This is what the Utes (or was it Piutes), the native Americans to the Salt Lake Valley, called the area. This is a good description because every winter, high pressure fronts trap clouds and, nowadays our polution, in the valley for weeks at a time.
For the past two weeks, I have not seen the sky or the sun and the weather has stayed about 35 degrees with toxic air. In Park City, a thousand feet or so above Salt Lake, is sunny and in the 40s. So all the Hollywood types up at Sundance are enjoying themselves, blistfully unware.
I had so many books and gear to haul over to the law school today that I rode my bicycle over. Big mistake. I couldn't catch my breath it was so smoggy and disguesting. It has been about 30 minutes and I can still feel it in my chest, and would say I am in decent shape.
According to the local TV news, it yesterday was the most depressing day in Utah, due to the weather. No wonder I have been feeling down these last days; Bush only made it worse.
These days I have gotten myself entwined in another DLC-related comment thread on myDD, which seems determined to churn up the hate toward the organization while making a half hearted effort to inform the bloggers of what the group really does and does not do.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Monday, January 24, 2005
List of the Day
www.mcsweeneys.net :
THINGS I'D PROBABLY SAY
IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WERE JUST
A WEEKLY TV SHOW AND I WERE
A REGULAR VIEWER.
By Eric Maierson
"Now, see, you can't just go and do something like that. That would be illegal."
"Boy, someone's gonna get fired for that."
"Wasn't that the one who made all the mistakes? Why is she getting promoted?"
"Come on, in real life you'd never get away with something like that."
"They really expect us to believe that?"
"Am I the only one confused here?"
"Does this make any sense to you?"
"Why is this still on?"
IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WERE JUST
A WEEKLY TV SHOW AND I WERE
A REGULAR VIEWER.
By Eric Maierson
"Now, see, you can't just go and do something like that. That would be illegal."
"Boy, someone's gonna get fired for that."
"Wasn't that the one who made all the mistakes? Why is she getting promoted?"
"Come on, in real life you'd never get away with something like that."
"They really expect us to believe that?"
"Am I the only one confused here?"
"Does this make any sense to you?"
"Why is this still on?"
Pro Bono
This morning, I went down to the Rocky Mountain Innocence Project to begin volunteering . This place is dedicated to helping truly wrongfully convicted inmates in Nevada, Idaho, and Utah get out of prison. Two of my classmates also had stopped in and it seems like it will be an interesting and worthwhile use of my Monday mornings. For about 2 hours each week, we will read through letters that inmates and their relatives send us, and decide whether their case is worth investigating further.
The center is not in the habbit of defending "innocent" people or ones who write enough letters, but only actually innocent people who we can prove that they are not guilty-- i.e. convicted rapists whose DNA doesn't match the rape kit or the like.
We spent most of the time this morning discussing a case involving a man who was visiting a convience store/gas station at early in the morning out on the Westside of the Valley somewhere. Appearantly one guy saw him, and other guy saw the perpetrator, and the two witnesses agreed that this was the same guy. The victim's head was appearantly stomped to death, yet there was no blood found on the clothing or shoes the inmate claims he was wearing that night (moreover, his shoes don't match the bloody footprints found on the scene, both in size and type).
The timeline via the survielence camera gives the inmate 5 minutes to knock the victim down to ground and beat him to death with his feet (his middle finger of his right hand was broken a week prior to the incident and he was right handed). In letters and interviews he claims was waiting for his girlfriend to pick him up. No blood or trace evidence was found in her car or his car afterwards.
Sounds like he is innocent right? No real evidence other than two witnesses collaporating to describe what they saw early in the morning in the dark 75-232 feet away. But since our inmate wasn't picked up until a few days later, this gives the prosecutor a chance to argue that he threw away the murder clothes. My guess is that a gang of thugs with bats and the like (who were spotted in the area earlier in the evening by residents and by the suspect himself upon reflection) were the ones who did the horrific deed, either by group or group pressure on one.
Personally I don't see how he could have knocked down and then beaten to death a man in five minutes yet have no blood on him when he came back into the store nor be out of breath. Just goes to show you, don't hang out at the gas station in a "bad neighborhood" late at night.
The center is not in the habbit of defending "innocent" people or ones who write enough letters, but only actually innocent people who we can prove that they are not guilty-- i.e. convicted rapists whose DNA doesn't match the rape kit or the like.
We spent most of the time this morning discussing a case involving a man who was visiting a convience store/gas station at early in the morning out on the Westside of the Valley somewhere. Appearantly one guy saw him, and other guy saw the perpetrator, and the two witnesses agreed that this was the same guy. The victim's head was appearantly stomped to death, yet there was no blood found on the clothing or shoes the inmate claims he was wearing that night (moreover, his shoes don't match the bloody footprints found on the scene, both in size and type).
The timeline via the survielence camera gives the inmate 5 minutes to knock the victim down to ground and beat him to death with his feet (his middle finger of his right hand was broken a week prior to the incident and he was right handed). In letters and interviews he claims was waiting for his girlfriend to pick him up. No blood or trace evidence was found in her car or his car afterwards.
Sounds like he is innocent right? No real evidence other than two witnesses collaporating to describe what they saw early in the morning in the dark 75-232 feet away. But since our inmate wasn't picked up until a few days later, this gives the prosecutor a chance to argue that he threw away the murder clothes. My guess is that a gang of thugs with bats and the like (who were spotted in the area earlier in the evening by residents and by the suspect himself upon reflection) were the ones who did the horrific deed, either by group or group pressure on one.
