soon, TV and radio may die away as effective messengers to the voters/opinion shapers. Blogs like Daily Kos are growing so rapidly that soon their "circulation" numbers will trump not just big papers like NYTimes, but all papers COMBINED.
Democrats have a built in advantage as consensus builders who like to argue out crap forever, while GOPers like the unity of top down messengers like talk radio, cable news, or op-ed columnists. Democrats need to learn how to use free tools effectively, and not just spam us bloggers for money twice a week. Like I care about the LG race in Alabama.
Monday, February 06, 2006
post-super bowl heartburn edition
This is my photo of the day. I know the person who put it up there mistyped, but I think it is a Freudian slip. The media is so gutless, so willing to report smears and pathetic arguments as "both sides" instead of the truth, that this caption is partially true. Norah doesn't sell herself for sex, but she is paid to be unnecessarily deferential to the White House's arguments and the Republican-controlled congress. That makes one an informational whore, not a sexual prostitute.
I went to go see "Good Night, And Good Luck" last night.
It was pretty well done cinematography wise, it had the feel of an old
(50s) movie beyond the fact that it was in black and white. The film
made me sad because there doesn't seem to be a Murrow
(except maybe Anderson Cooper) out there to challenge the current McCarthyesque
tactics of the current administration and their lackeys in Congress.
A Patriots-free Super Bowl just isn't the same for me. As much as I was rooting for the Steelers, I still had trouble caring as much. How sad that Tom Brady tossed the official coin instead of calling heads or tails and actually playing in the Super Bowl. And weren't those ads lame? The only "good" ones were the AmeriQuest ones, the McGyver one, and the Emrald Nuts one.
I remember back in 2000 or 1999, the ads were fantastic. Like that E-Trade one with the monkey ("Well we just blew $2 million, what are you doing with your money?"). All those Christian conservatives that yelled at the networks and the NFL over Janet Jackson when she and JC plotted the scheme to attract sales to her records. If you should be mad, be mad at Mr. Jackson who beat his children into being 1) a child molester 2) drug/alcohol addicts 3) a flasher to a billion people 4) just plain crazy [LaToya] and who knows what happened to Tito. The creativity has gone out the window in favor of super bland ads.
Here is another Super Bowl that was effective: WhatistheMaxtrix.com the ad for the movie that left me confused and intregued. Wow, that was neat I thought, I wonder what that ad was for. Then people explained to me it was a film. With Kenu Reeves? Well, I did see Bill and Ted's and that Budda movie, I must be a sucker for Whooa!
Thursday, February 02, 2006
medicial reform
recently I have been having some health scares and have been seeing various doctors. And now from personal experience, I can tell my dear readers that our system is completely out of wack.
Because it is an employer-based and profit-motivated system, we get loads of unnecessary tests to bill to insurance rather than to make sure something is nothing. In the rest of the developed world, their health care system is dramatically cheeper and their life expectancy is just as good or better (Japan) than ours.
Why? They don't have loads of officials trying to weasle there way out of paying for something, or asking for people to fill out and copy the same forms a billion times. They share as much equipment and patients as possible, making the cost per a patient dramatically lower.
When the focus is on cost rather than profits, we will practice preventative medicine rather than letting millions of Americans wait until they have to go the emergency room until they get expensive care. There will still be precautionary tests, but we won't have doctors insisting on expensive tests that serve no purpose when it doesn't effect their bottom line.
By pooling patients and doctors, we can reduce medicial insurance and malpractice premiums, instead of creating thousands of little boxes to put people in. The more I think about our system, the madder I get and the more irrational and unnecessary it seems.
The rich could still have supplimental care so that all our super specialists could make their big bucks and do all their fancy tests with pricy machines, but most people would not need to use those super specialists except in rare cases of acute problems.
All this fear of socialism has gotten us into this prediciment. Our people are earning less because premiums go up while wages stay stagnant or lower. Americans are quickly having a competitive disadvantage relative to Europe Canada, etc. when it comes to companies wanting to employ people here. Why else would GM make noises about a single-payer system.
Here's a thought: change federal law so that states like Maine and Massachusetts could try out a single payer system. Then if it works in a place like Massachusetts, with all its teaching hospitals and specialists, it can work nationwide. What is Congress afraid of? Political donations from Pharma and insurance companies drying up?
Because it is an employer-based and profit-motivated system, we get loads of unnecessary tests to bill to insurance rather than to make sure something is nothing. In the rest of the developed world, their health care system is dramatically cheeper and their life expectancy is just as good or better (Japan) than ours.
Why? They don't have loads of officials trying to weasle there way out of paying for something, or asking for people to fill out and copy the same forms a billion times. They share as much equipment and patients as possible, making the cost per a patient dramatically lower.
When the focus is on cost rather than profits, we will practice preventative medicine rather than letting millions of Americans wait until they have to go the emergency room until they get expensive care. There will still be precautionary tests, but we won't have doctors insisting on expensive tests that serve no purpose when it doesn't effect their bottom line.
By pooling patients and doctors, we can reduce medicial insurance and malpractice premiums, instead of creating thousands of little boxes to put people in. The more I think about our system, the madder I get and the more irrational and unnecessary it seems.
The rich could still have supplimental care so that all our super specialists could make their big bucks and do all their fancy tests with pricy machines, but most people would not need to use those super specialists except in rare cases of acute problems.
All this fear of socialism has gotten us into this prediciment. Our people are earning less because premiums go up while wages stay stagnant or lower. Americans are quickly having a competitive disadvantage relative to Europe Canada, etc. when it comes to companies wanting to employ people here. Why else would GM make noises about a single-payer system.
Here's a thought: change federal law so that states like Maine and Massachusetts could try out a single payer system. Then if it works in a place like Massachusetts, with all its teaching hospitals and specialists, it can work nationwide. What is Congress afraid of? Political donations from Pharma and insurance companies drying up?
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
update on teaching
so today I taught again, and it was much better.
part of the solution was that I had 30 minutes less time to teach. Another part was that I purposely slowed down and did some review with candy. Every time a kid answered a question correctly, I threw candy at them.
This got at least 5 people talking, but I would love to hear more ideas of how to involve more students.
I also was able to make it somewhat interesting to them by telling them about Utah's exonoree, Bruce Goodman and how the trial system and appellate process works.
On Friday, I plan on having them all act out the McDonald's coffee case, with some being witnesses and the rest being the jury. Any thoughts on how to wake the kids up, use up 1.5 hours, and make it fun are welcome. Thanks to commmentors who talked me off the proverbial ledge after Monday's train wreck.
part of the solution was that I had 30 minutes less time to teach. Another part was that I purposely slowed down and did some review with candy. Every time a kid answered a question correctly, I threw candy at them.
This got at least 5 people talking, but I would love to hear more ideas of how to involve more students.
I also was able to make it somewhat interesting to them by telling them about Utah's exonoree, Bruce Goodman and how the trial system and appellate process works.
On Friday, I plan on having them all act out the McDonald's coffee case, with some being witnesses and the rest being the jury. Any thoughts on how to wake the kids up, use up 1.5 hours, and make it fun are welcome. Thanks to commmentors who talked me off the proverbial ledge after Monday's train wreck.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
orwellian traditional media
If say a lie enough times, does it become true? Hamas' victory was a surprise. Bush is popular. Bush is winning the political battle on warrantless domestic spying. Democrats are divided. Democrats are weak on defense. Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman are the ones Democrats should listen to. DeLay is just a conservative guy, and everyone does it. Both parties have their hand in the Abramoff cookie jar.
Most bloggers say this is the right wing talking points trumping reality and the the media is buying them out of fear of being labled "liberal."
But in reality, it is the only propetual motion machine. I think the media have been conditioned to think this way, and when conservatives say it, well that's nice too for the media.
It is the media that are living in fear asking permission for what they should cover and how they should cover it.
Most bloggers say this is the right wing talking points trumping reality and the the media is buying them out of fear of being labled "liberal."
But in reality, it is the only propetual motion machine. I think the media have been conditioned to think this way, and when conservatives say it, well that's nice too for the media.
It is the media that are living in fear asking permission for what they should cover and how they should cover it.
Monday, January 30, 2006
sleepy in salt lake city
so today was my first day teaching at East High School. Way back in the 1930s my grandfather graduated from East as a validictorian. These days I roamed a completely different hall filled with minorities and kids who I swear should still be in middle school. Were kids really that small when I was in 9th grade? I was over six feet and growing facial hair at the time, so I am not a good judge.
Anyway, back to the story. I was expecting the real teacher to be giving them a little quiz on the constitutional convention but he decided to scrap it to be nice to them (or because he was too lazy to draw up a quiz). So these minutes I thought I had to kill where not there.
I got up there and ploughed through the first day's topic (introduction) and low and behold I had over an hour left. Crap. Was it because I didn't explain stuff adequately? Because the kids were half awake? Because they don't care? I tried to get them engaged by asking them if they had a driver's license, if they had a credit card, a cell phone, etc. to show them that the law is important to them. So with this hour left, I had them read the next unit (lawmaking) and then talked about that.
So now my Wednesday topic became monday part II and my reading for friday (the court system) became my reading for wednesday. For those of you who teach or have teached, any suggestions? I am thinking of having a review section at first on Friday and then going on to the the Courts. All suggestions are welcome.
The kids are dressed either grungy (white boys), hip hop (minority boys), stripes (nerdy white girls), and tight shirts (all girls). I even got a semi-flirty girl telling me good job and to calm my fears. Oh I hope she doesn't think that smile will get her anywhere. Especially since she showed up late.
Anyway, back to the story. I was expecting the real teacher to be giving them a little quiz on the constitutional convention but he decided to scrap it to be nice to them (or because he was too lazy to draw up a quiz). So these minutes I thought I had to kill where not there.
I got up there and ploughed through the first day's topic (introduction) and low and behold I had over an hour left. Crap. Was it because I didn't explain stuff adequately? Because the kids were half awake? Because they don't care? I tried to get them engaged by asking them if they had a driver's license, if they had a credit card, a cell phone, etc. to show them that the law is important to them. So with this hour left, I had them read the next unit (lawmaking) and then talked about that.
So now my Wednesday topic became monday part II and my reading for friday (the court system) became my reading for wednesday. For those of you who teach or have teached, any suggestions? I am thinking of having a review section at first on Friday and then going on to the the Courts. All suggestions are welcome.
The kids are dressed either grungy (white boys), hip hop (minority boys), stripes (nerdy white girls), and tight shirts (all girls). I even got a semi-flirty girl telling me good job and to calm my fears. Oh I hope she doesn't think that smile will get her anywhere. Especially since she showed up late.
Friday, January 27, 2006
living in terror for the sake of fear
Right now there are about 32,500 stories on Google News about bird flu. That is insane. I am sick and tired of seeing stories on the news about what the latest thing is that we should be afraid of. Terrorism in America happened long before September 11, 2001. The traditional media have been bombarding us with stories of unsafe drugs, consumer products, technology (remember Y2K?) roads, potential biological agents (remember the killer bees?) for at least a decade.
