Follow up question

to Texas State Senator Dan Patrick, who is proposing that the government pay women $500 if they give a child up for adoption instead of having an abortion.

Senator Patrick - How much money will you give to the parents who adopt that child, or any of the many children who need adopting but will grow up in foster care, or any of the children who grow up with one parent, or in poverty, or who are at risk for disease, or crime, or violence? How much money would you withhold from a President killing thousands of people in the name of ego and idiocy? How much money will you contribute to medical research that could save or immeasurably improve millions of lives? How much money will you allocate to people working to ameliorate the damages done to our environment by our civilization? How much money will you give to schools? To the un- or under-insured? To the elderly who can't find jobs to support themselves and still need to work at 70?

How about this - when you and your party begin caring about the living, call me.

Theater of the Absurd

President Bush recently decried the vote by the House imposing even a minimal timeline as "political theater."

Hmm..I've done a lot of theater. It generally involes a SET, PROPS and an AUDIENCE.

Follow Up

A couple of posts below, Peter mentions that DoJ aide Monica Goodling has announced that she is going to invoke the 5th amendment and not testify in front of Congress. Ignoring the debate about whether or not the 5th amendment applies in this case (since I'm not a lawyer), the following question must still be asked:

If she's concerned that she could incriminate herself if she testifies, then there must be some, what's the word for it, oh, yes - crime, that has been committed that she's afraid she could be implicated in, right?

The only other option is that she's afraid that if she lies, and is caught in the lie, that's grounds for perjury.

So we're left with one of two options:

1) A lawyer who works for the Department of Justice knows that a crime has been committed, and knows that if she testifies she could be implicated

-or-

2) She knows that she would not tell the truth, and doesn't want to be caught committing perjury.

That's special.

When you're right, you're not paying much attention

(h/t Crooked Timber) Earlier this year, the right-wing blog Right Wing News sent out a survey to 240 right-wing blogs asking them about a variety of topics. They only got 63 responses, most from marginal blogs, but the results are telling.

First of all, there's the 61 (out of 63) who think the surge should go forward. Of course. If we don't Win In Iraq (TM), then their entire worldview, centered on the idea that the US can go beat the crap out of anyone we don't like, any time we want, especially those who are "different", fails.

Then there's the 53/63 who think that Democrats want us to lose in Iraq for political reasons. Yes, because this disastrous war has been nothing but a political and personal boon for all of us Haters of America. Those of us who have been against the war from the beginning have really been motivated by a desire to lose and weaken our country, rather than any connection to reality or that we thought that Iraq was a distraction from the real danger.

But then we get to the fourth question.

Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?

Yes (0) -- 0%
No (59) -- 100%

You may need to pause and read that one slowly. Yes, the anti-intellectualism of the right continues to grow, and continues to invalidate a whole body of scientific knowledge. Remember, this is an issue over which there is essentially no debate in the scientific community. Every major national or international scientific organization which has released a report about climate change says that the evidence is incontrovertable - the activities of the human race have contributed to changing the climate of the planet. And not one of these neocons believes it. Not one. This isn't an argument about the uncertainty of what the results of climate change will be. This isn't an argument that, while we're affecting the environment, there is a reasonable debate about what we should do in response. This isn't a question of how it affects the economy. This is a flat-out rejection of science, of the knowledge that is gained through the rigorous exercise of the abilities of the human mind.

What makes this weirder is that there's no significant religious component to this debate. It's not evolution, or the Big bang, where religious fundamentalists choose to rely on no textual authorities other than the Bible. Hell, even the Liar in Chief admitted that there might be something behind the science in his last SotU. This is willful ignorance, determined incuriosity, and an unshaking attachment to a belief, not because there's any evidence supporting their side and not because God told them to think a certain way. The culture of anti-intellectualism, of instinctively rejecting any information that comes to them from a source that isn't FoxNewsApproved, that might cause them to question, well, anything, has so taken root that these Luddites are willing to ignore mountains and mountains of data, just to remain in their safe little bubbles.

Their safe, little, warming bubbles.

Scandal scorecard, redux

And now for a blast from the past. Former Reagan budget director David Stockman, supply side boy wonder who made up the numbers then is still doing so now, indicted and also charged civilly with securities fraud.

