I still haven't entirely processed how angry I am about this bill, and that bothers me, so I thought I'd start with something intellectual - reading the bill, and noting unnerving things.
Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally
(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:
(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial.
810. ART. 10. RESTRAINT OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENSES
Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.
(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination.
831 ART. 31. COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.
(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.
832. ART. 32. INVESTIGATION
(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a through and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.
(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.
(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.
(d) The requirements of this article are binding on all persons administering this chapter but failure to follow them does not constitute judicial error.
(f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3- A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
Note: This confuses me. The commission affords all judicial guarantees from the GC, but people on trial cannot invoke the GC as a source of rights. Um, what?
Sec. 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements
(a) In General- No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
Now, if I'm reading this right (which is tough to tell), I think this says:
By 948r(b), we can't use statements gotten through torture (who's doing the torturing btw, huh?), unless the victim was also a torturer, and then we can't admit the statement, but acknowledge the statement was made. Umm, what?
We can't use statements where the "degree of coercion" is under question (ie, was the accused tortured) unless the commission decides that it has value and would serve justice. So, I think that says we can use whatever we want, as long as someone decides it has value. Torture stays in.
Sec. 949a. Rules
(2) In establishing procedures and rules of evidence for military commission proceedings, the Secretary of Defense may prescribe the following provisions:
(A) Evidence shall be admissible if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person.
If the judge wants the evidence, it's in.
(B) Evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization.
Search warrant, smearch warrant. For reference, here's the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(C) A statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title.
(D) Evidence shall be admitted as authentic so long as--
(i) the military judge of the military commission determines that there is sufficient basis to find that the evidence is what it is claimed to be; and
(ii) the military judge instructs the members that they may consider any issue as to authentication or identification of evidence in determining the weight, if any, to be given to the evidence.
(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission if the proponent of the evidence makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to meet the evidence, the intention of the proponent to offer the evidence, and the particulars of the evidence (including information on the general circumstances under which the evidence was obtained). The disclosure of evidence under the preceding sentence is subject to the requirements and limitations applicable to the disclosure of classified information in section 949j(c) of this title.
(ii) Hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial shall not be admitted in a trial by military commission if the party opposing the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value.
This seems to say that the judge can allow any evidence in he wants, hearsay, coercion, or otherwise.
Sec. 949d. Sessions
(f) Protection of Classified Information-
(1) NATIONAL SECURITY PRIVILEGE- (A) Classified information shall be protected and is privileged from disclosure if disclosure would be detrimental to the national security. The rule in the preceding sentence applies to all stages of the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter.
(B) The privilege referred to in subparagraph (A) may be claimed by the head of the executive or military department or government agency concerned based on a finding by the head of that department or agency that--
(i) the information is properly classified; and
(ii) disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the national security.
(C) A person who may claim the privilege referred to in subparagraph (A) may authorize a representative, witness, or trial counsel to claim the privilege and make the finding described in subparagraph (B) on behalf of such person. The authority of the representative, witness, or trial counsel to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(2) INTRODUCTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION-
(A) ALTERNATIVES TO DISCLOSURE- To protect classified information from disclosure, the military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize, to the extent practicable--
(i) the deletion of specified items of classified information from documents to be introduced as evidence before the military commission;
(ii) the substitution of a portion or summary of the information for such classified documents; or
(iii) the substitution of a statement of relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove.
(B) PROTECTION OF SOURCES, METHODS, OR ACTIVITIES- The military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall permit trial counsel to introduce otherwise admissible evidence before the military commission, while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that (i) the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence are classified, and (ii) the evidence is reliable. The military judge may require trial counsel to present to the military commission and the defense, to the extent practicable and consistent with national security, an unclassified summary of the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence.
(C) ASSERTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRIVILEGE AT TRIAL- During the examination of any witness, trial counsel may object to any question, line of inquiry, or motion to admit evidence that would require the disclosure of classified information. Following such an objection, the military judge shall take suitable action to safeguard such classified information. Such action may include the review of trial counsel's claim of privilege by the military judge in camera and on an ex parte basis, and the delay of proceedings to permit trial counsel to consult with the department or agency concerned as to whether the national security privilege should be asserted.