Why? Because fear sells. People tune in to learn what they should avoid and what they need to be concerned about. The Bush administration knew this as people in the ad business, so they sold fear to sell the president's policies and ultimately, his reelection. We had to be afriad of Saddam, a non-threat. Of social security collapsing. Of dirty bombs. Of "what kind of message that [Democratic policy] sends to the terrorists/evil doers." Enough is enough.
Americans need to kick their fear habit cold turkey, and the media need to stop feeding into the cycle of fearmongering. Enough exposes. This country was not built on living in fear, but living free. Free from fear in fact, we fought to keep British troops out of our homes and lands (see the 3rd Amendment), from tryannical rulers, from fear itself in World War II.
I for one am not going to live in fear. Avian flu is not going to happen any time soon if at all. It is like monkey's writing hamlet. While we were busy being afriad, Soviet nuclear caches go unguarded, Iran has started up its nuclear program, North Korea has build more nuclear weapons, and Osama bin Laden is still alive making silly attempts a truce. Forgive me if I don't watch the Oprah on bird flu and don't stock up 3 weeks worth of food, medicine, and batteries.
Why? Because fear sells. People tune in to learn what they should avoid and what they need to be concerned about. The Bush administration knew this as people in the ad business, so they sold fear to sell the president's policies and ultimately, his reelection. We had to be afriad of Saddam, a non-threat. Of social security collapsing. Of dirty bombs. Of "what kind of message that [Democratic policy] sends to the terrorists/evil doers." Enough is enough.
Americans need to kick their fear habit cold turkey, and the media need to stop feeding into the cycle of fearmongering. Enough exposes. This country was not built on living in fear, but living free. Free from fear in fact, we fought to keep British troops out of our homes and lands (see the 3rd Amendment), from tryannical rulers, from fear itself in World War II.
I for one am not going to live in fear. Avian flu is not going to happen any time soon if at all. It is like monkey's writing hamlet. While we were busy being afriad, Soviet nuclear caches go unguarded, Iran has started up its nuclear program, North Korea has build more nuclear weapons, and Osama bin Laden is still alive making silly attempts a truce. Forgive me if I don't watch the Oprah on bird flu and don't stock up 3 weeks worth of food, medicine, and batteries.
Monday, January 23, 2006
meet the mayors
today as I was waiting for my TRAX train up to the University, I saw Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson across the street. Who should be talking to him but Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Carroon. They must have had some meeting together downtown or something. It was funny to watch some people walk past in utter ignorance, and others recognize either one and stop and talk to them. Of the five to six people that strolled past, two talked to the mayors for some time.
It was a pretty amusing sight. I thought that if something were to knock out both of them at that moment, it would knockout 2/3s of the most prominantly elected Utah Democrats.
On Wednesday, I get to oberserve the civics class that I will be teaching in next week. It is classic TV high school, complete with the head football coach as civics teacher. I wonder how much material these students will be able to cover as we are planning on doing two "chapters" (which are like 5-10 "pages" of a HS text book covered in side bars, pictures and other crap to keep your MTV attention span brain on task) a day. This is a graduation requirement and it will be interesting to see the level of today's Utah public education.
The state has a 1 billion dollar surplus. Will we spend it on roads to commute to bedroom communities? Tax cuts? Or will the legislature improve education funding, cut adminstration and get the state out of competition with Mississippi with last in the nation schools? I wonder if the two mayors I saw today will speak about it with them...but then again, who will listen to them but the scant powerless democrats?
It was a pretty amusing sight. I thought that if something were to knock out both of them at that moment, it would knockout 2/3s of the most prominantly elected Utah Democrats.
On Wednesday, I get to oberserve the civics class that I will be teaching in next week. It is classic TV high school, complete with the head football coach as civics teacher. I wonder how much material these students will be able to cover as we are planning on doing two "chapters" (which are like 5-10 "pages" of a HS text book covered in side bars, pictures and other crap to keep your MTV attention span brain on task) a day. This is a graduation requirement and it will be interesting to see the level of today's Utah public education.
The state has a 1 billion dollar surplus. Will we spend it on roads to commute to bedroom communities? Tax cuts? Or will the legislature improve education funding, cut adminstration and get the state out of competition with Mississippi with last in the nation schools? I wonder if the two mayors I saw today will speak about it with them...but then again, who will listen to them but the scant powerless democrats?
Friday, January 20, 2006
1600 Pennslyannia Madison Avenue
Every time the Bush Administration wants to engage in a major policy change, the sound like an ad agency. Remember that they saber rattling they did in August 2003, chief of staff Andy Card said you don't roll out a new product in August? So they launched It after Labor Day, a little thing called the Iraq war. When things don't go well, this president that doesn't care about polls goes to local media outlets on the theory that they won't ask as tough as questions as the national media.
Just ask Utah's Chris Vanocur and his Peabody about that one.
Most of their communications staff seem to come from the corporate and ad world. and instead of solving problems, it seems the communications staff go to work and making people think there is no problem or that there is another more pressing problem (see Saddam, Social Security, etc). it is really amazing to see their utter unwillingless to address any problems other than with a speech.
I guess you could also call the Bush White House post-modernist too. There is no reality for them, there is only everyone's own perception of what reality is. and so if they can change enough people's perceptions boom, there reality is changed. Too bad that bombs keep blowing up and terrorist recruitment and activity seem to increase rather than decrease while "the insurgency is in its last throes."
Another distraction technique they use is to equate known bad things with other things they don't like. Like Osama and Saddam...they would purposely confuse the two and intermingle the two topics. Or now, Osama and liberals. By saying that Osama's tape "sounds just like Michael Moore" it distracts people from the fact that its been like 5 years since we were attacked by bin Laden and he is obviously not dead or captured.
I didn't like Fehrenheit 9/11 that much, I thought that bowling for collumbine was a much better film, and I think Moore says stupid stuff all the time, but he doesn't sound anyhing anything like Osama. Even Moore or Sean Penn isn't dumb enough to call for a truce. I would say that bin Laden sounds like Star Jones! Man, I can't think of a worse insult to bin Laden, or anyone for that manner to be compared to than Star Jones.
Just ask Utah's Chris Vanocur and his Peabody about that one.
Most of their communications staff seem to come from the corporate and ad world. and instead of solving problems, it seems the communications staff go to work and making people think there is no problem or that there is another more pressing problem (see Saddam, Social Security, etc). it is really amazing to see their utter unwillingless to address any problems other than with a speech.
I guess you could also call the Bush White House post-modernist too. There is no reality for them, there is only everyone's own perception of what reality is. and so if they can change enough people's perceptions boom, there reality is changed. Too bad that bombs keep blowing up and terrorist recruitment and activity seem to increase rather than decrease while "the insurgency is in its last throes."
Another distraction technique they use is to equate known bad things with other things they don't like. Like Osama and Saddam...they would purposely confuse the two and intermingle the two topics. Or now, Osama and liberals. By saying that Osama's tape "sounds just like Michael Moore" it distracts people from the fact that its been like 5 years since we were attacked by bin Laden and he is obviously not dead or captured.
I didn't like Fehrenheit 9/11 that much, I thought that bowling for collumbine was a much better film, and I think Moore says stupid stuff all the time, but he doesn't sound anyhing anything like Osama. Even Moore or Sean Penn isn't dumb enough to call for a truce. I would say that bin Laden sounds like Star Jones! Man, I can't think of a worse insult to bin Laden, or anyone for that manner to be compared to than Star Jones.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Burns doesn't learn
For the junior Senator from Montana's 71st birthday, he is spending it with the only people he really loves--Abramoff tied lobbyists.
Instead of going back home to the Big Sky state, or hanging out with family or staff, Burns is going to make his birthday party into a at a fundraiser sponsored by Cassidy & Associates--the same folks that used to be Alexander Associates--until so many of their staffers were pleading guilty that they had to close shop briefly and rename themselves. Either Burns needs cash so badly that he has to go through the most tainted of sources, or he is just clueless, or politically suicidal. Or all of the above.
Hat Tip The Fix and Political Wire.
Instead of going back home to the Big Sky state, or hanging out with family or staff, Burns is going to make his birthday party into a at a fundraiser sponsored by Cassidy & Associates--the same folks that used to be Alexander Associates--until so many of their staffers were pleading guilty that they had to close shop briefly and rename themselves. Either Burns needs cash so badly that he has to go through the most tainted of sources, or he is just clueless, or politically suicidal. Or all of the above.
Hat Tip The Fix and Political Wire.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
me MIA
two nights ago, I woke up very hot so I took off my shirt and went back to sleep. When I woke up in the morning, I was feeling achey, weak, and sweaty. The day turned out terrible as I was shivering indoors with my coat and gloves on. Boring classes were even worse. And because my wife had choir practice last night, I had to ride my bike to and from school because otherwise I wouldn't get home until 9:30 or 9.
I staggered into my house, make myself instant stuff and climbed into bed. About 30-45 minutes later, I took a shower and felt better. My wife babied me when she got home, and then I got so hot that I broke out in a sweat. My temp at that point was a little over 100 degrees. With the help of theraflu and gatorade, I feel better today, but not 100%.
Interestingly, my butt and lower back hurt. I wonder if it is from bicycling or how I sat up to eat or what.
Soon, I will be teaching a high school class 2 to 3 times a week with my friend whom I know from my days interning for Rep. Matheson. The girl I was originally scheduled to work with (whom I knew from High School and the year I lived in DC) dropped out last minute because of the conflict with her clinic. In some ways, I think this will be a better pairing for me. Expect postings on my experience with high schoolers in the next couple weeks.
I staggered into my house, make myself instant stuff and climbed into bed. About 30-45 minutes later, I took a shower and felt better. My wife babied me when she got home, and then I got so hot that I broke out in a sweat. My temp at that point was a little over 100 degrees. With the help of theraflu and gatorade, I feel better today, but not 100%.
Interestingly, my butt and lower back hurt. I wonder if it is from bicycling or how I sat up to eat or what.
Soon, I will be teaching a high school class 2 to 3 times a week with my friend whom I know from my days interning for Rep. Matheson. The girl I was originally scheduled to work with (whom I knew from High School and the year I lived in DC) dropped out last minute because of the conflict with her clinic. In some ways, I think this will be a better pairing for me. Expect postings on my experience with high schoolers in the next couple weeks.
Monday, January 16, 2006
King and Alito
So today is the day we celebrate the life work of Martin Luther King Jr. this is the day that folks spend 5 minutes to say racism still exists and we still have progress to make. And people will wonder what is life was like, and these days people remind the audience that Dr. King was vehemently against the Vietnam war and probably would have been against this war too had he lived.
But my post today is to remind people that was only 42 years ago. That none of the progress that was made was inevitable. Heck, King's birthday didn't become a holiday until the 1980s, and even then Republicans and Southern Senators had be dragged kicking and screaming. My parents were alive and aware when the civil rights movement broke out and I am sure many of my readers lived through it as well. It can all go back, history is not a 1-way street.
And with the selection of folks like Alito, the doors of discrimination will be able to open up more and more. Alito to me looks like a modern-day Roger B Taney, a justice has no respect for the law other than his ability to twist it into any shape he finds satisfying. Precedent say abortion is legal? No problem, just let Sam's "open mind" get cracking. The commerce clause gives congress the right to prohibit discrimination by private persons? Alito's got a few ideas (see his US v. Rybar opinion for creative use of commerce clause powers).