Personally I don't see how he could have knocked down and then beaten to death a man in five minutes yet have no blood on him when he came back into the store nor be out of breath. Just goes to show you, don't hang out at the gas station in a "bad neighborhood" late at night.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
We are locked in
It is official, I am going to Oslo and Copenhagen and Hamburg for the honeymoon. Now all we have to do is find a way to pay for it. The usual spacy guy who misspells and leaves out crucial words here managed to book hotel rooms, buy a Eurail pass, and a ferry berth for two.
This past week was difficult for me, partially the school work and partially the events going on in the real world. I keep hoping that I will wake up and Bush won't have won, that Condi Rice won't be our new Secretary of State, or that Alberto Gonzales won't be our new Attorney General. At least in Ashcroft we got a guy who was more interested in seeming important than slavishly following the orders from the President. At least in Powell we got a guy trying rather weakly to have his views spread around the world, instead of slavishly parroting the Presidents.
Another interesting Washington Parlor game, who will replace Colin's son, Michael at the FCC? Which White House puppet will it be? How much money will Michael make in the private sector? Even if Colin wanted to run against Hillary or Spitzer in his native Empire State, would he have a ghost of a chance? I think not. After all, he bungled miserably on the international stage. I would say he is a good man but a terrible leader and terribly weak and indecisive. He failed to pursuade the President when it counted. While his people tried to get the press to say going to the UN was his idea, it really was the one requirement of Tony Blair's, not Powell's.
To think he could have been either parties' Nominee when he retired from the Army, to think that he might have beaten Bill Clinton in 1996 for the presidency. Colin Powell will now go down in history as one of the least effective, least influential Secretary of States in our history, especially considering the circumstances. Maybe his tell-all biography will recast his image some, but I expect it to tarnish Bush more than shine Powell.
This past week was difficult for me, partially the school work and partially the events going on in the real world. I keep hoping that I will wake up and Bush won't have won, that Condi Rice won't be our new Secretary of State, or that Alberto Gonzales won't be our new Attorney General. At least in Ashcroft we got a guy who was more interested in seeming important than slavishly following the orders from the President. At least in Powell we got a guy trying rather weakly to have his views spread around the world, instead of slavishly parroting the Presidents.
Another interesting Washington Parlor game, who will replace Colin's son, Michael at the FCC? Which White House puppet will it be? How much money will Michael make in the private sector? Even if Colin wanted to run against Hillary or Spitzer in his native Empire State, would he have a ghost of a chance? I think not. After all, he bungled miserably on the international stage. I would say he is a good man but a terrible leader and terribly weak and indecisive. He failed to pursuade the President when it counted. While his people tried to get the press to say going to the UN was his idea, it really was the one requirement of Tony Blair's, not Powell's.
To think he could have been either parties' Nominee when he retired from the Army, to think that he might have beaten Bill Clinton in 1996 for the presidency. Colin Powell will now go down in history as one of the least effective, least influential Secretary of States in our history, especially considering the circumstances. Maybe his tell-all biography will recast his image some, but I expect it to tarnish Bush more than shine Powell.
Friday, January 21, 2005
RE: They don't fight
In response to Paperwight's lengthy reply to my rant/comment on his blog, I would like to thank him first for driving some traffic here. But I wouldn't consider myself as a DLC apologist. I feel that I have a duty as a person who has actually worked there to dispel some of the myths/misconceptions about the organization which the blogopshere and far left seem to spread.
fairshot.typepad.com
This is a very good point, and probably the main source of the problems the DLC faces. They were outsiders, and then with the success of Clinton, they got thrust into power and now they intermixed with the pre-existing status quo/establishment folks. I agree with what you say for the most part; the DLC needs to repudiate the establishment guys like Paul Begala and shame Tim Roemer. But Tim was their good foot soldier for the most part (except the tax cuts and Clinton 93 budget) and I am sure Paul is tight with the senior staff at the DLC.
For their part, the DLC has repudiated Shrumism for many years now (since about 2000 as far as I know) and folks like Ed Kilgore has agreed with folks at Tapped and elsewhere that ideology is a trivial concern at this point and we need to reform and rebuild the party. Ed has made some very positive noises about Dean's quasi announcement speech. They have been remarkably quiet, at least publicly, as to whom they like for DNC chair. I have trouble thinking of who they might want.
I will let Ed do more defending of the DLC since A) he still works there and B) he is a much better writer than me. But to sum up, the DLC doesn't appease, the Congressional "leadership" does/has. I don't agree with the DLC all the time, but I think the real enemy of Reform Democrats everywhere are not DLC members but folks like Bob Shrum, the folks who staff the DCCC and DSCC (those who cross-pollinate with said Shrums), the soft money men/women, the John Dingle's of the congress (career over substance, party, values etc.) We need to change how the party runs.
A group of what Paperwight indirectly calls "has-beens" is not the threat, it is those who hold the keys to the party and its purse-strings. The Dean campaign helped weaken the hold these people have on the party, but at the same time it reaffirmed their power (since Dean sunk like a stone).