(3) CONSIDERATION OF PRIVILEGE AND RELATED MATERIALS- A claim of privilege under this subsection, and any materials submitted in support thereof, shall, upon request of the Government, be considered by the military judge in camera and shall not be disclosed to the accused.
(4) ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS- The Secretary of Defense may prescribe additional regulations, consistent with this subsection, for the use and protection of classified information during proceedings of military commissions under this chapter. A report on any regulations so prescribed, or modified, shall be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 60 days before the date on which such regulations or modifications, as the case may be, go into effect.
I think this says that the government (rightly) should be able to maintain that certain information should not be made public for reasons of national security or if disclosure would endanger sources in the field, but seems to provide only protections for the government and none for the accused. Also, section (3) is the scary one. If the government claims national security, the materials supporting that claim are never seen by the accused (BTW, I like how it's "accused" instead of "defendant"), but only by the judge.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
I call top bunk!
American Prison Camps Are on the Way
By Marjorie Cohn
AlterNet
Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants." Americans are certain to be among them.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."
Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism. Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate.
Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.
By Marjorie Cohn
AlterNet
Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants." Americans are certain to be among them.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."
Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism. Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate.
Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.
In which we learn how corrupt Dennis Hastert's aides are
I'm relatively new to the management game, but in the couple of years I've been doing it, one thing I've learned is that to be good at what I do, I have to take responsibility for the work done by the people "below" me (in an organizational sense). I helped hire them, and if they screw up, it reflects on me. I can't even imagine walking into a meeting with my fellow chairs if the people that worked for me were as corrupt as the GOP is right now.
Dennis Hastert, on the other hand, has no sense of shame.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday he'll dismiss anyone on his staff found to have covered up concerns about ex-Rep. Mark Foley's approaches to former pages.
Hastert, R-Illinois, said he huddled with his staff last week and in that, in hindsight, the situation could have been better handled.
But he added, "If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs."
I thought the buck stopped with you, Denny. What does that mean? Does that mean that you pay a price, or just that you tell others what price they will pay?
Dennis Hastert, on the other hand, has no sense of shame.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday he'll dismiss anyone on his staff found to have covered up concerns about ex-Rep. Mark Foley's approaches to former pages.
Hastert, R-Illinois, said he huddled with his staff last week and in that, in hindsight, the situation could have been better handled.
But he added, "If they did cover something up, then they should not continue to have their jobs."
I thought the buck stopped with you, Denny. What does that mean? Does that mean that you pay a price, or just that you tell others what price they will pay?
Damn you, Kim Jong Il!
Damn you for your timing and your cruel sense of irony.
The timing is obvious, as our North Korean friend has knocked creepy Republicans off the front page. The ironic effect, though, is much more painful. An educated America should say "this represents another failure of the Bush administration. He rejected the Clinton approach of engagement and monitoring for for one that isolated and antagonized the regime. The president did nothing over the last five years as Kim became more publicly belligerent, announcing each step and seeing no response. Now he takes this fateful move at a time when the United States, due to presidential incompetence and malice, is stretched too thin and lacks sufficient international prestige to rationally respond."
But, alack and alas, we do not live in an educated, thoughtful America. We dwell in Retard America, which will inhale through its mouth and cry, "Protect us, Mr. Preznit!"
Good God.
And isn't it remarkable that each of the arms of the "axis of evil," Iran, Iraq ann North Korea, are a greater threat to us now than when the preznit first spoke those words?
The timing is obvious, as our North Korean friend has knocked creepy Republicans off the front page. The ironic effect, though, is much more painful. An educated America should say "this represents another failure of the Bush administration. He rejected the Clinton approach of engagement and monitoring for for one that isolated and antagonized the regime. The president did nothing over the last five years as Kim became more publicly belligerent, announcing each step and seeing no response. Now he takes this fateful move at a time when the United States, due to presidential incompetence and malice, is stretched too thin and lacks sufficient international prestige to rationally respond."
But, alack and alas, we do not live in an educated, thoughtful America. We dwell in Retard America, which will inhale through its mouth and cry, "Protect us, Mr. Preznit!"
Good God.
And isn't it remarkable that each of the arms of the "axis of evil," Iran, Iraq ann North Korea, are a greater threat to us now than when the preznit first spoke those words?