Alito isn't just conservative, he is reactionary. He is finally getting to let out all his frustration with being a nerd and unliked in college or law school by most people. His anger at how the world was changing while he was in school, and his efforts to strike back in the Reagan administration. Bush had this view too, when those damn women and minorities had to ruin his old Yale.
So again, my message is vigilance. We have to protect the progress that has been made in the last 40-50 years and strive for more progress. For universal access to health care, a national education system that puts other nations to shame, to good jobs and retirement security. We are a society that values its children, its old, its poor, its discriminated, its sick, its infirm, we don't throw them at the mercy of the winds anymore. And so we can't let others chisel away protection that we have worked so hard to build up over the years with circular logic and terrible reasoning filling the United States Reporters.
But my post today is to remind people that was only 42 years ago. That none of the progress that was made was inevitable. Heck, King's birthday didn't become a holiday until the 1980s, and even then Republicans and Southern Senators had be dragged kicking and screaming. My parents were alive and aware when the civil rights movement broke out and I am sure many of my readers lived through it as well. It can all go back, history is not a 1-way street.
And with the selection of folks like Alito, the doors of discrimination will be able to open up more and more. Alito to me looks like a modern-day Roger B Taney, a justice has no respect for the law other than his ability to twist it into any shape he finds satisfying. Precedent say abortion is legal? No problem, just let Sam's "open mind" get cracking. The commerce clause gives congress the right to prohibit discrimination by private persons? Alito's got a few ideas (see his US v. Rybar opinion for creative use of commerce clause powers).
Alito isn't just conservative, he is reactionary. He is finally getting to let out all his frustration with being a nerd and unliked in college or law school by most people. His anger at how the world was changing while he was in school, and his efforts to strike back in the Reagan administration. Bush had this view too, when those damn women and minorities had to ruin his old Yale.
So again, my message is vigilance. We have to protect the progress that has been made in the last 40-50 years and strive for more progress. For universal access to health care, a national education system that puts other nations to shame, to good jobs and retirement security. We are a society that values its children, its old, its poor, its discriminated, its sick, its infirm, we don't throw them at the mercy of the winds anymore. And so we can't let others chisel away protection that we have worked so hard to build up over the years with circular logic and terrible reasoning filling the United States Reporters.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
diggin' up 'balance'
How come Republicans can find has-beens with axes to grind to say anything bad about veterans and no one in the media calls it. But if some actual ex-administration official speaks the truth, they are labeled as spiteful liers by the traditional press?
Just compare what they said about Richard Clarke versus Don Bailey. Bailey, who lost to Murtha over twenty years ago in a primary, claims that Murtha told him he lied to get his purple hearts. First of all, even if that was true, which there is nothing behind it but lies...but even if it was true, how does that make what Murtha says about the war less true? He still would be a decorated war veteran and ex-Marine who has been the head of the House Defense Appropriation Committee and has garnered great respect for the brass at the Pentagon. He voted for the war. And now he strongly believes based on what he has been told by military folks in the field, that the war is unwinniable and that we need to go home.
Now, I don't know if I agree with Murtha. I think there is a lot of truth to what he says though. And I have more reason to trust him than say, Scott McClelland or Dick Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.
So why do we have to listen to repeated baseless attacks against veterans who oppose the war in Iraq? Why do these charges recieve any air time. One word: balance. THe right wing brutalized the traditional media into beliving that since the journalist themselves were culturally liberal, their news was similarily liberal. Of course, the TRUTH or FACTS are not liberal or conservative or moderate. They are just facts or truth. And the fact is, the war is not going well. The fact is, our troops keep dying and there is absolutely no stablity or security over in Iraq. In terms of everyday municipal services, life is worse post-Saddam than pre-Saddam. The electricity is off days at a time, there are Carter-style gas lines, no trash pick up, etc. Sure they have democracy, but what good are free elections if those elected will make your country Iran II?
Just compare what they said about Richard Clarke versus Don Bailey. Bailey, who lost to Murtha over twenty years ago in a primary, claims that Murtha told him he lied to get his purple hearts. First of all, even if that was true, which there is nothing behind it but lies...but even if it was true, how does that make what Murtha says about the war less true? He still would be a decorated war veteran and ex-Marine who has been the head of the House Defense Appropriation Committee and has garnered great respect for the brass at the Pentagon. He voted for the war. And now he strongly believes based on what he has been told by military folks in the field, that the war is unwinniable and that we need to go home.
Now, I don't know if I agree with Murtha. I think there is a lot of truth to what he says though. And I have more reason to trust him than say, Scott McClelland or Dick Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.
So why do we have to listen to repeated baseless attacks against veterans who oppose the war in Iraq? Why do these charges recieve any air time. One word: balance. THe right wing brutalized the traditional media into beliving that since the journalist themselves were culturally liberal, their news was similarily liberal. Of course, the TRUTH or FACTS are not liberal or conservative or moderate. They are just facts or truth. And the fact is, the war is not going well. The fact is, our troops keep dying and there is absolutely no stablity or security over in Iraq. In terms of everyday municipal services, life is worse post-Saddam than pre-Saddam. The electricity is off days at a time, there are Carter-style gas lines, no trash pick up, etc. Sure they have democracy, but what good are free elections if those elected will make your country Iran II?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
can't get enough hearing highlights
Today's the last day of Senators questioning the nominee. Next up, interest groups gone wild!
But first, some irony (not Atlantis Morissette-style) Sen. Biden said Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned. According to the NY Times, "Mr. Biden used about 1800 words in his 20 minutes Wednesday, down from about 3800 words during his 30 minutes Tuesday. In each case, Judge Alito got in about 1,000." Some more Biden moments, from the Times: "Discussing the Family and Medical Leave Act, he noted that his own wife, daughter-in-law and daughter had all worked through their pregnancies until the time that they gave birth. He noted that his daughter was now in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania. And he reiterated once again that he was an 'Irish Catholic kid from Claymont' who would not have been comfortable in the old days at Judge Alito's alma mater, Princeton."
Mrs. Alito broke down in tears yesterday. No one knows whether this was due to tremenous boredom, the Democrats' attempts at attacking Alito's character, or Republicans' at asking him overly soft questions.
Kohl sought to get Alito to say good things about O'Connor and that he would be just like her on the SCOTUS. Alito refused to go along, saying he would be the same guy that HW Bush appointed to the 3rd circuit.
Feingold says assume all procedures are perfect - is there a contitutional right to not be executed if one is innocent? Alito again stresses the procedural protections in place to prevent this.
Schumer showed little patience to sit and listen to Alito's rather lengthy responses, which were drawn out and utterly neutral explanations of methods of analysis: how he would approach a case, rather than how he would decide it. Schumer then tried a kind of multiple choice approach [no pens and bubble sheets jokes please]: "Judge, I'm going to give you two interpretations of the Commerce Clause....Which one is closer to your view of the Commerce Clause?" A. Congress can do whatever B. Morrison/Lopez rock C. Can we go in the way back machine to 1937?
Specter asks Grassley to tell Alito his Anita Hill story in order to give Alito a brief respite. Grassley says that during the Anita Hill hearings many people confused him with Specter and berated his questioning of Ms. Hill.
Turning to the "unified executive" theory, Sessions asks a hard question: "There are only three branches, aren't there?" Alito: Last time I checked. Previously, Sessions noted that Alito's sister is at the hearings and they were debate partners in school. Wants to know who was better. Alito takes the 5th.
But first, some irony (not Atlantis Morissette-style) Sen. Biden said Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned. According to the NY Times, "Mr. Biden used about 1800 words in his 20 minutes Wednesday, down from about 3800 words during his 30 minutes Tuesday. In each case, Judge Alito got in about 1,000." Some more Biden moments, from the Times: "Discussing the Family and Medical Leave Act, he noted that his own wife, daughter-in-law and daughter had all worked through their pregnancies until the time that they gave birth. He noted that his daughter was now in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania. And he reiterated once again that he was an 'Irish Catholic kid from Claymont' who would not have been comfortable in the old days at Judge Alito's alma mater, Princeton."
Mrs. Alito broke down in tears yesterday. No one knows whether this was due to tremenous boredom, the Democrats' attempts at attacking Alito's character, or Republicans' at asking him overly soft questions.
Kohl sought to get Alito to say good things about O'Connor and that he would be just like her on the SCOTUS. Alito refused to go along, saying he would be the same guy that HW Bush appointed to the 3rd circuit.
Feingold says assume all procedures are perfect - is there a contitutional right to not be executed if one is innocent? Alito again stresses the procedural protections in place to prevent this.
Schumer showed little patience to sit and listen to Alito's rather lengthy responses, which were drawn out and utterly neutral explanations of methods of analysis: how he would approach a case, rather than how he would decide it. Schumer then tried a kind of multiple choice approach [no pens and bubble sheets jokes please]: "Judge, I'm going to give you two interpretations of the Commerce Clause....Which one is closer to your view of the Commerce Clause?" A. Congress can do whatever B. Morrison/Lopez rock C. Can we go in the way back machine to 1937?
Specter asks Grassley to tell Alito his Anita Hill story in order to give Alito a brief respite. Grassley says that during the Anita Hill hearings many people confused him with Specter and berated his questioning of Ms. Hill.
Turning to the "unified executive" theory, Sessions asks a hard question: "There are only three branches, aren't there?" Alito: Last time I checked. Previously, Sessions noted that Alito's sister is at the hearings and they were debate partners in school. Wants to know who was better. Alito takes the 5th.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
more Alito fun
Biden, who rambled about being a Ivy League parent for a while yesterday, donned a a Princeton Univ. hat to show how he too was a concerned alumni of princeton (CAP).
Coburn expressed anger that Sen. Durbin changed his mind on the abortion question, but wasn't there. When Durbin got there, he was upset about the comment and wanted to respond, but Coburn was no longer there. When Coburn was there, and Durbin was only 20 seconds into his response he referred to Sen. Hatch, who, of course, wasn't in the room. Specter said they would have to get the 3 Senators in the hearing at the same time. Meanwhile, they are supposed to be asking questions to some guy who is could replace Sandra Day for life, what was his name again?
Kennedy motioned for the committee to go into executive session to consider issuing a subpoena for records related to Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Specter, caught off guard by Kennedy's motion, scolded Kennedy for not mentioning the proposal in advance. Kennedy said he sent Specter a letter on 12/22 requesting the "William Rusher papers" from the Library of Congress. Kennedy: "If you're going to rule it out of order, I want to have a vote on that." Specter to Kennedy: "I'm not going to have you run this committee" Specter: "There was no letter, which I received... I take umbrage at you telling me what I received." Then Kennedy presented Specter's reply to Kennedy's initial letter. Oops.
Sen. Feinstein wants to try "one more time" to get him to give her a satisfactory answer on Roe. She says that according to the Washington Post, yesterday Alito used a phrase to describe stare decisis -- that precedent "is not an exorable command" -- that the former Chief Justice used in a case in which he was arguing for overruling Wade. Did he mean to use it in the same way? Alito and Feinstein discuss whether one should believe everything one reads in the Washington Post.