Hal on comment board didn't like my closer that "I look to the Blogosphere for the next great promise of reforms for America." He said "I look to the people." But the blogosphere is made out of people. That is where it's power derives, not software. True, many smart and capable people don't go online yet, or aren't members of the blogophere. But I trust their ideas, if good enough, will trickle into the 'sphere over time. This is the promise of Open-Source policy making that Matt Stoller and Stirling Newberry advocate.
only natural for the grassroots/netroots to conflate the two, and to inject as well their frustration with the lack of fighting spirit among the clubby DC crowd, so that "DLC Democrat" or "DINO" becomes shorthand for "cowardly appeaser pissing on the people who worked their asses off in the ground game". Is that fair? No, it's probably not entirely fair.
fairshot.typepad.com
This is a very good point, and probably the main source of the problems the DLC faces. They were outsiders, and then with the success of Clinton, they got thrust into power and now they intermixed with the pre-existing status quo/establishment folks. I agree with what you say for the most part; the DLC needs to repudiate the establishment guys like Paul Begala and shame Tim Roemer. But Tim was their good foot soldier for the most part (except the tax cuts and Clinton 93 budget) and I am sure Paul is tight with the senior staff at the DLC.
For their part, the DLC has repudiated Shrumism for many years now (since about 2000 as far as I know) and folks like Ed Kilgore has agreed with folks at Tapped and elsewhere that ideology is a trivial concern at this point and we need to reform and rebuild the party. Ed has made some very positive noises about Dean's quasi announcement speech. They have been remarkably quiet, at least publicly, as to whom they like for DNC chair. I have trouble thinking of who they might want.
I will let Ed do more defending of the DLC since A) he still works there and B) he is a much better writer than me. But to sum up, the DLC doesn't appease, the Congressional "leadership" does/has. I don't agree with the DLC all the time, but I think the real enemy of Reform Democrats everywhere are not DLC members but folks like Bob Shrum, the folks who staff the DCCC and DSCC (those who cross-pollinate with said Shrums), the soft money men/women, the John Dingle's of the congress (career over substance, party, values etc.) We need to change how the party runs.
A group of what Paperwight indirectly calls "has-beens" is not the threat, it is those who hold the keys to the party and its purse-strings. The Dean campaign helped weaken the hold these people have on the party, but at the same time it reaffirmed their power (since Dean sunk like a stone).
Hal on comment board didn't like my closer that "I look to the Blogosphere for the next great promise of reforms for America." He said "I look to the people." But the blogosphere is made out of people. That is where it's power derives, not software. True, many smart and capable people don't go online yet, or aren't members of the blogophere. But I trust their ideas, if good enough, will trickle into the 'sphere over time. This is the promise of Open-Source policy making that Matt Stoller and Stirling Newberry advocate.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
A view of the real world
Today we visited Judge/Professor Paul G. Cassell's court room downtown. Today we watched the procedings of a Marijuna sentencing (for a spanish-speaking guy that merely trimed the leaves of well over 950 plants and did not grow the stuff down near St. George), A meth pleading (for 51 year old guy who will get a very generous 12 years in prison), and a preliminary evidence hearing (on a guy who slapped a woman he was sleeping with and owned a gun).
It was a hard look at what the criminal world is all about and its consequences. Cassell to me seemed very patient and fair. The family of the slapper was very upset that he denied their motion but all it did was set themselves up for trail and/or a plea. I had to be classist and prejudical, but this guy looked like white trash and had a history of violence against women and run-in with the law. Plus, his lawyer was a big, fat moron. Cassell had handed down a draft order (to deny the defense's motion) and the defense lawyer never found/read the case he cited. Granted it was a recent case, but he had a 3L on staff (from the NRA society no doubt) who could have used Lexis-Nexis or WestLaw to look it up for free. That's bad form.
Da Judge went out of his way to listen to every lame argument and explain things to people via interpreter. Further, he pointed out that all the attorney's there went to the U, I guess to make us feel like we had a chance to do those jobs. One even had a SJ Quinney pin on his lapel. The AUSA's stayed on to answer our questions and it was interesting. To me, it seems to have to clerk for a federal judge and know people in the US Attorney's office to get the job. And to clerk, I am betting you have to have really good grades. Sigh....
It was a hard look at what the criminal world is all about and its consequences. Cassell to me seemed very patient and fair. The family of the slapper was very upset that he denied their motion but all it did was set themselves up for trail and/or a plea. I had to be classist and prejudical, but this guy looked like white trash and had a history of violence against women and run-in with the law. Plus, his lawyer was a big, fat moron. Cassell had handed down a draft order (to deny the defense's motion) and the defense lawyer never found/read the case he cited. Granted it was a recent case, but he had a 3L on staff (from the NRA society no doubt) who could have used Lexis-Nexis or WestLaw to look it up for free. That's bad form.
Da Judge went out of his way to listen to every lame argument and explain things to people via interpreter. Further, he pointed out that all the attorney's there went to the U, I guess to make us feel like we had a chance to do those jobs. One even had a SJ Quinney pin on his lapel. The AUSA's stayed on to answer our questions and it was interesting. To me, it seems to have to clerk for a federal judge and know people in the US Attorney's office to get the job. And to clerk, I am betting you have to have really good grades. Sigh....
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Only 2 votes against sycophancy?
I have trouble believing that the Foreign Relations panel could not find more Democrats or GOPers with some spine to tell the president that he can't put just anyone into such a powerful post as Secretary of State.
John Kerry, who thinks he still has a shot to run for president again, voted no. Barbara Boxer, the hyper-liberal from California who has a great name and was just reelected, did too. What happened to Joe "Plagiarism" Biden? Dick "Iraq is in the toilet" Lugar? Or Chuck Hagel? Russ "only no vote on Ashcroft" Feingold? Barrack "President in 2008" Obama? Man, what happened?