Monday, October 09, 2006
Sacrifice...and why we must not give up
First of all, I feel that I need to comment to Schmidlap's scathing excoriation of John Mayer. Schmidlap, his concert in November '02 was the scene of the first date with the now Mrs. Zinfandelfan (carrying Zinfandelfan 1.0, in beta version until release tentatively around 6.Feb). Having apparently fallen play to those who would do my musical tastes harm, I must now confirm with you whether or not artists I plan to listen to are worthy. Thanks.
Allow me to first say that I love my wife. Dearly. As a man on the radio once remarked, the continued generosity of women never ceased to amaze him. He's right. They're capable of amazing things.
This is the first year that I've been more than just a political bystander. I've voted Democratic in the past (don't think I ever punched straight ticket) and in the folly of my college yute even voted Perot. But to see what is happening with the country, its leadership and propogandist attacks being waged on the populous (knowing or otherwise), I felt the urge to get more involved.
So I've contributed out of my own pocket to candidates. Webb, Tester, Lamont, Seals, Laesch. I know that I should've contributed before Q3 closed, but I'm doing it now regardless. Over dinner tonight, I broached the subject with my wife that I felt that we should contribute. Since it's a 'we' thing, then it needs to be an 'us' discussion; if you're married you know how it goes.
She said that no, we don't have the money to contribute right now, what with a baby on the way and a nursery and furniture to pay for, as well as a lovely patio that doesn't get as much traffic as I'd like it to get. I posed it in the frame of, "I think we should make a sacrifice someplace to be able to afford this. Do you feel that we can and should?" "No."
When I tried to honestly further delve into the reasons, she said that I was the rabid political wonk of the family and she doesn't really feel as strongly and passionately about it as I do. She's right about that. I've usually got multiple windows running in Firefox pointed to the home pages of Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo and refreshing them every fifteen minutes or so during the day to see what's going on.
My wife doesn't like when I continue to ask badgering questions. I try to do it in my inside voice, but she's as stubborn as a tick when she's made up her mind and the reason she gave to me finally was that, "They're all politicians so they're all corrupt and crooked, anyways." I explained that I wasn't contributing to incumbents, but rather people trying to get rid of ones who do perpetuate that stereotype, but it still didn't move her.
We contributed last year to the Red Cross in the wake of Katrina, so I asked why we did that. She pointed out that we both thought it was a good idea. I then continued the prosecutor's line of questioning (quietly, politely, as she got more and more defensive and belligerent) to determine what made an in-your-face disaster worse than a slowly-growing-cancer disaster and, more importantly, wanted to know what it would take to move her off her position. She could offer me no answer and the way she started playing with her dinner informed me the conversation was done and she was pissed.
And it made me realize that this is the exact type of apathy that we have to overcome this year. This inertia of, "Doesn't matter to me now, doesn't impact my day-to-day way of life." We're fortunate, I guess, that we haven't had to make any sacrifices to this point; but it doesn't mean that others haven't. At last count, more than 2700 have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families and friends grieve for something that isn't a little temporary pain; it's going to be a lifetime of pain. They'll never forget.
Schmidlap is fortunate to be in the futures business. He's used to thinking and contemplating what the long position is on things. My wife sees many things in the here and now; she couldn't and still doesn't see the benefits of replacing the lights in our home with LED bulbs for the long term energy savings. She sees that the bulbs are a) expensive and b) we've still got other bulbs and aren't we wasting our money throwing them away? When you run the long numbers, yes, it's an expensive investment now, but the savings is tremendous.
But I'm not going to let this get me down. We live in Judy Biggert's district; another great rubber stamp. I've met her and her chief of staff through work, and it makes for interesting feelings of conflict I've yet to sort out in reconciling my personal and professional agendas as it comes to interacting with the Illinois Congressional delegation. Since Joseph Shannon hasn't done dick to make it a fight here (he's got two strikes in my book, pro-life AND a graduate of the University of Notre Dame law school), I just signed up online to volunteer for John Laesch and Tammy Duckworth.
We're into the home stretch; it's four weeks from tomorrow. We're all busy and have work, family and other pressures. But these people who are running to take back our country are sacrificing THEIR lives for the betterment of their constituents and ultimately for us all. They've taken the long position; shouldn't we?
Allow me to first say that I love my wife. Dearly. As a man on the radio once remarked, the continued generosity of women never ceased to amaze him. He's right. They're capable of amazing things.