Stockman personally directed fraudulent schemes to inflate C&A's reported income by accounting improperly for supplier payments. In furtherance of those schemes, the complaint alleges that Stockman and other defendants obtained false documents from suppliers designed to mislead C&A's external auditors. According to the complaint, when aspects of the schemes were discovered in March 2005, Stockman embarked on a public campaign to mislead investors, potential financiers and others by minimizing the extent of the fraudulent accounting and hiding C&A's dire financial condition.

The more things change.....

The truth hurts? (or at least incriminates)

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real."

That is a shocking statement from the attorney (John Dowd, known to sports fans as the author of the Pete Rose gambling dossier) for Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison.

Think about that. Truth and accuracy by a senior "Justice" aide = criminal jeopardy.

"Get your scorecards here, can't keep the GOP scandals straight without a scorecard!"

I am now a Gator fan!

Congratulations and a hearty "Well Done!" goes out to the University of Florida:

Jeb Bush denied honor at U. of Florida

The [faculty] Senate voted 38-28 Thursday against giving the honorary degree to Bush, who left office in January (more).

We had a similar problem at my alma mater where they were reluctant to so honor one J. Dumbforth Quayle. Unfortunately, they caved for the money, as his grandpappy was a HUGE donor and a life trustee.

From the White House

The White House
Washington, D.C.
Executive Order

.

The White House does not intend to comply with any subpoenas from Congress directed at senior executive officials in connection with the U.S. Attorney dismissals.

However, the individuals named will be made available for interviews from Congress if:

1) No White House official will be sworn or take any oath;
2) No transcript of any kind will be taken or provided
3) All Congressional questioners must be naked
4) All interviews will take place in inner tubes in a "lazy river" water park ride.

I couldn't have said it any better myself

From Crooks and Liars:

Air America's Rachel Maddow (one of my favorite hosts) speaking on CNN about using torture to get information:

"You can't say it doesn't matter what we're doing cause we're trying to get Al Qaeda. It matters what we do. We're America. That's more important than Al-Qaeda."

Insert your own caption

From the "Oh Really?" File

Halliburton will move headquarters from Houston to Dubai

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Oil services giant Halliburton will shift its headquarters from Houston to the Mideast financial powerhouse of Dubai, chief executive Dave Lesar announced Sunday.

Taking any corporate records with you out of reach of U.S. subpoenas? Just askin'.

Gun-sanity

Well, it finally happened. A federal appeals court (District of Columbia Circuit, http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf, issued a precedential ruling (unlike the 5th Circuit's Emerson decision, where the 2nd Amendment talk was dicta) holding that the 2nd Amendment guarantees private ownership rights.

I had always worried that neocon administrations would lead to an ideologically active federal judiciary, and here we see it in full bloom. The decision is bizarre on both ends, both in the majority and the dissent. The majority opinion (this is a three-judge panel) completely misses the historical basis of the 2nd amendment.

Firearms in a pre-Industrial Revolution America were made by hand and were quite expensive--it is doubtful that individual ownership would have been a concern to the framers. For example, individual rights advocates fondly quote Patrick Henry with well-placed ellipses, as he states "the great object is that every man be armed...every one who is able may have a gun." Unfortunately, the excised portion reveals that Henry is referring to the STATE purchasing weapons for militia use rather than Skeeter owning a squirrel rifle: "The great object is that every man be armed--but can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?"

The description of the "Magazine" at colonial Williamsburg further states that "The night of April 20, 1775, Lieutenant Henry Collins stole toward the capital with a squad of royal marines from the H.M.S. Magdalen anchored in Burwell's Bay on the James River. Their orders, straight from Governor Dunmore, were to empty the arsenal and disable THE MUSKETS stored there. In 1715, the magazine "safeguarded shot, powder, flints, tents, tools, swords, pikes, canteens, cooking utensils, and as many as 3,000 Brown Bess flintlocks--equipment needed for defense against Indians, slave revolts, local riots, and pirate raids"--weapons held collectively for the MILITIA to keep and bear.

The frightening part of the opinion lies in their conclusion that "Once it is determined—as we have done—that handguns are `Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them." Think about that. No arms may be banned under the 2nd. Historically speaking, as the archives of the militias show, during the colonial period, "arms" included not only rifles and pistols but artillery and ordnance as well. Need a howitzer, anyone?