And a congressional hearing wouldn't be complete without a sports or war analogy. Grassley Compared Alito to a quarterback whose team is ahead in the fourth quarter, charged that Democrats are going to keep "trying to sack you." "They haven't hit you all day," he said, so expect some "last minute Hail Marys." GROAN.
Hatch spent most of his time lobbing softball questions to Alito that allowed him to rebut criticisms made over the past two days by Democratic senators.
HATCH: But most employment discrimination cases really are decided at the lower level. ALITO: Most of them are. HATCH: And when they get up to your level it's generally decided on technical or a procedural basis. Am I wrong in that? ALITO: No, that's correct, Senator.
And now for some boring actual questions about pressing constitutional issues:
LEAHY: But does the president have unlimited power just to declare a statute -- especially if it is a statute he had signed into law -- to then declared that unconstitutional, and he’s not going to follow it?
ALITO: If the matter is later challenged in court, of course, the president isn’t going to have the last word on that question. That’s for sure. And the courts would exercise absolutely independent judgment on that question. It is emphatically the duty of the courts to say what the law is when constitutional questions are raised in cases that come before the court.
LEAHY: Now, that is an answer I agree with. Thank you.
Coburn expressed anger that Sen. Durbin changed his mind on the abortion question, but wasn't there. When Durbin got there, he was upset about the comment and wanted to respond, but Coburn was no longer there. When Coburn was there, and Durbin was only 20 seconds into his response he referred to Sen. Hatch, who, of course, wasn't in the room. Specter said they would have to get the 3 Senators in the hearing at the same time. Meanwhile, they are supposed to be asking questions to some guy who is could replace Sandra Day for life, what was his name again?
Kennedy motioned for the committee to go into executive session to consider issuing a subpoena for records related to Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Specter, caught off guard by Kennedy's motion, scolded Kennedy for not mentioning the proposal in advance. Kennedy said he sent Specter a letter on 12/22 requesting the "William Rusher papers" from the Library of Congress. Kennedy: "If you're going to rule it out of order, I want to have a vote on that." Specter to Kennedy: "I'm not going to have you run this committee" Specter: "There was no letter, which I received... I take umbrage at you telling me what I received." Then Kennedy presented Specter's reply to Kennedy's initial letter. Oops.
Sen. Feinstein wants to try "one more time" to get him to give her a satisfactory answer on Roe. She says that according to the Washington Post, yesterday Alito used a phrase to describe stare decisis -- that precedent "is not an exorable command" -- that the former Chief Justice used in a case in which he was arguing for overruling Wade. Did he mean to use it in the same way? Alito and Feinstein discuss whether one should believe everything one reads in the Washington Post.
And a congressional hearing wouldn't be complete without a sports or war analogy. Grassley Compared Alito to a quarterback whose team is ahead in the fourth quarter, charged that Democrats are going to keep "trying to sack you." "They haven't hit you all day," he said, so expect some "last minute Hail Marys." GROAN.
Hatch spent most of his time lobbing softball questions to Alito that allowed him to rebut criticisms made over the past two days by Democratic senators.
HATCH: But most employment discrimination cases really are decided at the lower level. ALITO: Most of them are. HATCH: And when they get up to your level it's generally decided on technical or a procedural basis. Am I wrong in that? ALITO: No, that's correct, Senator.
And now for some boring actual questions about pressing constitutional issues:
LEAHY: But does the president have unlimited power just to declare a statute -- especially if it is a statute he had signed into law -- to then declared that unconstitutional, and he’s not going to follow it?
ALITO: If the matter is later challenged in court, of course, the president isn’t going to have the last word on that question. That’s for sure. And the courts would exercise absolutely independent judgment on that question. It is emphatically the duty of the courts to say what the law is when constitutional questions are raised in cases that come before the court.
LEAHY: Now, that is an answer I agree with. Thank you.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
hearing quote of the day
Sen. Lindsey Graham said he believes Judge Sam Alito when he says he doesn't remember certain parts of his murder boards.
Alito smiled appreciately.
Continued Graham: "And if any of us come before a court and say we can't remember Abramoff, you'll believe us."
"Abramoff who?" queried another Senator.
"Wasn't he the guy in the Bible?" asked a third.
It would be funny if so many Republicans weren't going to jail.
Alito smiled appreciately.
Continued Graham: "And if any of us come before a court and say we can't remember Abramoff, you'll believe us."
"Abramoff who?" queried another Senator.
"Wasn't he the guy in the Bible?" asked a third.
It would be funny if so many Republicans weren't going to jail.
members of congress that hurt america
There are members of congress on both sides of the ailse that really upset me for all the crap they do that is a disservice to our system of governance.
1. Joe Biden (D-DE): All he does is talk. It took him over ten minutes to get to a question for ScAlito today. The Senator is on nearly every weekend on some Sunday talk show, and tries to squeeze in some time to talk to Jim Lehrer and Jon Stewart during the week. The George Hamilton of the Senate is so eagar to be on TV and in print that he is willing to be the guy that attacks his fellow Democrats and such a blow hard that even when he is trying to pitch for his team, he bores and annoys everyone in his path.
2. Tom Coburn (R-OK): Such a culture warrior that he has to cry about how divided this country is, and then do a crossword. I am sick of being lectured by someone on Abortion because they are a "doctor" and some how their opinion matters more. Not when your argument has nothing to do with medicine Senator.
3. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): This Rep. makes long speeches on bridges not bombs and other oratory devices that put his former collegue James "convicted for bribery and money laundering" Trafficant to shame. Routinely endorces policies that either have no chance of occuring or if they do would be disasterous. See his term as mayor.
4. Richard Palmbo (R-CA): I am not sure if I spelled his name right, but all he cares about his how quickly resources can be extracted from the environment, planet and endangered species be damned. And he is the chair of the House Resources Committee.
5. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): for enambling a disasterous and rabidly administation to claim "bipartisan support" by having Joementum's support. Joe lives in the same fantasy world as Bush when it comes to how things in Iraq are going.
But really we should be talking about ScAlito and what a farce "advise and consent" has become in recent years. The judiciary committee should not be divided by party and with competing hyperpartisans. This a serious job for lifetime appointments. Maybe they should let staffers do it, or senators that are not ramblers, idiots, or generally crazy.
1. Joe Biden (D-DE): All he does is talk. It took him over ten minutes to get to a question for ScAlito today. The Senator is on nearly every weekend on some Sunday talk show, and tries to squeeze in some time to talk to Jim Lehrer and Jon Stewart during the week. The George Hamilton of the Senate is so eagar to be on TV and in print that he is willing to be the guy that attacks his fellow Democrats and such a blow hard that even when he is trying to pitch for his team, he bores and annoys everyone in his path.
2. Tom Coburn (R-OK): Such a culture warrior that he has to cry about how divided this country is, and then do a crossword. I am sick of being lectured by someone on Abortion because they are a "doctor" and some how their opinion matters more. Not when your argument has nothing to do with medicine Senator.
3. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): This Rep. makes long speeches on bridges not bombs and other oratory devices that put his former collegue James "convicted for bribery and money laundering" Trafficant to shame. Routinely endorces policies that either have no chance of occuring or if they do would be disasterous. See his term as mayor.
4. Richard Palmbo (R-CA): I am not sure if I spelled his name right, but all he cares about his how quickly resources can be extracted from the environment, planet and endangered species be damned. And he is the chair of the House Resources Committee.
5. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): for enambling a disasterous and rabidly administation to claim "bipartisan support" by having Joementum's support. Joe lives in the same fantasy world as Bush when it comes to how things in Iraq are going.
But really we should be talking about ScAlito and what a farce "advise and consent" has become in recent years. The judiciary committee should not be divided by party and with competing hyperpartisans. This a serious job for lifetime appointments. Maybe they should let staffers do it, or senators that are not ramblers, idiots, or generally crazy.
Monday, January 09, 2006
notice something?
Reuters Headlines
Sharon breathes on own, moves slightly
Cheney leaves hospital after breathing scare
Were the two related? Why do democracies keep electing old, fat overstressed men with a history of poor coronary health?
I was listening to the German equivalent of 60 Minutes daily recently and the commenters asked some damn good questions: Why wasn't there doctors around the clock with Sharon? Why was he at a farm so far away from medical care? Why did they not take him to the best hospital in the county? Why was he not on blood thinners?
The whole thing seemed rather botched and haphazard, like they had no idea the man had had a previous stroke, was old, and under lots of stress.
Then again, if Cheney died or had a Sharon-like stroke/coma, what would the Bush administration do? Katrina shows they are not good a preparing with or dealing with natural disasters. Even though this one has long been forseen, somehow I doubt they have any contingency plans. Bush would be very sad but then use the appointment of VP to change the topic and boost his own ratings.
Sharon breathes on own, moves slightly
Cheney leaves hospital after breathing scare
Were the two related? Why do democracies keep electing old, fat overstressed men with a history of poor coronary health?
I was listening to the German equivalent of 60 Minutes daily recently and the commenters asked some damn good questions: Why wasn't there doctors around the clock with Sharon? Why was he at a farm so far away from medical care? Why did they not take him to the best hospital in the county? Why was he not on blood thinners?
The whole thing seemed rather botched and haphazard, like they had no idea the man had had a previous stroke, was old, and under lots of stress.
Then again, if Cheney died or had a Sharon-like stroke/coma, what would the Bush administration do? Katrina shows they are not good a preparing with or dealing with natural disasters. Even though this one has long been forseen, somehow I doubt they have any contingency plans. Bush would be very sad but then use the appointment of VP to change the topic and boost his own ratings.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Kos, Jerome and the Dean denial
First off, I think Howard is doing a good job as DNC chair and I am glad he the chair instead of Roemer or Vilsack. Just so you don't think I have an irrational hatred of Dean.
However, HoHo did himself in in 2004. Kos and Jerome in their new book seem to believe that it was the DLC and its allies that killed Dean. Not true. The DLC certainly called Dean names, and saw his rhetoric as dangerous for the party's chances in 2004, but if they are really as trival and on the downswing that Kose et al say they are, how could they take down a major presidential candidate.
The fact is, Dean blew millions on infomercials in Wisconsin, PR events in central park, and on Trippi's old ad firm itself. In December of 2003, the Dean campaign was focusing on getting endorcements from folks like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. The burn rate of the campaign was amazing. Dean had thousands of his grassroots supporters, mostly from ultra-liberal, storm Iowa with with fancy hats and scarves and it backfired. Iowans got really annoyed with all the handwriten letters, the calls, the out of staters telling them how to vote. Meanwhile, Kerry had hired the best Iowa organzier in the early days of 2003, had locked up Ted Kennedy's endorsement and took out a mortgage on his house to barnstorm with Kennedy around Iowa. Edwards gave the same speech over and over again in small crowds of Iowans and agreed to a devils bargin with the Kucinich folks to insure an inflated result.
Meanwhile, Dean ran negative ad after negative ad against Dick Gephardt. Man, even typing that name makes me laugh, what a joke of a candidate. Gephardt's allies, not the DLC's, did a soft money ad comparing Dean to Osama. While Dean's campaign was wasting money, time, and effort on the wrong things, Kerry and Edwards focused on organizing reliable caucus goers.
And guess how they finished: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt. THAT is what killed Dean, not replaying his crazy scream speech over 600 times.