This is the first year that I've been more than just a political bystander. I've voted Democratic in the past (don't think I ever punched straight ticket) and in the folly of my college yute even voted Perot. But to see what is happening with the country, its leadership and propogandist attacks being waged on the populous (knowing or otherwise), I felt the urge to get more involved.
So I've contributed out of my own pocket to candidates. Webb, Tester, Lamont, Seals, Laesch. I know that I should've contributed before Q3 closed, but I'm doing it now regardless. Over dinner tonight, I broached the subject with my wife that I felt that we should contribute. Since it's a 'we' thing, then it needs to be an 'us' discussion; if you're married you know how it goes.
She said that no, we don't have the money to contribute right now, what with a baby on the way and a nursery and furniture to pay for, as well as a lovely patio that doesn't get as much traffic as I'd like it to get. I posed it in the frame of, "I think we should make a sacrifice someplace to be able to afford this. Do you feel that we can and should?" "No."
When I tried to honestly further delve into the reasons, she said that I was the rabid political wonk of the family and she doesn't really feel as strongly and passionately about it as I do. She's right about that. I've usually got multiple windows running in Firefox pointed to the home pages of Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo and refreshing them every fifteen minutes or so during the day to see what's going on.
My wife doesn't like when I continue to ask badgering questions. I try to do it in my inside voice, but she's as stubborn as a tick when she's made up her mind and the reason she gave to me finally was that, "They're all politicians so they're all corrupt and crooked, anyways." I explained that I wasn't contributing to incumbents, but rather people trying to get rid of ones who do perpetuate that stereotype, but it still didn't move her.
We contributed last year to the Red Cross in the wake of Katrina, so I asked why we did that. She pointed out that we both thought it was a good idea. I then continued the prosecutor's line of questioning (quietly, politely, as she got more and more defensive and belligerent) to determine what made an in-your-face disaster worse than a slowly-growing-cancer disaster and, more importantly, wanted to know what it would take to move her off her position. She could offer me no answer and the way she started playing with her dinner informed me the conversation was done and she was pissed.
And it made me realize that this is the exact type of apathy that we have to overcome this year. This inertia of, "Doesn't matter to me now, doesn't impact my day-to-day way of life." We're fortunate, I guess, that we haven't had to make any sacrifices to this point; but it doesn't mean that others haven't. At last count, more than 2700 have made the ultimate sacrifice. Their families and friends grieve for something that isn't a little temporary pain; it's going to be a lifetime of pain. They'll never forget.
Schmidlap is fortunate to be in the futures business. He's used to thinking and contemplating what the long position is on things. My wife sees many things in the here and now; she couldn't and still doesn't see the benefits of replacing the lights in our home with LED bulbs for the long term energy savings. She sees that the bulbs are a) expensive and b) we've still got other bulbs and aren't we wasting our money throwing them away? When you run the long numbers, yes, it's an expensive investment now, but the savings is tremendous.
But I'm not going to let this get me down. We live in Judy Biggert's district; another great rubber stamp. I've met her and her chief of staff through work, and it makes for interesting feelings of conflict I've yet to sort out in reconciling my personal and professional agendas as it comes to interacting with the Illinois Congressional delegation. Since Joseph Shannon hasn't done dick to make it a fight here (he's got two strikes in my book, pro-life AND a graduate of the University of Notre Dame law school), I just signed up online to volunteer for John Laesch and Tammy Duckworth.
We're into the home stretch; it's four weeks from tomorrow. We're all busy and have work, family and other pressures. But these people who are running to take back our country are sacrificing THEIR lives for the betterment of their constituents and ultimately for us all. They've taken the long position; shouldn't we?
Found in the comments
From the always insightful schmidlap:
Innocent until proven guilty is the established procedure in criminal courts of law in the US.
This is not a criminal court of law; this is a blog.
Hope that helps.
Innocent until proven guilty is the established procedure in criminal courts of law in the US.
This is not a criminal court of law; this is a blog.
Hope that helps.
More yard signs
We've also got a passel of signs up in our yard (a first time for me). We've got the ones supporting the local Democratic candidates for state and national office -
David Gill, running against incumbent rubber stamp Tim Johnson in the IL 15th.
Naomi Jakobsson, state House.
Mike Freirichs, state Senate.
And, of course, the big one - on one side it says "Impeach Bush/Cheney - Vote Yes", and on the other side is says "Get US out of Iraq Now - Vote Yes".