Condi Rice is incompetent, she failed to do anything to prevent 9/11, she did nothing since then to fulfill her duties as national security advisor, since anyone with guts would have told Bush that there was no pressing, national security need to go to Iraq and that the US would be less secure as a result. She led the parade of lies to go to Iraq. She was the president's puppet.
The only good thing I can say about her is that foreign governments will know that when she speaks, she speaks for the president since she wouldn't tie her shoe unless he gave her permission. That is the major problem Colin Powell had: no support from the White House since day one.
John Kerry, who thinks he still has a shot to run for president again, voted no. Barbara Boxer, the hyper-liberal from California who has a great name and was just reelected, did too. What happened to Joe "Plagiarism" Biden? Dick "Iraq is in the toilet" Lugar? Or Chuck Hagel? Russ "only no vote on Ashcroft" Feingold? Barrack "President in 2008" Obama? Man, what happened?
Condi Rice is incompetent, she failed to do anything to prevent 9/11, she did nothing since then to fulfill her duties as national security advisor, since anyone with guts would have told Bush that there was no pressing, national security need to go to Iraq and that the US would be less secure as a result. She led the parade of lies to go to Iraq. She was the president's puppet.
The only good thing I can say about her is that foreign governments will know that when she speaks, she speaks for the president since she wouldn't tie her shoe unless he gave her permission. That is the major problem Colin Powell had: no support from the White House since day one.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
On the Precipice of History
How cool is this, I am learning from a professor and Judge who presaged/pursauded (US v. Croxford) the outcome of a landmark Supreme Court Decision this week (US v. Booker)? Further, Cassell also was able to twice be the first out of the barn to interpret Blakely v. Washington and Booker, this time with US v. Wilson.
First of all, it is a brilliantly writen and argued decision. Moreover, it made for 39 pages of reading instead of over 100 for Booker. Many have put out through critiques of Wilson: the Sentencing and policy blog, TalkLeft, and many others. There is a buzz about it and Cassell is making the most out of his appointment to the court.
While I might not agree with all of his opinions, I totally respect his ethics, his intelligence and influence. After all, he did clerk for Scalia.
First of all, it is a brilliantly writen and argued decision. Moreover, it made for 39 pages of reading instead of over 100 for Booker. Many have put out through critiques of Wilson: the Sentencing and policy blog, TalkLeft, and many others. There is a buzz about it and Cassell is making the most out of his appointment to the court.
While I might not agree with all of his opinions, I totally respect his ethics, his intelligence and influence. After all, he did clerk for Scalia.
Long weekend
Sorry for not posting for a couple days...maybe I have run out of things to say. I have been posting comments now and then on MyDD.com and it probabbly has done everyone more harm than good.
Some people on there still believe the hyper-liberal myths that the DLC is trying to destroy the party and is responsibile for every loss the Democrats have had. These same people strangly feel that Dean is their Moses who will lead Democrats out of the desert even though he was part of this supposed devil's pact a few months prior to running for president and still believes most (if not all) of the DLC's tenants.
These folks and their hyper-conservative counterparts give credance to the idea that Dean's leadership of the DNC will wrench the party to the left, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I am not supporting Dean for DNC, but I am not opposing him for this very reason.
We need to change the leadership and the way the party runs itself. The incestuous relationship between the DSCC/DCCC and political consultants in DC needs to stop. The dependancy on big, soft money donations (see 527s) needs to stop. The idiotic left-right debate needs to stop. I am tired of the turf wars between the DLC and the Nation Magazine factions of the party. Is that really going to lead to victories in November? I think not. Why should people who win with 80+ percent of the vote be making political decisions for those at the margins?
If the Democrats want the Congress under their control before 2012, they need to embrace reform and change, not fight it like Roemer et al. The American people don't even know who controls their government because the only Democrats they hear from are in Congress or run for President (or both). To ensure long-term sucess, Democrats need to support Iowa-style redistricting, where a non-partisan group designs congressional districts and there is near parity in almost every district. The results are a more moderate, more representative House of Representatives than the current hyper-partisan GOP-dominated body today.
Some people on there still believe the hyper-liberal myths that the DLC is trying to destroy the party and is responsibile for every loss the Democrats have had. These same people strangly feel that Dean is their Moses who will lead Democrats out of the desert even though he was part of this supposed devil's pact a few months prior to running for president and still believes most (if not all) of the DLC's tenants.
These folks and their hyper-conservative counterparts give credance to the idea that Dean's leadership of the DNC will wrench the party to the left, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I am not supporting Dean for DNC, but I am not opposing him for this very reason.
We need to change the leadership and the way the party runs itself. The incestuous relationship between the DSCC/DCCC and political consultants in DC needs to stop. The dependancy on big, soft money donations (see 527s) needs to stop. The idiotic left-right debate needs to stop. I am tired of the turf wars between the DLC and the Nation Magazine factions of the party. Is that really going to lead to victories in November? I think not. Why should people who win with 80+ percent of the vote be making political decisions for those at the margins?
If the Democrats want the Congress under their control before 2012, they need to embrace reform and change, not fight it like Roemer et al. The American people don't even know who controls their government because the only Democrats they hear from are in Congress or run for President (or both). To ensure long-term sucess, Democrats need to support Iowa-style redistricting, where a non-partisan group designs congressional districts and there is near parity in almost every district. The results are a more moderate, more representative House of Representatives than the current hyper-partisan GOP-dominated body today.