Kerry had the entire Mass. Democratic establishment campaigning for him in New Hampshire. he had been broadcasting ads there since his 2002 senate reelection. Dean meanwhile, got a strong second in New Hamsphire, which is next door to Vermont and was his second home in 2002 and early 2003.
When I was in the "Live Free or Die!" state for Clark, I saw giantic Dean sign after giantic Dean sign held by Dean hat and scarved fans, who chanted their little slogans "hope not fear" and the like. Again, the spent lots of money changing the Dean signs from blue background and yellow writing to yellow background with blue writing. And again, for what?
Clark in the end did better than Dean, winning Oklahoma where Dean never won a single state (I don't know the delegate totals, but Clark had lots of 2nd places in the 3/2 states).
Please Deanies, don't blame the DLC for Dean's horrific flop in the primaries. Clarkies ultimately blamed our loss on our boss hesitating to get into the game so late that he couldn't compete in Iowa and that he got in so late that the only staff left to hire was Gore 2000 douchebags.
However, HoHo did himself in in 2004. Kos and Jerome in their new book seem to believe that it was the DLC and its allies that killed Dean. Not true. The DLC certainly called Dean names, and saw his rhetoric as dangerous for the party's chances in 2004, but if they are really as trival and on the downswing that Kose et al say they are, how could they take down a major presidential candidate.
The fact is, Dean blew millions on infomercials in Wisconsin, PR events in central park, and on Trippi's old ad firm itself. In December of 2003, the Dean campaign was focusing on getting endorcements from folks like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. The burn rate of the campaign was amazing. Dean had thousands of his grassroots supporters, mostly from ultra-liberal, storm Iowa with with fancy hats and scarves and it backfired. Iowans got really annoyed with all the handwriten letters, the calls, the out of staters telling them how to vote. Meanwhile, Kerry had hired the best Iowa organzier in the early days of 2003, had locked up Ted Kennedy's endorsement and took out a mortgage on his house to barnstorm with Kennedy around Iowa. Edwards gave the same speech over and over again in small crowds of Iowans and agreed to a devils bargin with the Kucinich folks to insure an inflated result.
Meanwhile, Dean ran negative ad after negative ad against Dick Gephardt. Man, even typing that name makes me laugh, what a joke of a candidate. Gephardt's allies, not the DLC's, did a soft money ad comparing Dean to Osama. While Dean's campaign was wasting money, time, and effort on the wrong things, Kerry and Edwards focused on organizing reliable caucus goers.
And guess how they finished: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt. THAT is what killed Dean, not replaying his crazy scream speech over 600 times.
Kerry had the entire Mass. Democratic establishment campaigning for him in New Hampshire. he had been broadcasting ads there since his 2002 senate reelection. Dean meanwhile, got a strong second in New Hamsphire, which is next door to Vermont and was his second home in 2002 and early 2003.
When I was in the "Live Free or Die!" state for Clark, I saw giantic Dean sign after giantic Dean sign held by Dean hat and scarved fans, who chanted their little slogans "hope not fear" and the like. Again, the spent lots of money changing the Dean signs from blue background and yellow writing to yellow background with blue writing. And again, for what?
Clark in the end did better than Dean, winning Oklahoma where Dean never won a single state (I don't know the delegate totals, but Clark had lots of 2nd places in the 3/2 states).
Please Deanies, don't blame the DLC for Dean's horrific flop in the primaries. Clarkies ultimately blamed our loss on our boss hesitating to get into the game so late that he couldn't compete in Iowa and that he got in so late that the only staff left to hire was Gore 2000 douchebags.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
a change in Israel?
With Sharon suffering from a massive stroke just prior to leaving his ultra-conservative party (and being replaced by ex-PM Benjamin Netanyahu as party leader), just what will happen to Israel?
Most signs point to a Benjamin Netanyahu's resurgence as the next PM...he is trying to orchestrate a massive resignation from Sharon's cabinet. It was odd that Sharon in the last few years suddenly became a peace maker of sorts by force. Most recently, he unilaterally moved out of the Gaza Strip.
Netanyahu makes Sharon look like a hippie and I predict more violence and bloodshed by bothsides.
After reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse" I think one of Israel/Palistein's real problem is not exclusively religion or "ancient ethnic hatred" but rather a biter fight over scarce resources. The Land of Cannan is afterall a desert, and these kibbutz(es) are really the main arm of the radical jewish settlers, not reconquering the kingdom of David.
I am neither jewish or muslim, as you might have guessed from my photo, but I believe the fate of Israel is critical for the U.S. and the world as a whole. With the resurgence of Iran--its sucess in Iraq, it nuclear program, its radical government-- there are legitimate fears that things in the middle east will get much worse before they get better, especially, with Netanyahu in charge (as I opined above).
All comments and thoughts are welcome on this subject, as always.
Most signs point to a Benjamin Netanyahu's resurgence as the next PM...he is trying to orchestrate a massive resignation from Sharon's cabinet. It was odd that Sharon in the last few years suddenly became a peace maker of sorts by force. Most recently, he unilaterally moved out of the Gaza Strip.
Netanyahu makes Sharon look like a hippie and I predict more violence and bloodshed by bothsides.
After reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse" I think one of Israel/Palistein's real problem is not exclusively religion or "ancient ethnic hatred" but rather a biter fight over scarce resources. The Land of Cannan is afterall a desert, and these kibbutz(es) are really the main arm of the radical jewish settlers, not reconquering the kingdom of David.
I am neither jewish or muslim, as you might have guessed from my photo, but I believe the fate of Israel is critical for the U.S. and the world as a whole. With the resurgence of Iran--its sucess in Iraq, it nuclear program, its radical government-- there are legitimate fears that things in the middle east will get much worse before they get better, especially, with Netanyahu in charge (as I opined above).
All comments and thoughts are welcome on this subject, as always.
beyond corporate malfeasance
As I am sure most of you know by now, there were about a dozen miners trapped thousands of feet under the earth in West Viriginia. Only one person survived for the 40 hours it took to find the miners, mostly because of the life-threatening levels of Carbon Monoxicide that made it slow going for the resuers. At about midnight, the families of the miners (and their friends and neighbors who were with them) in the church across the street from the mine got word that everyone was alive, despite all the bad news that they had been hearing all day.
Bells rang out, and jubulant people streamed forth proclaiming a miracle. For 3 hours-- 180 minutes-- no one from the company bothered to tell the families or the media that this rumor they heard was tragically dead wrong. It is one thing to keep hope alive, it is quite another to let happy lies go uncorrected. The company could have told the families that they didn't know yet, that it was too soon to tell. Instead they let them rejoice until 3 AM and then broke the devastating news.
I don't know if a law was broken, other than the dozens of safety violations that went unenforced under Bush's OSHA, but what this company did to the relatives of its former employees was immoral. They can say it was a "miscommunication," they can trot out the governor to offer up a bogus explaniation, but the fact remains that they didn't correct the rumor when they had 3 hours to do so.
Bells rang out, and jubulant people streamed forth proclaiming a miracle. For 3 hours-- 180 minutes-- no one from the company bothered to tell the families or the media that this rumor they heard was tragically dead wrong. It is one thing to keep hope alive, it is quite another to let happy lies go uncorrected. The company could have told the families that they didn't know yet, that it was too soon to tell. Instead they let them rejoice until 3 AM and then broke the devastating news.
I don't know if a law was broken, other than the dozens of safety violations that went unenforced under Bush's OSHA, but what this company did to the relatives of its former employees was immoral. They can say it was a "miscommunication," they can trot out the governor to offer up a bogus explaniation, but the fact remains that they didn't correct the rumor when they had 3 hours to do so.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
new year, same old crap
Well happy 2006 everyone. May this year be the one when corrupt Washingtonians see their bags packed by the voters and juries. While Bush boot licker Alberto Gonzales is investigating who blew the whistle on the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, we are supposed to ignore the fact that Gonzales was in this unconstitutional power grab neck deep. This marks at least the second time he gave his client (Bush) really bad legal advice by telling him what he wanted to hear (before it was its ok to torture). The job of WH counsel is not as an advocate of the president but as a confidential legal advisor. But at this White House, everyone has to be an advocate, or they are shown the door (or given nicknames of Democrats like DOJ's number 2).
Meanwhile, Abramoff sang to the Feds, giving up at least Ohio Republican Bob Ney and Texas Republican Tom DeLay. Who knows who else is lying underneeth Jack's bedsheets? Montana Senator Conrad Burns? Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (whose last name is ironically German for honest)? The breadth and depth of this scandal could be such that the Justice Department would be in jepardy of handing a political victory to the Democrats by convicting enough members of Congress to sway control of a chamber (most likely the House). Of course, like AbScam, that won't happen.
Oh and sorry for not posting for so long. I was enjoying Christmas, all the family in town, our new place, and a week off with my wife. We got lots done, like installing a new lighting system under our kitchen cabinets. I litterally was lying on the stove hammering into the cabinets. And I got about half-way through Jared Diamond's Collapse. It is the flip side of his amazing (and Pulitzer Prize winning) book Guns, Germs and Steel. I love books that try to say one thing (or a couple of things) were/was the determining factor(s) in human history (like Salt).
Next week, I begin school again, which features teaching East High School students about law. I wish I could tell you more about what exactly I will be teaching and so on, but they haven't told me. Should be interesting and hopefully fun.
Meanwhile, Abramoff sang to the Feds, giving up at least Ohio Republican Bob Ney and Texas Republican Tom DeLay. Who knows who else is lying underneeth Jack's bedsheets? Montana Senator Conrad Burns? Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (whose last name is ironically German for honest)? The breadth and depth of this scandal could be such that the Justice Department would be in jepardy of handing a political victory to the Democrats by convicting enough members of Congress to sway control of a chamber (most likely the House). Of course, like AbScam, that won't happen.
Oh and sorry for not posting for so long. I was enjoying Christmas, all the family in town, our new place, and a week off with my wife. We got lots done, like installing a new lighting system under our kitchen cabinets. I litterally was lying on the stove hammering into the cabinets. And I got about half-way through Jared Diamond's Collapse. It is the flip side of his amazing (and Pulitzer Prize winning) book Guns, Germs and Steel. I love books that try to say one thing (or a couple of things) were/was the determining factor(s) in human history (like Salt).
Next week, I begin school again, which features teaching East High School students about law. I wish I could tell you more about what exactly I will be teaching and so on, but they haven't told me. Should be interesting and hopefully fun.
Monday, December 26, 2005
the difference between DC Republicans and DC Democrats
Of course, I could be overly generalizing, and to a degree I am. Nevertheless, I have been doing some thinking over the Christmas break about why things are so messed up and my conclusion is that those in power in DC (the heads of the GOP) fundamentally see government differently than those out of power (the heads of the Democratic Party). Bush, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, Blount, Cunningham...all down the line of leadership posts, those folks see government as a bad thing. Or at least they did before they got the strings in DC. So they have combined their idea of the government will always to do wrong with the idea that we might as well use the government to our advantage. Since the government has no real place in civil society, the federal government should just been a tool to enrich ourselves and our allies, while punishing our enemies.
By constrast, the Clinton administration saw the government as a tool to help the People of the US and the world. They saw the federal government as a well meaning but at times bumbling agency that could in some areas do more good if it turned things over to the private sector.