I'm waiting to see if our house gets vandalized.
David Gill, running against incumbent rubber stamp Tim Johnson in the IL 15th.
Naomi Jakobsson, state House.
Mike Freirichs, state Senate.
And, of course, the big one - on one side it says "Impeach Bush/Cheney - Vote Yes", and on the other side is says "Get US out of Iraq Now - Vote Yes".
I'm waiting to see if our house gets vandalized.
A Tale of Two Signs
I noticed two campaign-style signs in a yard not far from me. One (actually, there were half a dozen of them) said "Support Our Troops!" An admirable idea. I do--my nephew is one of them. But we all know that is code for "Support George's War!" and the attendant deaths, maimings, rapes, mayhem and lawlessness.
The other sign was--"We Vote Pro-Life!"
Pro-life, pro-war, together in one very neat and disturbing little hypocritical package.
The other sign was--"We Vote Pro-Life!"
Pro-life, pro-war, together in one very neat and disturbing little hypocritical package.
Philosophical Differences - Part I
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. - Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, A Few Good Men
Sometimes, when a professional sports team fires their coach, they annouce that they made the decision because of "philosophical differences." This is to be polite, of course - in normal society, a certain amount of value is placed on a sense of decorum and politeness. In politics, of course, that all goes out the window. We're all guilty of it. Sometimes it bothers me (as it did during the Illinois Gubernatorial debate between inveterate crook Rod Blagoyevich and inveterate crook Judy Baar Topinka - it will take years to clean all the mud off the stage). So let's discuss the upcoming election without the usual invective.
Why do I not support George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al? We don't believe in the same things. In his amazing book, "Don't Think of an Elephant," George Lakoff discusses the idea of "framing", and that Republicans and Democrats tend to look at the role of government differently. One of his points is that traditionally, Republicans take the "father-child" approach to governing, while Democrats take a "mother-child" approach. Of course, this is a generalization, but the idea is that those on the right prefer a system where there is a right and a wrong, and rewards come to those who do right and punishment goes to those who do wrong. The arbiter of what is right or wrong in that family model is the father, and they believe that is what a government should do as well. And not right or wrong as in legal or illegal, but as in "Do you do everything you can to make money to support yourself?" or "Do you do the right thing to protect yourself against danger?". If you do, then you will get rewarded. If you do not, you will get punished.
The current political leadership in the country has taken this idea to a new level. Not only is there a right and a wrong, and the "right" should get rewarded and the "wrong" punished, but those who make the decisions on right vs. wrong are an ever-shrinking group, based entirely on wealth and cronyism, and the rewards and punishments are growing towards both extremes. The "right" people are those who support the powerful, and take their words as unquestionably true, and those who question the government are wrong. Being "different" is also wrong - being gay, being poor, not being an evangelical Christian, being anti-war. If you're right, the rewards are great - tax cuts, friendship from the powerful, the feeling of belonging to the best of the best. If you're wrong, the punishments are growing - ostracism, bigotry, poor taxes, even imprisonment and torture without trial.
In their model, the power belongs with a particular group of elites - politically, in the executive branch, where a small group of (mostly) men will decide what is right and wrong for the nation, and ideally the world. They collect more power, mostly from those who wish to be part of the elite, or who wish favors from the elite. Dissension has no place, since it puts at risk the belief that the powerful are always right.
Listen to President Bush's recent public appearances. His anger is growing - not at the terrorists, or those who wish the United States harm, but at those who disagree with him. Those who challenge his power. Those who are not his political allies. He is the decider. When you were six, and your dad told you to do something, or you'd get in trouble, you didn't look at him and say "That's not part of the familial social contract." You were scared of him. He was an authority figure, and often the absolute one - "wait until your father comes home." That's the role President Bush and his comrades want for the presidency, in perpetuity.
Now, here's what powers the executive branch was granted, in the US Constitution:
Article. II. - Section 1 just deals with how a President is elected, so I'll leave it out here, except for clause 8.
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Note that the President does not take an oath to defend the country, or the flag, or Jesus, but the Constitution of the United States.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
This is where those who argue for a more powerful executive branch draw their argument. But notice clearly what it says - "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy". So the President is, indeed, the supreme military commander of our armed forces, but there is nothing relating to the expansion of presidential powers in wartime.
he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
So the President has the power to get opinions from people and to pardon people guilty of crimes short of impeachment. Nothing in there about imprisoning people.