Friday, January 14, 2005
DNC chair
On a political topic, DNC polls may be unscientific but it seems to be showing the same results: Dean in first, Frost in second, and Fowler, Rosenburg and Webb distant thirds. Roemer has really never taken off and is in the bottom of every one I have seen. Fowler and Rosenburg seem to pick up some as a second choice.
It seems to be basically between Dean and Frost unless Howard screws up again, in which case Fowler or Rosenburg will pick up most of his votes. Roemer won't even make it past the first ballot. How many DNC puppets has the establishment been through in the last couple months? I would say they are on at least number 3 with Frost as "their guy" but 90% of that support is from his fellow Texans or other Southners. Fowler's best shot is to find a way to knock out Frost and then talk in the biggest drawl as possible (he is from South Carolina after all) and be their second choice.
Rosenburg's? Keep hoping that Matt Stoller can work his magic for him. Best of luck Matt; I hope you are liking D.C. and that you found a nice apartment.
Nevertheless, the race is still wide open and the results are scientific enough for someone to bet money on, but Dean is in the driver's seat again. He seems to be an early riser.
from the National Journal's Hotline:
It seems to be basically between Dean and Frost unless Howard screws up again, in which case Fowler or Rosenburg will pick up most of his votes. Roemer won't even make it past the first ballot. How many DNC puppets has the establishment been through in the last couple months? I would say they are on at least number 3 with Frost as "their guy" but 90% of that support is from his fellow Texans or other Southners. Fowler's best shot is to find a way to knock out Frost and then talk in the biggest drawl as possible (he is from South Carolina after all) and be their second choice.
Rosenburg's? Keep hoping that Matt Stoller can work his magic for him. Best of luck Matt; I hope you are liking D.C. and that you found a nice apartment.
Nevertheless, the race is still wide open and the results are scientific enough for someone to bet money on, but Dean is in the driver's seat again. He seems to be an early riser.
from the National Journal's Hotline:
First Choice for DNC Chair
Dean 31% (58 votes)
Frost 16% (30 votes)
Roemer 4% (8 votes)
Fowler 4% (7 votes)
Webb 2% (4 votes)
Rosenberg 2% (4 votes)
Leland 1% (1 vote)
Refused 40% (75 votes)
Second Choice for DNC Chair
Frost 11% (20 votes)
Dean 9% (16 votes)
Fowler 7% (13 votes)
Webb 7% (13 votes)
Rosenberg 6% (11 votes)
Leland 2% (4 vote)
Roemer 2% (3 votes)
Refused 58% (107 votes
Last Choice for DNC Chair
Roemer 16% (29 votes)
Dean 11% (21 votes)
Rosenberg 6% (12 votes)
Frost 4% (7 votes)
Fowler 4% (7 votes)
Leland 3% (5 vote)
Webb 2% (4 votes)
Refused 54%
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Finally feeling organized
Just when you think you are on track and your life is in order, more stuff piles on the plate. I need to bake a cake, do homework, play basketball, and go to a church potluck tomorrow.
Meanwhile, Bob Shrum has gone into exhile at NYU, Howard Dean and his ex-chair Joe Trippi are at odds, and Simon Rosenburg gathers steam. The DNC race is now Dean and everyone below him. Roemer is starting out with using the 9/11 comission as his spring board. He even made the "o" in his last name the red white and blue ribbon of 9/11 (which was the lamest ribbon by the way...oh and there are too many riboons these days anyway. It is like Watergate, every scanal has to have -gate at the end and every cause has to have a ribbon.) Very classless, Tim. Even his fellow Hoosier and ex-DNC chair Joe Andrew is going for Rosenberg.
All this makes for interesting conversation. I wonder if any polling has been done for the race, because I would be currious how much support they all have. I am sure Dean will make it past the first ballot, but who will be on it with him?
Meanwhile, Bob Shrum has gone into exhile at NYU, Howard Dean and his ex-chair Joe Trippi are at odds, and Simon Rosenburg gathers steam. The DNC race is now Dean and everyone below him. Roemer is starting out with using the 9/11 comission as his spring board. He even made the "o" in his last name the red white and blue ribbon of 9/11 (which was the lamest ribbon by the way...oh and there are too many riboons these days anyway. It is like Watergate, every scanal has to have -gate at the end and every cause has to have a ribbon.) Very classless, Tim. Even his fellow Hoosier and ex-DNC chair Joe Andrew is going for Rosenberg.
All this makes for interesting conversation. I wonder if any polling has been done for the race, because I would be currious how much support they all have. I am sure Dean will make it past the first ballot, but who will be on it with him?
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
WH 2008-- one less already
With the entry of Dean to the wide open DNC race, and his upsequent announcement that he will NOT run for president in 2008, things are already looking up for Democrats.
Two reasons. First off, Dean is a frontrunner and will push the candidates in a reformist direction, no matter who wins. Personally, I think there are too many reformist canidates, who will drain from each other the votes they need. This would have the terrible result of keeping Shrub et al rich, happy and in power.
I would be happy with Rosenberg, Fowler, or Dean. But I prefer Fowler, but not by much. I would not be happy with Wellington Webb, Roemer, or Frost. I hate them about equally but I guess Roemer is the absolute worst.
The good thing is that if any of my three win, Clark and his ilk are better off. The Clintons are worried that the DNC is spinning out of their control, since Terry is leaving and not exactly beloved but praised. So they asked Clark to run, rumor has it, and he said, "Thanks but no thanks, I am running for President." To me, this sounds plausable and means that Clark is not a Clinton monkey which will mean that he will get less Clintonista support next time but accordingly get more Deanic type support. This means a bigger initial splash and who knows when people actually vote. Actual voters didn't really help Dean.