The dissent is equally bizarre. She doesn't attack the majority for completely botching the notion of "keep and bear"--rather, she seizes on the first clause, the security of a free state notion, and says that the 2nd does not apply to DC because the district is not a state! A rather perverse exercise of the dynamic of federalism there.

First of all, let us note what this opinion does NOT do--it does not have any impact outside the district. First of all, jurisdictionally, it is only binding within that circuit. In addition, as far as persuasive authority goes, gun cases involving the states are decided under the 14th amendment rather than the 2nd.

What it does do, for the first time, is to set up a clear split among the circuits. Perhaps the Supreme Court will address this question once and for all.

Editor's Note: This opinion may also be subject to review by the entire court (known as an en banc review.)

From the "Well duh" file

Here's the front page headline in this morning's Chicago Tribune:

Iranian influence soaring in Iraq

Shiites, Sunnis say Tehran is winner of U.S. invasion

Gosh, who could have seen that coming? I mean, besides your average college sophomore in an intro-level middle eastern history class? I found the quote below particularly disturbing:

America handed Iraq to Iran on a golden plate," says Sunni politician Saleh al-Mutlaq. "Everything Iran fought for in the Iran-Iraq war, America gave to it when it invaded."

In God we trust?

Apparently some of the new dollar coins are circulating without the "In God We Trust" legend (link) This excites the coin collectors as did the famous "inverted Jenny" stamp:



But this is more than just a screwup at the mint. This is an opportunity to examine something that is just flat-out wrong. The "In God We Trust" line dates from the Civil War. It has withstood constitutional challenge on the incredibly shaky ground that it is "ceremonial" or "patriotic" rather than religious.

In effect, the federal courts are allowing it to stay because it is meaningless. So if it is meaningless, then why not just get rid of it?

I don't want to see poor municipalities like Zion in Illinois forced to spend tax dollars that could be used to teach kids and fix potholes to sandblast religious symbols off public building or re-order all the village stationery, etc. This one is simple. The next time we need to update the die for minting coins or the template for printing bills--just remove it. Almost no cost would be involved and we would honor the Constitution and the nation we are today.

Moment of Silence

Winemaker Ernest Gallo dies at 97

Thank you Ernest for helping America understand that wine is a food and proof that God loves us.

I've been one poor correspondent..

Work's been hell and adjusting to having Peggy back from another European boondoggle, but--so little time, so much stuff.

First of all, Merry Fitzmas! Kudos to Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's prosecutor. He is truly our generation's Untouchable, a ruthless yet fair and honest prosecutor. He has no agenda other than justice. He is a media superstar with a J.D. from Harvard and could have any partnership he desired, but no--he's a prosecutor. A Washington Post reporter interviewed him over breakfast and was going to pay for Pat's doughnut and coffee and he said no, even $10 (at DC prices) for breakfast would have compromised his integrity.

Guilty on four out of five, and the "not guilty" had a jury vote of 11-1 for conviction. These are serious charges ABOUT A SERIOUS MATTER. I use the caps for the Clinton comparison. Bill Clinton was deceptive under oath. One could make a fine legal argument that he did not "lie" because the other side's definition of "sexual relations" actually did not include happy humming.
It included touching this and touching that, but VERY TECHNICALLY it did not include the flute sonata.

That notwithstanding, Clinton did not commit perjury under applicable federal law. The federal statute criminalizes lying about MATERIAL matters. Material means something important that could impact a decision. For example, if I swear under oath that I was married on May 28, 1982, when in fact I was married on May 29, 1982 (note that this will be the 25th, presents accepted) I have lied under oath but not committed perjury under federal law unless my wedding date was an issue in the case (some states vary, a lie is a lie) Given that the Monica stuff wasn't even admitted into evidence, it is immaterial as a matter of law.

Scooter Libby lies and lies about outing a CIA operative TO DISCREDIT HER HUSBAND'S ANTI-WAR MESSAGE. A tad bit different from a blowjob.

A quick quote from the Washington Post:

Prosecutors contended that Libby tracked down and told reporters about Plame's CIA job as part of an administration strategy to discredit her husband by insinuating that the agency had dispatched Wilson to Niger because of nepotism.

Nepotism? NIGER? OK, if you give me a business trip to San Diego, Vegas, Orlando, Paris, London etc. but NIGER????No.

And isn't revenge a dish best served cold? Remember when the Dems said "BLOWJOB" and the Repubs answered with "rule of law?" PERJURY, JUSTICE! Enjoy that one!