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can do a bunch of stuff - make treaties and appoint people to jobs. Again, nothing about the expansion of powers during wartime.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The President will give a speech every year. The President will call Congress to session and tell them to do stuff. The President will take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed (herein we get signing statements, from those who believe that the President can decide what "faithfully" means).
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And the President and other members of the executive branch can be removed from office.
You can look at the amendments as well - none of them give additional powers to the executive branch. There are term limits, and changes in electoral processes, but that's it.
In Part II of this, I'll take a look at the Federalist Papers, which aren't at the same level as the Constitution, but speak directly to the intent of the framers.
Sometimes, when a professional sports team fires their coach, they annouce that they made the decision because of "philosophical differences." This is to be polite, of course - in normal society, a certain amount of value is placed on a sense of decorum and politeness. In politics, of course, that all goes out the window. We're all guilty of it. Sometimes it bothers me (as it did during the Illinois Gubernatorial debate between inveterate crook Rod Blagoyevich and inveterate crook Judy Baar Topinka - it will take years to clean all the mud off the stage). So let's discuss the upcoming election without the usual invective.
Why do I not support George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al? We don't believe in the same things. In his amazing book, "Don't Think of an Elephant," George Lakoff discusses the idea of "framing", and that Republicans and Democrats tend to look at the role of government differently. One of his points is that traditionally, Republicans take the "father-child" approach to governing, while Democrats take a "mother-child" approach. Of course, this is a generalization, but the idea is that those on the right prefer a system where there is a right and a wrong, and rewards come to those who do right and punishment goes to those who do wrong. The arbiter of what is right or wrong in that family model is the father, and they believe that is what a government should do as well. And not right or wrong as in legal or illegal, but as in "Do you do everything you can to make money to support yourself?" or "Do you do the right thing to protect yourself against danger?". If you do, then you will get rewarded. If you do not, you will get punished.
The current political leadership in the country has taken this idea to a new level. Not only is there a right and a wrong, and the "right" should get rewarded and the "wrong" punished, but those who make the decisions on right vs. wrong are an ever-shrinking group, based entirely on wealth and cronyism, and the rewards and punishments are growing towards both extremes. The "right" people are those who support the powerful, and take their words as unquestionably true, and those who question the government are wrong. Being "different" is also wrong - being gay, being poor, not being an evangelical Christian, being anti-war. If you're right, the rewards are great - tax cuts, friendship from the powerful, the feeling of belonging to the best of the best. If you're wrong, the punishments are growing - ostracism, bigotry, poor taxes, even imprisonment and torture without trial.
In their model, the power belongs with a particular group of elites - politically, in the executive branch, where a small group of (mostly) men will decide what is right and wrong for the nation, and ideally the world. They collect more power, mostly from those who wish to be part of the elite, or who wish favors from the elite. Dissension has no place, since it puts at risk the belief that the powerful are always right.
Listen to President Bush's recent public appearances. His anger is growing - not at the terrorists, or those who wish the United States harm, but at those who disagree with him. Those who challenge his power. Those who are not his political allies. He is the decider. When you were six, and your dad told you to do something, or you'd get in trouble, you didn't look at him and say "That's not part of the familial social contract." You were scared of him. He was an authority figure, and often the absolute one - "wait until your father comes home." That's the role President Bush and his comrades want for the presidency, in perpetuity.
Now, here's what powers the executive branch was granted, in the US Constitution:
Article. II. - Section 1 just deals with how a President is elected, so I'll leave it out here, except for clause 8.
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Note that the President does not take an oath to defend the country, or the flag, or Jesus, but the Constitution of the United States.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
This is where those who argue for a more powerful executive branch draw their argument. But notice clearly what it says - "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy". So the President is, indeed, the supreme military commander of our armed forces, but there is nothing relating to the expansion of presidential powers in wartime.
he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
So the President has the power to get opinions from people and to pardon people guilty of crimes short of impeachment. Nothing in there about imprisoning people.
Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, can do a bunch of stuff - make treaties and appoint people to jobs. Again, nothing about the expansion of powers during wartime.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The President will give a speech every year. The President will call Congress to session and tell them to do stuff. The President will take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed (herein we get signing statements, from those who believe that the President can decide what "faithfully" means).