I don't know who Edwards should support, other than his old lackeys. Hillary isn't going to run, and Rove really made up her mind for her with this finance investigation. As for Bayh, he wants one of the dreaded three, particularly Roemer since he is from IN.
Two reasons. First off, Dean is a frontrunner and will push the candidates in a reformist direction, no matter who wins. Personally, I think there are too many reformist canidates, who will drain from each other the votes they need. This would have the terrible result of keeping Shrub et al rich, happy and in power.
I would be happy with Rosenberg, Fowler, or Dean. But I prefer Fowler, but not by much. I would not be happy with Wellington Webb, Roemer, or Frost. I hate them about equally but I guess Roemer is the absolute worst.
The good thing is that if any of my three win, Clark and his ilk are better off. The Clintons are worried that the DNC is spinning out of their control, since Terry is leaving and not exactly beloved but praised. So they asked Clark to run, rumor has it, and he said, "Thanks but no thanks, I am running for President." To me, this sounds plausable and means that Clark is not a Clinton monkey which will mean that he will get less Clintonista support next time but accordingly get more Deanic type support. This means a bigger initial splash and who knows when people actually vote. Actual voters didn't really help Dean.
I don't know who Edwards should support, other than his old lackeys. Hillary isn't going to run, and Rove really made up her mind for her with this finance investigation. As for Bayh, he wants one of the dreaded three, particularly Roemer since he is from IN.
Monday, January 10, 2005
The amazing lies of politicans
Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (R), the guy who was Bush's Ohio campaign Chair and had the role of officiating the election in November "sent a fundraising letter" for his '06 campaign for Governor "that was accompanied by a request for illegal contributions." A pledge card included in the mailing said "corporate & personal checks are welcome," but corporate donations "are illegal" in OH. Blackwell spokesperson Carlo LoParo said any corporate donations will be returned. Fundraising coordinator Jeff Ledbetter "blamed a printer for the mistake, saying it used a template for an issue committee, which is allowed to accept corporate donations" (AP, 1/9).
You know, that is about as believable as Jessia Simpsons' sister blaming her lip snycing on the band playing the wrong song.
Blackwell did everything in his power to disenfrancize people who would be more likely to vote for Kerry than Bush, and slow walked the certification of the electors to prevent any challenge of the results beyond Jessie Jackson and John Conyers' publicity stunts. It is clear that he is not fit to be in charge of the state's elections if he can't even follow the rules and certainly therefore not fit to replace Gov. Bob Taft (R). How very shameful.
You know, that is about as believable as Jessia Simpsons' sister blaming her lip snycing on the band playing the wrong song.
Blackwell did everything in his power to disenfrancize people who would be more likely to vote for Kerry than Bush, and slow walked the certification of the electors to prevent any challenge of the results beyond Jessie Jackson and John Conyers' publicity stunts. It is clear that he is not fit to be in charge of the state's elections if he can't even follow the rules and certainly therefore not fit to replace Gov. Bob Taft (R). How very shameful.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Phew!
Last night, after hours on hold, we finally got the airfare part of our Honeymoon taken care of. It was the one thing that my Fiancee had delegated to me and I nearly (and partially) blew it. Last week, I had contacted my parent's travel agent that arranged our Costa Rica trip last Christmas, but she told us on Friday that she couldn't find any flights to New Zealand or Europe via my frequent flyer miles.
So I called first on Saturday and got an incomp guy who disconnected us while checking on flights. So Christina talked the next time we got a hold of a real human. Maybe I am too vauge or something. The only choices left were Oslo or Edinburgh on the way in and Hamburg and Stockholm on the way out. So we chose Oslo to Hamburg. This way, we will start in Norway, go through Sweden, then Denmark and end in Germany.
I am already excited and we don't until June 19th. The only major bummer is how much time we have to spend in Newark for our layover. Sorry Garden Staters, but I hate New Jersey. After reserving our spots, we went to Barnes and Noble and got some good guide books from folks like Rick Steves' Scandinavia.
For lunch on Friday, I went to Cucina with my mom. After hanging out with her, going through all the lawyers in town I could harrass for a summer job, I think I caught her bug that has made her miserable since the Fiesta Bowl. Classes start tomorrow, wish me luck!
So I called first on Saturday and got an incomp guy who disconnected us while checking on flights. So Christina talked the next time we got a hold of a real human. Maybe I am too vauge or something. The only choices left were Oslo or Edinburgh on the way in and Hamburg and Stockholm on the way out. So we chose Oslo to Hamburg. This way, we will start in Norway, go through Sweden, then Denmark and end in Germany.
I am already excited and we don't until June 19th. The only major bummer is how much time we have to spend in Newark for our layover. Sorry Garden Staters, but I hate New Jersey. After reserving our spots, we went to Barnes and Noble and got some good guide books from folks like Rick Steves' Scandinavia.
For lunch on Friday, I went to Cucina with my mom. After hanging out with her, going through all the lawyers in town I could harrass for a summer job, I think I caught her bug that has made her miserable since the Fiesta Bowl. Classes start tomorrow, wish me luck!
Friday, January 07, 2005
Word of the day
u·su·fruc·tu·ar·y: One that holds property by usufruct.
What is "usufruct" you ask? Well of course it means "The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way."