Bush and his friends saw the government as something that was never really well meaning and that since it never can do good, we might as well use it to be good to us. Privization was not to make the things government does now work better (like deliver the mail) but to enrich donors and other supporters (see Cunningham, DeLay, and the expanding Abramoff scandal). There was no need to place experts in any field in a department, but better to get jobs for folks that helped you get into power (see FEMA and Katrina).
Bush did a great job getting the private aid set up for the South Asian Tsunami and Katrina disasters via his father and his father's old nemisis Bill Clinton. But Bush couldn't and wouldn't get the federal government to do anything to actually help people.
What I am not saying in this piece is that Republicans in general are all theiving scoundrels, but that their leaders are. And that the idea of the federal government is your enemy--an idea that is the foundation of the modern conservatism movement does have a logical link to the cronyism, the war/disaster profiteering, and actual bribery that defines the GOP establishment in our Nation's Capital.
That is not to say that Democrats don't have their own profiteers and scoundrels, but those folks are not power positions, either in government or in the party superstructure, nor do such Democrats exist in such numbers.
The devaluation of what government has led to the situation we find ourselves in now.
By constrast, the Clinton administration saw the government as a tool to help the People of the US and the world. They saw the federal government as a well meaning but at times bumbling agency that could in some areas do more good if it turned things over to the private sector.
Bush and his friends saw the government as something that was never really well meaning and that since it never can do good, we might as well use it to be good to us. Privization was not to make the things government does now work better (like deliver the mail) but to enrich donors and other supporters (see Cunningham, DeLay, and the expanding Abramoff scandal). There was no need to place experts in any field in a department, but better to get jobs for folks that helped you get into power (see FEMA and Katrina).
Bush did a great job getting the private aid set up for the South Asian Tsunami and Katrina disasters via his father and his father's old nemisis Bill Clinton. But Bush couldn't and wouldn't get the federal government to do anything to actually help people.
What I am not saying in this piece is that Republicans in general are all theiving scoundrels, but that their leaders are. And that the idea of the federal government is your enemy--an idea that is the foundation of the modern conservatism movement does have a logical link to the cronyism, the war/disaster profiteering, and actual bribery that defines the GOP establishment in our Nation's Capital.
That is not to say that Democrats don't have their own profiteers and scoundrels, but those folks are not power positions, either in government or in the party superstructure, nor do such Democrats exist in such numbers.
The devaluation of what government has led to the situation we find ourselves in now.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Chalabi:Kucinich::Hatch:Lieberman
What do they all have in common? They are losers in the eyes of the electorate.
Ouch! that's got to hurt more than Joe Lieberman finishing fifth in New Hampshire with 9% (and that was his best finish outside Delaware and Connecticut).
Atrios wonders if Rummy et al will start defending Chalabi's claims of massive election fraud. Idiots like Doug Feith and the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee crew might, but they are the biggest jokes out there.
Preliminary results in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad indicate that Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress scored a minuscule 0.36 percent of the votes.
Out of almost 2.5 million voters in Baghdad, only 8,645 voted for Chalabi.
In the Shiite city of Basra, the results indicate he had an equally dismal showing of 0.34 percent of the vote.
In the violent Sunni province of Anbar, 113 people voted for him.
Ouch! that's got to hurt more than Joe Lieberman finishing fifth in New Hampshire with 9% (and that was his best finish outside Delaware and Connecticut).
Atrios wonders if Rummy et al will start defending Chalabi's claims of massive election fraud. Idiots like Doug Feith and the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee crew might, but they are the biggest jokes out there.
ID and its place in schools
This follow up is a response to commenter "Joe" from the previous post. He made two points, 1) any discussion of philosophy invariably involves a discussion of God or some sort of supernatural explanation for the way the world works and 2) there has to be gaps in the fossil record even assuming what science tells us is true--namely, that the Earth is billions of years old and is very dynamic. I will deal with the second one first as it is the easiest to dispense with.
Joe, when I talked about gaps in the fossil records, I am referring to ID proponents claims that there seems to be sudden changes that cannot be explained by gradual change, ergo creatures must have been created by some intelligent designer (which ID people won't say is the Judeo-Christian God, but let's face it, that's to who they are referring).
Undoubtedly, we cannot trace the evolutionary development of every single species from the dawn of life until present day, due to volcanoes, meters, earthquakes, erosion, etc. But the Plaintiff experts certainly convinced Judge Jones (and me) that none of these "gaps" necessitate that the theory of evolution is flawed. "Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre-Cambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board at 85.
In short, the judge analyzed each and every critique of evolution and every critique of ID and came out in the favor of evolution as good science and ID as non-science.
To your first point, that discussions of God and the supernatural are long traditions in philosophy. In the ancient days, philosophy and science were inseperable, they both sought to discover the way the universe works. That's why Aristotle was both a botanist and a ethicist (other than the fact that he was really smart).
In my courses on philosophy (one taught in a German college prep school, another taught at Brown University), we talked about supernatural explanations of things, but never about God or the will of God. That was for religion classes.
Personally, I think scientists do what they do not because they want to be or think they are God(s) but because they are trying to understand God's work. God could have very well created the rules that we call physics, how chemicals react, etc. This still seems consistant with the beginning of the Gospell according to John [which by the way really should be "In the beginning was the idea..." because the word John actually used Logos does not necessarily mean "Word"]. To me, there can still be a creator and Lord of us all without having to disprove or discount evolution. Natural section could be God's way. I truly belive that "everything happens for a reason."
Philosophers, like theologians, are involved in figuring out how one should live their life. But ethics is completely independant of evolution, notwithstanding ID supporter's statements that evolution contridicts "every word in the Bible." Philosophy no longer muses about the origin of life, that is again left to either biology or theology.
Joe, when I talked about gaps in the fossil records, I am referring to ID proponents claims that there seems to be sudden changes that cannot be explained by gradual change, ergo creatures must have been created by some intelligent designer (which ID people won't say is the Judeo-Christian God, but let's face it, that's to who they are referring).
Undoubtedly, we cannot trace the evolutionary development of every single species from the dawn of life until present day, due to volcanoes, meters, earthquakes, erosion, etc. But the Plaintiff experts certainly convinced Judge Jones (and me) that none of these "gaps" necessitate that the theory of evolution is flawed. "Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre-Cambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board at 85.
In short, the judge analyzed each and every critique of evolution and every critique of ID and came out in the favor of evolution as good science and ID as non-science.
To your first point, that discussions of God and the supernatural are long traditions in philosophy. In the ancient days, philosophy and science were inseperable, they both sought to discover the way the universe works. That's why Aristotle was both a botanist and a ethicist (other than the fact that he was really smart).
In my courses on philosophy (one taught in a German college prep school, another taught at Brown University), we talked about supernatural explanations of things, but never about God or the will of God. That was for religion classes.
Personally, I think scientists do what they do not because they want to be or think they are God(s) but because they are trying to understand God's work. God could have very well created the rules that we call physics, how chemicals react, etc. This still seems consistant with the beginning of the Gospell according to John [which by the way really should be "In the beginning was the idea..." because the word John actually used Logos does not necessarily mean "Word"]. To me, there can still be a creator and Lord of us all without having to disprove or discount evolution. Natural section could be God's way. I truly belive that "everything happens for a reason."
Philosophers, like theologians, are involved in figuring out how one should live their life. But ethics is completely independant of evolution, notwithstanding ID supporter's statements that evolution contridicts "every word in the Bible." Philosophy no longer muses about the origin of life, that is again left to either biology or theology.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Utah legislature: (un)intelligent design
"That ruling won't affect my bill at all. . . . My bill isn't written in that manner," Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said about yesterday's ruling on intelligence design in Pennslyvania. Buttars wants ID tought in an humanities or philosphy class. That sounds like making a philosphy class a theology class. But, wait it gets worse.
"It does challenge the school board, that they're going to have to rewrite their position on evolution to some degree," Buttars said. "Let me put it this way: There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding how life began . . . (so) to have a teacher teaching how life began and calling it fact really offends me. . . . I'm going to stop that. That's all I'm going to say right now."
From yesterday's Kitzmiller decision: "Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence...[Plaintiff expert and paleontologist] Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, --F.3d -- (M.D.Pa. 2005) pp.83-84 of Document 342.
I guess Buttars really didn't have time to read this through debunking of ID as any sort of science and that ID backers distort and misrepresent any dispute amoung scientists about evolution. There are no "gaps in the fossil record" and the book "Of Pandas and People" is bad science, even the Defense experts acknowledged that.
Slate's William Saletan, argues that, "Scientifically, [Judge] Jones settles the issue. Culturally, he fails." Perhaps this is a better explaination for why Buttars insists on going forward, despite there being scientific consensus on how life began and developed. There is still cultural debate about how allegorical or literal the Book of Genesis is. Yet the whole ID movement is premised on the idea that you can either believe in God or Darwin, and not both.
One of the Plaintiff's experts, Brown Biology Professor Kenneth Miller, is an ardent Catholic, yet he is one of the leading defenders of Natural Selection and doesn't see it as conflicting with his beliefs. "Certainty of outcome means that control and predictability come at the price of independence." Miller explained to Brown Alumni Magazine. "By being always in control, the Creator would deny His creatures any real opportunity to know and worship Him. Authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation." That freedom, Miller concludes, "is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of divine direction attached to every living creature."
Miller has even written books about this very notion, called Finding Darwin's God.
But let's get back to public policy. "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy," Jones wrote, "The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
And yet, Buttars was well recieved by his GOP collegues behind (of course) closed doors. This is the same group that thinks it is ok for LDS Institutes of Religion to be across the street from High Schools, and to get course credit for it (this has since stopped). Or who stop everything to ban all High School clubs and groups because of gay-straight alliance clubs. The culture wars are winning issues for Utah Republicans, but a losing issue for the progress of society here.
"It does challenge the school board, that they're going to have to rewrite their position on evolution to some degree," Buttars said. "Let me put it this way: There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding how life began . . . (so) to have a teacher teaching how life began and calling it fact really offends me. . . . I'm going to stop that. That's all I'm going to say right now."
From yesterday's Kitzmiller decision: "Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence...[Plaintiff expert and paleontologist] Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, --F.3d -- (M.D.Pa. 2005) pp.83-84 of Document 342.
I guess Buttars really didn't have time to read this through debunking of ID as any sort of science and that ID backers distort and misrepresent any dispute amoung scientists about evolution. There are no "gaps in the fossil record" and the book "Of Pandas and People" is bad science, even the Defense experts acknowledged that.
Slate's William Saletan, argues that, "Scientifically, [Judge] Jones settles the issue. Culturally, he fails." Perhaps this is a better explaination for why Buttars insists on going forward, despite there being scientific consensus on how life began and developed. There is still cultural debate about how allegorical or literal the Book of Genesis is. Yet the whole ID movement is premised on the idea that you can either believe in God or Darwin, and not both.
One of the Plaintiff's experts, Brown Biology Professor Kenneth Miller, is an ardent Catholic, yet he is one of the leading defenders of Natural Selection and doesn't see it as conflicting with his beliefs. "Certainty of outcome means that control and predictability come at the price of independence." Miller explained to Brown Alumni Magazine. "By being always in control, the Creator would deny His creatures any real opportunity to know and worship Him. Authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation." That freedom, Miller concludes, "is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of divine direction attached to every living creature."