Walter Reed? Need I mention, except to quote from the first Republican president:

to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle

Let's get right on that!

The North Korea screwup surfaces, U.S. Attorneys are fired and Scooter goes stripey and the White House says all is good.

Go with that.

Merry Fitzmas, one and all

Lewis "Scooter" Libby:

Count 1 (Obstruction): GUILTY
Count 2 (Perjury): GUILTY
Count 3 (False Statement): NOT GUILTY
Count 4 (Perjury): GUILTY
Count 5 (Perjury): GUILTY

Guilty on 4 of 5.

The world is a little brighter today.

March, march on down the field for old DePauw..

News from my alma mater:

Sorority Evictions Raise Issue of Looks and Bias

By SAM DILLON, New York Times

GREENCASTLE, Ind. — When a psychology professor at DePauw University here surveyed students, they described one sorority as a group of “daddy’s little princesses” and another as “offbeat hippies.” The sisters of Delta Zeta were seen as “socially awkward.”

Worried that a negative stereotype of the sorority was contributing to a decline in membership that had left its Greek-columned house here half empty, Delta Zeta’s national officers interviewed 35 DePauw members in November, quizzing them about their dedication to recruitment. They judged 23 of the women insufficiently committed and later told them to vacate the sorority house.

The 23 members included every woman who was overweight. They also included the only black, Korean and Vietnamese members. The dozen students allowed to stay were slender and popular with fraternity men — conventionally pretty women the sorority hoped could attract new recruits. Six of the 12 were so infuriated they quit.

“Virtually everyone who didn’t fit a certain sorority member archetype was told to leave,” said Kate Holloway, a senior who withdrew from the chapter during its reorganization.

This is particularly troublesome story for DePauw, even though the university was not involved. Why? Because some 85% of the students are involved in the Greek system (hey, it's an Indiana town of 6500 people!)

The system has always been screwy. I never could have been a Beta or a Phi Psi (rich face men), I didn't want to be a Sigma Nu (the offensive line) or a Delta Upsilon (stoner losers). I found my perfect niche at Alpha Tau Omega, the book jocks, the guys that girls wanted to study with but not go out with. This "bias" was built into the often insidious process known as rush.

But this story is devastating to the university at just the wrong time. First of all, high school seniors are making their final college decisions now, and beyond that, the obvious--even though it is an outside entity, the national sorority, the stories create the image of shallowness and elitism.

Sight Seen

Yup, a bumper sticker on a pickup truck this morning:

George Allen for President 2008

There's a collector's item for you!

The enemy of my enemy

is a bad shot.

I'm sure you've all heard about the bomb that went boom near Shooter in Afghanistan. Frankly, I don't know why the Taliban would try to kill him - after all, they both hate freedom and are slaves to fundamentalist idealogies. Not to mention, this will only piss off people (ie, Shooter and McFlightsuit) who are known to have invaded Iraq partly because Saddam tried to kill McFlightsuit's dad, who have access to the world's largest supply of nuclear weapons, and who believe that they are subject to no laws. I'm sure that somewhere, there's a wingnut arguing that this means that we should nuke Tehran, just to prove a point. (The point being, of course, that America is run by psychopaths.)

Now, one could say (and I'm going way out on a limb here) that if we had finished the job in Afghanistan, the Taliban would have been weakened, Al Qaeda would have lost a huge revenue source (the larger-than-ever opium fields), and we'd have a military capable of responding to threats. Don't expect to hear that from anyone associated with the administration or the media, though - it requires actual thought.

It also provides us a lesson as to why growing the national debt at a rate so fast that mathematicians have had to invent new ways of counting to deal with it is a bad idea. Lead story on CNN.com - "Dow tumbles after China selloff: U.S. stocks plunged today after stocks in China and Europe slumped and investors digested the news that Vice President Dick Cheney was the target of a Taliban suicide bombing attack in Afghanistan. Cheney wasn't hurt. The Dow was down more than 133 at one point. China's stocks fell 9 percent, the worst one-day selloff in a decade."

There's an assassination attempt against the US VP, China goes nuts, and our stocks tumble.

And hey - if Americans want a personal reason (other than the dead people, of course, since they're depressing) to oppose the war in Iraq - the failure to finish the job in Afghanistan just made retirement portfolios all over the country tumble.