Gotta love reading cases from the 19th century which cite King James' Bible, Roman Senate decrees, and Ancient Greece. I am hitting the dictionary hard for these days.
Let's use these great words in real life: I am the usufructurary of my parent's house this weekend while they are in San Diego. Or: May I usufruct the car tonight, roomie?
Class dismissed. That was too much fun.
What is "usufruct" you ask? Well of course it means "The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way."
Gotta love reading cases from the 19th century which cite King James' Bible, Roman Senate decrees, and Ancient Greece. I am hitting the dictionary hard for these days.
Let's use these great words in real life: I am the usufructurary of my parent's house this weekend while they are in San Diego. Or: May I usufruct the car tonight, roomie?
Class dismissed. That was too much fun.
49 percent nation
According to a recent AP poll, Bush has a 49% approval rating and 49 percent disapproval. The remaining 2%? Maybe they are the Debolt machines. By the way, other polls have Bush even lower (like 47%). That's the worst a re-elected president has ever faired since they started modern polling.
This president makes me feel like there is another aspect of my life that I am repeating 35 years after my dad. We graduated from college 35 years apart, will graduate from law school 35 years apart, and will be married 35 years apart. Bush is 32 years apart from Nixon, but close enough. Both managed to get re-elected despite people's suspicions because the other side's candidate was so terrible. And now people are having buyer's remorse.
Personally, I doubt Bush's social security elimination gambit will succeed. Primarily because of an email leak from policy guys in the White House saying they need to cut benefits to finance the conversion, something Bush has explicitly promised not to do. Plus, the Democratic Party, if it stands for anything any more, stands for the New Deal and Social Security. This is a program they will fight to the death over because it is how they got to be as powerful as they got.
The Democrats might crumble on Alberto Gonzales, because they don't have the votes, even though he gave Bush bad advice as Governor and President. Further, Gonzales has proven unwilling to the necessary work to give Bush the right information, not just want Bush wants to hear. This is why he should not be confirmed. The whole torture thing is just another symptom of a larger problem: syncopation.
Presidents Reagan and Clinton had job approval ratings near six in 10 just before their inauguration for a second term, according to Gallup polls.
President Nixon's approval was in the 60s right after his 1972 re-election, slid to about 50 percent right before his inauguration and then moved back over 60 percent. President Eisenhower's job approval was in the low 70s just before his second inauguration in 1957.
This president makes me feel like there is another aspect of my life that I am repeating 35 years after my dad. We graduated from college 35 years apart, will graduate from law school 35 years apart, and will be married 35 years apart. Bush is 32 years apart from Nixon, but close enough. Both managed to get re-elected despite people's suspicions because the other side's candidate was so terrible. And now people are having buyer's remorse.
Personally, I doubt Bush's social security elimination gambit will succeed. Primarily because of an email leak from policy guys in the White House saying they need to cut benefits to finance the conversion, something Bush has explicitly promised not to do. Plus, the Democratic Party, if it stands for anything any more, stands for the New Deal and Social Security. This is a program they will fight to the death over because it is how they got to be as powerful as they got.
The Democrats might crumble on Alberto Gonzales, because they don't have the votes, even though he gave Bush bad advice as Governor and President. Further, Gonzales has proven unwilling to the necessary work to give Bush the right information, not just want Bush wants to hear. This is why he should not be confirmed. The whole torture thing is just another symptom of a larger problem: syncopation.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Kabuki Theater
I am actionally glad that I missed the Debate over Ohio's electors and the posturing by all sides about voters. If the congress really cared about the voters there would be a nationalized election system, federally funded with clear rules on what is and is not allowed. How come we are the only Industrialized, non-post-Soviet nation that can't seem to have elections that isn't mired in doubt (1876, 1960, 2000, 2004)? What's so damned hard?
Instead I have been longing strangely to get back to school. At the bookstore I encountered classmates and chatted them up for a bit. Although I have 70 pages to read for the first day of Criminal Law, I am very excited to be taught by Judge Cassell. We even get to sit in on his proceedings later this month. By all accounts he is my type of conservative-- smart, consistant, and intellectually honest. Plus, he is supposed to be a good teacher to boot. Perhaps I am a big nerd, but I find all this stuff interesting and am excited to learn. I am also looking forward to doing Pro Bono projects this semester and seeing if I actually like the practice of public interest law or just the idea of it.
School starts on Monday; maybe I will get a head start this weekend. Oh by the way, the Utes are 4.5 in the nation after their Fiesta Bowl crushing of Pitt. I think they should have played a better team like Auburn or Texas. Personally, I always thought Texas and Oklahoma were overrated. But now that Urban Meyer is gone, I can go back to not caring about currupted College Football.
Instead I have been longing strangely to get back to school. At the bookstore I encountered classmates and chatted them up for a bit. Although I have 70 pages to read for the first day of Criminal Law, I am very excited to be taught by Judge Cassell. We even get to sit in on his proceedings later this month. By all accounts he is my type of conservative-- smart, consistant, and intellectually honest. Plus, he is supposed to be a good teacher to boot. Perhaps I am a big nerd, but I find all this stuff interesting and am excited to learn. I am also looking forward to doing Pro Bono projects this semester and seeing if I actually like the practice of public interest law or just the idea of it.
School starts on Monday; maybe I will get a head start this weekend. Oh by the way, the Utes are 4.5 in the nation after their Fiesta Bowl crushing of Pitt. I think they should have played a better team like Auburn or Texas. Personally, I always thought Texas and Oklahoma were overrated. But now that Urban Meyer is gone, I can go back to not caring about currupted College Football.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Ethics reform
I agree with Bull Moose Blog, we need a Pennsylvania Avenue Project and get rid of the rampant cronyism and corruption from the GOP-controlled Congress to the GOP-controlled White House and K Street.