Miller has even written books about this very notion, called Finding Darwin's God.
But let's get back to public policy. "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy," Jones wrote, "The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
And yet, Buttars was well recieved by his GOP collegues behind (of course) closed doors. This is the same group that thinks it is ok for LDS Institutes of Religion to be across the street from High Schools, and to get course credit for it (this has since stopped). Or who stop everything to ban all High School clubs and groups because of gay-straight alliance clubs. The culture wars are winning issues for Utah Republicans, but a losing issue for the progress of society here.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Cheney thinks we're all Homer
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock. (Cohen, 1996)
VP Dick Cheney, defending Bush's domestic NSA spying sans FISA warrants: "It's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years." 12/20/05
the golden rule of presidenial power
Thanks to the power hungry Ford Administration veterans like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, along with the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11, the hotest area of constitutional law these days in executive authority.
Folks like Bill Kristol and John Yoo are arguing that the president has the authority to go above the law and the constitution when there is a threat to national security. Besides the fact that this is utter lies, I would bet any amount of money that had Gore won the recount, and a president Gore done what Bush did with the NSA, these same folks would be screaming bloody murder.
My golden rule is this, if it is something you would grant Richard Nixon/Ronald Reagan/GW Bush to do, it has to also be something you would grant Bill Clinton/Al Gore/John Kerry to do. For example, I am fine with all of their fingers on the button, but I am not cool with all of them locking people up without charges or access to lawyers. Or spying on Americans in the US without a warrant.
First Bush compared himself to Churchill and FDR, but now he is trying to compare himself to the extraconstitutional actions of Lincoln, who ignored supreme court decisions he didn't like and suspended habeas corpus. Not surprisingly, neither action is viewed today as legal and we only don't talk about it so much because he won the civil war and freed slaves.
During the War of 1812, the president didn't have the powers that our does now. And then we were actually being invaded. Washington, DC was aflame. And Lincoln was at war with the Southern states. Bush is at war with an extreme religious ideology that is transnational and decentralized. The Al Qaeda of 2001 is gone, now we have a Hydra-headed organization whose primary goal is to kill Americans, especially American soldiers in Iraq.
Destorying it will take creativity, cunning, and people able to infiltrate parts of the organization; data mining Arabs and extreme left groups isn't the ticket.
Folks like Bill Kristol and John Yoo are arguing that the president has the authority to go above the law and the constitution when there is a threat to national security. Besides the fact that this is utter lies, I would bet any amount of money that had Gore won the recount, and a president Gore done what Bush did with the NSA, these same folks would be screaming bloody murder.
My golden rule is this, if it is something you would grant Richard Nixon/Ronald Reagan/GW Bush to do, it has to also be something you would grant Bill Clinton/Al Gore/John Kerry to do. For example, I am fine with all of their fingers on the button, but I am not cool with all of them locking people up without charges or access to lawyers. Or spying on Americans in the US without a warrant.
First Bush compared himself to Churchill and FDR, but now he is trying to compare himself to the extraconstitutional actions of Lincoln, who ignored supreme court decisions he didn't like and suspended habeas corpus. Not surprisingly, neither action is viewed today as legal and we only don't talk about it so much because he won the civil war and freed slaves.
During the War of 1812, the president didn't have the powers that our does now. And then we were actually being invaded. Washington, DC was aflame. And Lincoln was at war with the Southern states. Bush is at war with an extreme religious ideology that is transnational and decentralized. The Al Qaeda of 2001 is gone, now we have a Hydra-headed organization whose primary goal is to kill Americans, especially American soldiers in Iraq.
Destorying it will take creativity, cunning, and people able to infiltrate parts of the organization; data mining Arabs and extreme left groups isn't the ticket.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Bush: "Congress"=4 Senators
Bush and Gonzales claim that they met with and consulted "Congress" several times while wiretapping via the NSA without FISA warrants. Of course, he failed to mention that only 4 senators knew about this, Rockafeller is the only one I know of so far that knew about it. Since Rockafeller was told (and not allowed to consult is staff or committee attorneys) the obstructionist yes man Roberts must have known too. So who else? It wasn't Min. Leader Reid, who found out hours before the story broke (which had been held for a year). My guess, two republicans. I wonder if Jane Harmon in the House knew, or was the Senate Intelligence Committee it?
There was no consultation, there was only we will tell you but you can't tell anyone. If these Senators said no, would the Bush administration have stopped? What kind of details were revealed (whom were they listening to)? If the Senators had leaked the information, I am sure the White House would have pushed to expel them from the committee.
Liberals in the House and Senate are seriously talking about impeachment. I wonder if in 2007 Bush's number will be up.
There was no consultation, there was only we will tell you but you can't tell anyone. If these Senators said no, would the Bush administration have stopped? What kind of details were revealed (whom were they listening to)? If the Senators had leaked the information, I am sure the White House would have pushed to expel them from the committee.
Liberals in the House and Senate are seriously talking about impeachment. I wonder if in 2007 Bush's number will be up.
FEC pay for play
The Bush White House will leave no sector of the federal government under utilized as a carrot or stick for its political agenda. Case in point, the FEC, usually a bastion of party hacks, who collectively agree to let the big parties do whatever they want within reason. But now, Bush has appointed a replacement whose wife just testified before Fitzgerald's Grand Jury on the Plame Affair. How much can we really trust her testimony?
Let's hear from anti-campaign finance reform ex-FEC member (appointed by Clinton) Bradley Smith:
"Lenhard’s name has been in play – indeed, more than in play, the presumptive nominee - for two and a half years, not one. The first scare release was issued back in the summer of 2003.
Of course, the plot could be more devilish than we think. Clearly Lenhard was offered the opportunity to serve on the FEC, knowing that his wife would become a player in the Rove scandal, and then was left hanging by the White House for two years while they made sure that his wife lived up to her end of the bargain.
Will the corruption never cease?"
The end line of this line of logic is that Bush will pardon lots of people say January 2009 and resign a tad early to have Cheney pardon him too.
Let's hear from anti-campaign finance reform ex-FEC member (appointed by Clinton) Bradley Smith:
"Lenhard’s name has been in play – indeed, more than in play, the presumptive nominee - for two and a half years, not one. The first scare release was issued back in the summer of 2003.
Of course, the plot could be more devilish than we think. Clearly Lenhard was offered the opportunity to serve on the FEC, knowing that his wife would become a player in the Rove scandal, and then was left hanging by the White House for two years while they made sure that his wife lived up to her end of the bargain.
Will the corruption never cease?"
The end line of this line of logic is that Bush will pardon lots of people say January 2009 and resign a tad early to have Cheney pardon him too.
another reason Gonzales should be dismissed
The strength of a good attorney is not coming up with some argument to defend what you want to do anyway, but to honestly look at the law and give their client the best advice they can. And some times that advice is "don't do it" or "ask Congress for more power" or "sue" to get what you want. But to stretch statutes and the constitution beyond recognition doesn't do anyone any favors.
I guess Bush doesn't care about the law, he just wants to know how he can do what he wants to do. Afterall, this is the same guy that said things would be easier if the US were a dictatorship, if only he were the dictator. And that to me sums up his outlook on the Presidency-- I should be able to do whatever I want to becuase I have good intentions.
Who cares if we are a nation of laws and not men, Bush has looked into their hearts and his own and seen that they are good men and knows they will do what is alright. Just go back asleep and don't worry about a thing, I will keep you safe he says. Only, they have made things much much worse. More groups hate us, and more countries are less stable than they were prior to his actions. We have no support from the rest of the non-bribable world.
Despite their illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens, we haven't stopped any plots, we haven't been able to convict anyone. The Bush legal team has been a disaster. I know we haven't stopped any plots becuase we would have heard about it, like we heard about that "sleeper cell" near Buffalo, NY whose only crime was traveling to Afghanistan. As far as I know, they never recieved any orders from Al Qaeda or training, even if they ended up in one of the camps. They held Jose Padilla for about three years without any charges and barely access to attorneys, yet they dismissed criminal charges against him and other than their leaked complaint/information, there was no legal action taken against him.
And who are they spying on anyway, radical Islamic folks? People who makes lots of trips to the middle east? Nope, anti-war protestors. That the best part, those fools can barely organize a rally, and you are worried about them? Wiretapping could save lives when dones against real threats, but you could always get rhetroactive FISA warrants 72 hours after the fact and 99% the courts approve it, and ther other 1%, they just amend the warrant.
So please, explain to me why the President must circumvent the constitution and the US Code, because he means well, because he is a war president? Because Cheney wants to move executive powers back to pre-Watergate levels? No president could lawfully do what this guy is doing, and none should. It doesn't help us, it only hurts America.
I guess Bush doesn't care about the law, he just wants to know how he can do what he wants to do. Afterall, this is the same guy that said things would be easier if the US were a dictatorship, if only he were the dictator. And that to me sums up his outlook on the Presidency-- I should be able to do whatever I want to becuase I have good intentions.
Who cares if we are a nation of laws and not men, Bush has looked into their hearts and his own and seen that they are good men and knows they will do what is alright. Just go back asleep and don't worry about a thing, I will keep you safe he says. Only, they have made things much much worse. More groups hate us, and more countries are less stable than they were prior to his actions. We have no support from the rest of the non-bribable world.
Despite their illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping of American citizens, we haven't stopped any plots, we haven't been able to convict anyone. The Bush legal team has been a disaster. I know we haven't stopped any plots becuase we would have heard about it, like we heard about that "sleeper cell" near Buffalo, NY whose only crime was traveling to Afghanistan. As far as I know, they never recieved any orders from Al Qaeda or training, even if they ended up in one of the camps. They held Jose Padilla for about three years without any charges and barely access to attorneys, yet they dismissed criminal charges against him and other than their leaked complaint/information, there was no legal action taken against him.
And who are they spying on anyway, radical Islamic folks? People who makes lots of trips to the middle east? Nope, anti-war protestors. That the best part, those fools can barely organize a rally, and you are worried about them? Wiretapping could save lives when dones against real threats, but you could always get rhetroactive FISA warrants 72 hours after the fact and 99% the courts approve it, and ther other 1%, they just amend the warrant.
So please, explain to me why the President must circumvent the constitution and the US Code, because he means well, because he is a war president? Because Cheney wants to move executive powers back to pre-Watergate levels? No president could lawfully do what this guy is doing, and none should. It doesn't help us, it only hurts America.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
burrying the lede
I will admit, I am a dork. I TiVoed Washington Week because I was out at a law school Christmas party and when I watched it this morning, I was aghast (but not all that surprised) that they chose the Iraqi elections as the lede and talked about Bush personally authorizing NSA easedroppings on American citizens as part of the "Congress, especially Republicans in Congress, are staking out their independence of Bush" meme.
Incredible. Here we have a president flagrantly violating the constitution and all they do is show a clip of Bush talking to Jim Lehrer about how he believes in his heart that it is important to the war on terrorism. So? It would be really helpful to pull people off the streets who we have some information that they might be drug dealers to the War on Drugs, but we don't do that, because we need a warrant first. Or, there are plenty of exigent circumstances were you don't even need a warrant...but 4th Amendment be damned, Bush doesn't even bother.