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And the President and other members of the executive branch can be removed from office.
You can look at the amendments as well - none of them give additional powers to the executive branch. There are term limits, and changes in electoral processes, but that's it.
In Part II of this, I'll take a look at the Federalist Papers, which aren't at the same level as the Constitution, but speak directly to the intent of the framers.
Charlie Kraut-for-Brains Gives Yet Another Reason to Fight "Over There"
I read Charlie Kraut-for-Brains so that you don't have to...
As published on the Op/Ed page of today's Chicago Tribune, our favorite dimimutive neo-con makes his case for ignoring the bad news from the leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
As published on the Op/Ed page of today's Chicago Tribune, our favorite dimimutive neo-con makes his case for ignoring the bad news from the leaked National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but those seers in the U.S. "intelligence community," speaking though a leaked NIE - the most famous previous NIE, mind you, concluded that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, slam dunk - ... (came to) the conclusion that (the Iraq War) has made us less safe because it has become a "cause celebre" and rallying cry for jihadists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of duplicitous prose is Charlie's speciality. On the one hand he maligns THIS NIE because a previous NIE had bad info about WMDs. Fair enough, but wait - in previous op/ed pieces Charlie has bent over backwards to blame the bad info of the earlier NIE on CLINTON, and that the McLiar/Vader junta fixed all of that. However, now that inconvenient truths have been outed, all of a sudden the intelligence community gets belittling quotation marks placed around it and their NIE is no good?
Charlie spends the next several column inches explaining how Osama and his minions have been plotting the destruction of everything good and holy, and that Iraq is the central front in the "War on Turr." Then he gives up this nugget: "(D)oes anyone imagine that had the jihadists in Iraq remained home they would now be tending petunias rather than plotting terror attacks?" And so he begins to construct the world's most reliable straw man to knock down. We're taking the fight to them, on "their soil." Of course, he conveniently forgets to point out that there were NO JIHADISTS TO SPEAK OF in Iraq before the current debacle, nor was Baathist Iraq a sponsor of jihadists. No, instead he points to al-Quaeda in Iraqs assessment that they've lost 4K jihadists in their fight with the coalition of the willing, and states, "It is clear that one of the reasons we have gone an ASTONISHING FIVE YEARS without a second attack on the American homeland is that the most dedicated and virulent jihadists have gone to Iraq to fight us... "over there." and then decapitates his straw man with his statement that the only way for our nation to become safe again is for our side to come out victorious in our war against the jihadists.
OK, see here's the problem... How do we know that we've won, so we can declare victory? How many jihadists are there? Where do they live? Do we need to brainwash them, reeducate them, disappear them, exterminate them? You and your neo-con buddies have taken us down through the rabbit hole, and I fear that we'll have a great deal of trouble clawing our way back.
This one really bothers me
I was offered a lieutenant's commission in the Navy JAG Corps coming out of law school, an offer I reluctantly turned down. Seeing the following really angers and saddens me. Sounds like the guy is a heck of a lawyer, the kind you would like to keep.
No promotion for Navy lawyer who took on Bush (link)
MIAMI -- The Navy lawyer who led a successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration's military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been passed over for promotion and will have to leave the military, the Miami Herald reported Sunday. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, will retire under the military's ''up or out'' promotion system.
No promotion for Navy lawyer who took on Bush (link)
MIAMI -- The Navy lawyer who led a successful Supreme Court challenge of the Bush administration's military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been passed over for promotion and will have to leave the military, the Miami Herald reported Sunday. Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, 44, will retire under the military's ''up or out'' promotion system.
Swift said last week he was notified he would not be promoted to commander. He said the notification came about two weeks after the Supreme Court sided with him and against the White House in the case involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was Osama bin Laden's driver. ''All I ever wanted was to make a difference--and in that sense I think my career and personal satisfaction has been beyond my dreams,'' Swift said.
Some things need no comment
Support Bush (link)
President Bush needs to be supported, not berated, by world leaders and the American public, regardless of party affiliations. The recent remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were obviously intended to undermine the Christian policies on which this nation was founded and which President Bush supports and defends. Let�s stop the criticism and rally behind a man who has the support of our troops in Iraq, other right-thinking U.S. citizens and the help of God for the pursuit of life, liberty and justice for all.