There is a big need to prevent former members of Congress and former White House employees from landing cushing jobs at big K Street lobbying outfits. Prime Example: ex- Energy and Commerce Chair Bill Tauzin, whose only delima was whether to go with the pharmacutical industry (who Rx drug benefit handout/legislation he drafted) or big music industry; he chose big Pharma and got $2 million a year. I think we need to go further and get a no nepotism clause for government jobs and lobbying. Linda Dashcle should not be allowed to lobby for the airline industry anymore than Orin Hatch's son gets to land a huge job in a law/lobbying firm. It should be easier to bring charges against members of Congress for violating the law and the so-called Ethics committee needs to get some dentures after DeLay and Co. knocked out all its teeth.
This a fight Democrats can win. They lost the house in 1994 because of scandal and arrogance of power (and raising taxes and the gun control bill), they can win it back by being the party of Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
There is a big need to prevent former members of Congress and former White House employees from landing cushing jobs at big K Street lobbying outfits. Prime Example: ex- Energy and Commerce Chair Bill Tauzin, whose only delima was whether to go with the pharmacutical industry (who Rx drug benefit handout/legislation he drafted) or big music industry; he chose big Pharma and got $2 million a year. I think we need to go further and get a no nepotism clause for government jobs and lobbying. Linda Dashcle should not be allowed to lobby for the airline industry anymore than Orin Hatch's son gets to land a huge job in a law/lobbying firm. It should be easier to bring charges against members of Congress for violating the law and the so-called Ethics committee needs to get some dentures after DeLay and Co. knocked out all its teeth.
This a fight Democrats can win. They lost the house in 1994 because of scandal and arrogance of power (and raising taxes and the gun control bill), they can win it back by being the party of Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Clark is back with a vengeance
I didn't watch it but per a Kos Diary, it sounds like my presidential candidate is back in action.
General Wesley Clark told Hardball's Chris Matthews in unequivocal terms that the nomination of Gonzales for AG was an outrage and unacceptable because Gonzalez believes (1) torture is permissible under American law;(2) that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" (3) the President has unfettered power.
"How could Americans feel confident in the rule of law with an Attorney General who does not respect the most basic tenets of American law?"
Clark responded to Matthews by saying that he would indeed testify against anyone who signed off the documents Gonzales approved.
Good for him. He sounds like the guy that enchanted me in 2003. He is a straight shooter and an anti-politician in a time of out of control spin. I am glad there are still honest people who seek the highest office in the land. He still has my support. Wes is the best choice for 2008.
General Wesley Clark told Hardball's Chris Matthews in unequivocal terms that the nomination of Gonzales for AG was an outrage and unacceptable because Gonzalez believes (1) torture is permissible under American law;(2) that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" (3) the President has unfettered power.
"How could Americans feel confident in the rule of law with an Attorney General who does not respect the most basic tenets of American law?"
Clark responded to Matthews by saying that he would indeed testify against anyone who signed off the documents Gonzales approved.
Good for him. He sounds like the guy that enchanted me in 2003. He is a straight shooter and an anti-politician in a time of out of control spin. I am glad there are still honest people who seek the highest office in the land. He still has my support. Wes is the best choice for 2008.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Two fewer liberals
Shirley Chisholm, a minority rights advocate who was the first black woman elected to Congress in 1968 and later the first black person to run for president in 1972, joins Representative Robert Matusi as liberal minority democrats who passed away in 2005.
Chisholm represented New York's Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, the area that inspired RFK to work towards social justice and become a champion of the African-American cause. Matsui was born in a Japanese internment camp and represented Sacramento for decades. In 1988, he helped shepherd the Japanese-American Redress Act through Congress, in which the government formally apologized for the World War II internment program and offered token compensation to victims. Matsui was also head of the DCCC in this year's ill-fated attempt to regain power in the US House of Representatives (where Democrats have been out of power for a decade now). Matsui had been battling Milo Dysplastic Disorder, a rare disorder that causes an inability of the bone marrow to produce blood products, such as red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets.
That shows a person's character. These two people were all that was right with being liberal: they had beliefs and values which they stood up for, even if they knew they were unpopular, even with their own constituents/constituencies.
Chisholm represented New York's Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, the area that inspired RFK to work towards social justice and become a champion of the African-American cause. Matsui was born in a Japanese internment camp and represented Sacramento for decades. In 1988, he helped shepherd the Japanese-American Redress Act through Congress, in which the government formally apologized for the World War II internment program and offered token compensation to victims. Matsui was also head of the DCCC in this year's ill-fated attempt to regain power in the US House of Representatives (where Democrats have been out of power for a decade now). Matsui had been battling Milo Dysplastic Disorder, a rare disorder that causes an inability of the bone marrow to produce blood products, such as red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets.
During her failed presidential bid, Chisholm went to the hospital to visit George Wallace, her rival candidate and ideological opposite, after he had been shot,— an act that appalled her followers.
"He said, `What are your people going to say?' I said: `I know what they're going to say. But I wouldn't want what happened to you to happen to anyone.' He cried and cried," she recalled.
That shows a person's character. These two people were all that was right with being liberal: they had beliefs and values which they stood up for, even if they knew they were unpopular, even with their own constituents/constituencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