It would be one thing if the congress went along with it, like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, but here only a few members of Congress signed off on it. Who? The Chairs of the Intelligence Committees? The ranking members too? The entire committtee? The House and Senate Leadership? Who are they to speak for congress on such a vital issue of constitutional law? A handfull of congresscritters in a room does not a qurom make.
I hope historians look back on 2005 and say this was the year that turned the tide, when Americans woke up started demanding a more accountable President, a more responsive, powerful Congress, a solution for Iraq, an end to corruption and cronyism. In 2006, this feeling may help Democrats regain Congress, but it will ultimately help America. Democrats deserved to be kicked out of power in 1994, many who were thrown out were arrogant, out of touch, and corrupt. Some good ones were lost, and some terrible ones held on because of their position and incredibly favorable district. But one gets the feeling that it is 1994 all over again 12 years later. I just hope if Democrats regain control of the chambers that they won't succumb to the lure of power as much or as quickly as Republicans did.
Incredible. Here we have a president flagrantly violating the constitution and all they do is show a clip of Bush talking to Jim Lehrer about how he believes in his heart that it is important to the war on terrorism. So? It would be really helpful to pull people off the streets who we have some information that they might be drug dealers to the War on Drugs, but we don't do that, because we need a warrant first. Or, there are plenty of exigent circumstances were you don't even need a warrant...but 4th Amendment be damned, Bush doesn't even bother.
It would be one thing if the congress went along with it, like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, but here only a few members of Congress signed off on it. Who? The Chairs of the Intelligence Committees? The ranking members too? The entire committtee? The House and Senate Leadership? Who are they to speak for congress on such a vital issue of constitutional law? A handfull of congresscritters in a room does not a qurom make.
I hope historians look back on 2005 and say this was the year that turned the tide, when Americans woke up started demanding a more accountable President, a more responsive, powerful Congress, a solution for Iraq, an end to corruption and cronyism. In 2006, this feeling may help Democrats regain Congress, but it will ultimately help America. Democrats deserved to be kicked out of power in 1994, many who were thrown out were arrogant, out of touch, and corrupt. Some good ones were lost, and some terrible ones held on because of their position and incredibly favorable district. But one gets the feeling that it is 1994 all over again 12 years later. I just hope if Democrats regain control of the chambers that they won't succumb to the lure of power as much or as quickly as Republicans did.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
middle east musings
The first thing that set me off to write today was idiotic statement Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said that 1) the holocaust was a "fairy tale" and 2) that Israel should pick up and move to Europe or North America. Let's deal with them one at at time shall we? Gen. Eisenhower specifically visited and recorded his visits to consentrations camps because he wanted to make sure the world never forgot and never pertended that 6 million jews just dissipeared. Does Ahmadinejad really need a tour of Dachau and the rooms of shoes, suitcases, and the like? Does he need to go see the ovens, and the bones that are still inside? Does someone need to dig up the mass graves for him to peer into? How much more proof do you need? It would be a pretty amazing stunt to make 6 million people just vanish and have all this archival footage and consistant survivor/perpetrator memories and tatoos etc. and have the massacre not be true.
Maybe Ahmadinejad can't stand the idea of Jews outvictiming Muslims. Most middle east countries with muslim control maintains its power by using the plight of the palistians, and blaming everying on Western Imperalists. True, the British and French are to blame a lot that is wrong in the middle east, including putting the house of Suad in charge, and divving up borders to match up with oil pipeline routes, not ethnic or religious groups.
Secondly, Ahmadinejad is an idiot for saying if the US and EU "believe" in the holocaust so much, we should carve out turf for Israel given all the wrongs that the Germans "purportedly" did to the Jews. While 10 men and a torah equals a congration, a whole bunch of Jews in one spot doesn't equal Israel (it probabbly means Ghetto, notice you never hear of little Israel, but you hear of little Tokyo or Chinatown or little Italy). The idea of Israel is based on the land of Canaan itself. If you were to read almost any part of the Torah Ahmadinejad, you would see reference after reference to that piece of land.
The problem facing the land of Canaan is that both Jews and Palistians have pretty much equal right to be there. One can go back and say my people had it first, but how accurate are these records anyway, and should that really be the basis of a who gets to live where? Somehow both groups need to learn to live together. There isn't much mystery as to the best way to do it--all these peace plans are basically the sam e thing--it just take willingness to sacrifice on all parties the goal of getting it all. Ideally, the country would be one with islamic law and the talmud coexisting and some basic law that apply to both sets of peoples (and the various christians or others that choose to live there). Threatening one side with an atomic bomb will never win the debate.
And on to Lebanon, where moronic Syrian thugs again killed another prominant anti-Syrian politican. The predictible result: 300,000 Lebanese mourners marched through cities denouncing Syria. Just when things had died down and people were forgetting about Lebanon and Syria, Syria makes it worse by trying to rid itself of a foe. Meanwhile, even dumber neo-cons still think Syria is next on the list of nations to invade and occupy. Do they really have no clue how badly things have gone, how stretched US forces are, how little support they have with the American people (let alone the world)?
And finally, Iraq. Today the purple fingers return, and not much will really change. For all Bush's talk about how an artificial time table is bad for withdrawl, we already have one--the crazy election/constitution schedule. After a few months, Bush will claim victory/sucess and get out, say around September or October. Meanwhile, Iraqi leaders are purposely not adaquately arming or training their personel because they hope that will stall US troop withdrawl. Silly Talibani, Bush never really means what he says.
Today is my 700th post, wow, how times fly. On my way to work, I saw a man at a stoplight holding a sign saying "Why are you polluting the air?" and then flipped the sign to show the horrible air quality rating (106 particulates per whatever I think it said) of the Wasatsch Valley these past view days. The funny thing was, I hate driving. I had just dropped off my wife and was going to work via car only because I don't think I should have to take 2 bus lines that never match up in the cold (and on the way back, dark) to get from home to work. We choose where we lived so that we could be close to downtown and the University and I otherwise take public transit most days or walk. This guy picked the wrong motorist.
Maybe Ahmadinejad can't stand the idea of Jews outvictiming Muslims. Most middle east countries with muslim control maintains its power by using the plight of the palistians, and blaming everying on Western Imperalists. True, the British and French are to blame a lot that is wrong in the middle east, including putting the house of Suad in charge, and divving up borders to match up with oil pipeline routes, not ethnic or religious groups.
Secondly, Ahmadinejad is an idiot for saying if the US and EU "believe" in the holocaust so much, we should carve out turf for Israel given all the wrongs that the Germans "purportedly" did to the Jews. While 10 men and a torah equals a congration, a whole bunch of Jews in one spot doesn't equal Israel (it probabbly means Ghetto, notice you never hear of little Israel, but you hear of little Tokyo or Chinatown or little Italy). The idea of Israel is based on the land of Canaan itself. If you were to read almost any part of the Torah Ahmadinejad, you would see reference after reference to that piece of land.
The problem facing the land of Canaan is that both Jews and Palistians have pretty much equal right to be there. One can go back and say my people had it first, but how accurate are these records anyway, and should that really be the basis of a who gets to live where? Somehow both groups need to learn to live together. There isn't much mystery as to the best way to do it--all these peace plans are basically the sam e thing--it just take willingness to sacrifice on all parties the goal of getting it all. Ideally, the country would be one with islamic law and the talmud coexisting and some basic law that apply to both sets of peoples (and the various christians or others that choose to live there). Threatening one side with an atomic bomb will never win the debate.
And on to Lebanon, where moronic Syrian thugs again killed another prominant anti-Syrian politican. The predictible result: 300,000 Lebanese mourners marched through cities denouncing Syria. Just when things had died down and people were forgetting about Lebanon and Syria, Syria makes it worse by trying to rid itself of a foe. Meanwhile, even dumber neo-cons still think Syria is next on the list of nations to invade and occupy. Do they really have no clue how badly things have gone, how stretched US forces are, how little support they have with the American people (let alone the world)?
And finally, Iraq. Today the purple fingers return, and not much will really change. For all Bush's talk about how an artificial time table is bad for withdrawl, we already have one--the crazy election/constitution schedule. After a few months, Bush will claim victory/sucess and get out, say around September or October. Meanwhile, Iraqi leaders are purposely not adaquately arming or training their personel because they hope that will stall US troop withdrawl. Silly Talibani, Bush never really means what he says.
Today is my 700th post, wow, how times fly. On my way to work, I saw a man at a stoplight holding a sign saying "Why are you polluting the air?" and then flipped the sign to show the horrible air quality rating (106 particulates per whatever I think it said) of the Wasatsch Valley these past view days. The funny thing was, I hate driving. I had just dropped off my wife and was going to work via car only because I don't think I should have to take 2 bus lines that never match up in the cold (and on the way back, dark) to get from home to work. We choose where we lived so that we could be close to downtown and the University and I otherwise take public transit most days or walk. This guy picked the wrong motorist.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
southern discomfort
sorry for the long no post period faithful readers. This weekend was one shopping bonanza after another. The Apple Store came to Salt Lake and my wife had her birthday on Monday. In between long errand runs, I have been working on a paper for Judge McConnell's course on the constitution 1793-1861.
The thesis I have come up with is that all these debates after the first few Congresses were little more than Kabuki theater to protect slavery. It is amazing the lengths to which smart men wasted their brains trying to come up with arguments and rationales for doing something that they belived would preserve their immoral and backwards system. Thousands and thousands of men lost their lives in the Civil War because of this as well.
It seems the U.S. has been placating southerns for quite some time. Our modern version of this is that presidents can't get elected unless they win southern states. Majority leaders in the Senate and House and President Bush all claim former slave states as their homes. How has the south been so sucessful in maintaining its disportionate dominance of the country since the birth of the nation? As big as Florida and Texas are, most of their growth is coming from Middle and South America, and not white flight.
Don't get me wrong, I have been to many parts of the South and have friends from places like Georgia and North Carolina and I like most of it. Heck, my parents in law live in Virginia. Yet I could never see myself living there. And it isn't just the weather that bothers me, no there is some general feeling that I don't belong there, even though I am a red head and from a state that sided with the Confederacy.
The thesis I have come up with is that all these debates after the first few Congresses were little more than Kabuki theater to protect slavery. It is amazing the lengths to which smart men wasted their brains trying to come up with arguments and rationales for doing something that they belived would preserve their immoral and backwards system. Thousands and thousands of men lost their lives in the Civil War because of this as well.
It seems the U.S. has been placating southerns for quite some time. Our modern version of this is that presidents can't get elected unless they win southern states. Majority leaders in the Senate and House and President Bush all claim former slave states as their homes. How has the south been so sucessful in maintaining its disportionate dominance of the country since the birth of the nation? As big as Florida and Texas are, most of their growth is coming from Middle and South America, and not white flight.
Don't get me wrong, I have been to many parts of the South and have friends from places like Georgia and North Carolina and I like most of it. Heck, my parents in law live in Virginia. Yet I could never see myself living there. And it isn't just the weather that bothers me, no there is some general feeling that I don't belong there, even though I am a red head and from a state that sided with the Confederacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