Allen Diener
Schiller Park
Sunday, October 08, 2006
This is too noxious for dumbass
The line below does not come from some mouthbreather like Loree Kowalski (see below) in a letter to the editor. This comes FROM the editor, an editorial in the Chicago Tribune in response to calls for a partitioning of Iraq:
The unspoken assumption is that this ill-conceived fraud of a "government" that 1) was imposed from outside by an occupying power, 2) has no internal credibility and 3) cannot even control its capital, even with U.S. military presence may one day "emerge as a bulwark for democracy and freedom."
The odds are better that I'll get a pony.
A splintered Iraq means that it will never emerge as a bulwark for democracy and freedom in the Arab world.And I'll never probably get a pony.
The unspoken assumption is that this ill-conceived fraud of a "government" that 1) was imposed from outside by an occupying power, 2) has no internal credibility and 3) cannot even control its capital, even with U.S. military presence may one day "emerge as a bulwark for democracy and freedom."
The odds are better that I'll get a pony.
A repeat winner
One of our first dumbass winners was Loree Kowalis of Orland Park, Illinois, who wrote how the big, bad liberals were attacking Christmas. Today, though, she gives us this gem:
First of all, it was not ONE page, the man was a serial predator abusing these children for years. Nice talking point, though. Then you claim with no evidence that mysterious "Democrats" held the information. Who? When? Sorry, Loree, this is a 100% Republican scandal, causes by Republicans, covered up by Republicans.
She then whines
The sad thing about this Foley scandal is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are free of guilt. If the Democrats cared so much about the welfare of this young page and Mark Foley’s acts that could harm others, why was this information held so long and released so strategically before elections? And if the Republicans knew of this behavior and covered it up, that’s despicable as well.Loree, Loree, Loree....
First of all, it was not ONE page, the man was a serial predator abusing these children for years. Nice talking point, though. Then you claim with no evidence that mysterious "Democrats" held the information. Who? When? Sorry, Loree, this is a 100% Republican scandal, causes by Republicans, covered up by Republicans.
She then whines
There’s a clear lack of integrity and moral character on both sidesOK, talking point #2. Both sides, Loree? Did we have senior officials at the White House indicted , and some pleading guilty, were Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and Tom Delay Democrats? Were we stealing stuff from Target? How much money did Jack Abramoff give to Democrats? Nice try, Loree, but say it with me...
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Friday, October 06, 2006
Pot, I have the kettle on Line 1 for you
From Newt Gingrich: "What we don't have to do is allow our friends on the left to lecture us on morality"
Newt, need I remind you that you SERVED DIVORCE PAPERS on your DYING WIFE???? (and then later dumped the Tart du Jour.)
Morality....it's not just for breakfast any more.
Newt, need I remind you that you SERVED DIVORCE PAPERS on your DYING WIFE???? (and then later dumped the Tart du Jour.)
Morality....it's not just for breakfast any more.
Andy Warhol on Rep. Happypants
Even though he died in 1987!
"Sex is more exciting on the screen and between the pages than between the sheets."
"Sex is more exciting on the screen and between the pages than between the sheets."
Article II, Section 3--Scratch that
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit reports by the Homeland Security Department about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watch lists. In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated that no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security Department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."
Article II, Section 3, go sit over there with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments, and all those other "unnecessary" and "obsolete" provisions. It was nice knowing you.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Another "Thinking or Sitting" Exclusive
We here at "The Thinker -- or Just Sitting Around" are pleased to provide you with an exclusive copy of the official investigation by John Shimkus (R-IL), U.S. Representative, and Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Page Committee into the activities of Mark Foley (R-FL), Co-Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Caucus for Abused and Exploited Children.
Scene: Cloak Room - U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Shimkus finds Rep. Foley hunched over a laptop computer...
Shimkus: Mark, you got a minute? Hey! why are your pants around your ankles?
Foley: My aide is bringing me some fresh dry-cleaned clothes, and you know, I am working on some serious business here. (types feverishly)
Shimkus: I've received a pretty troubling note from the parents of a page.
Foley: (eyes roll back into his head as he stares into his laptop) Uhhhhhhhhhhh.... Sorry - what was that?
Shimkus: Parents of a page - they're saying that you've been sending emails to their son.
Foley: (adjusts the crotch on his pants) Yeah, right. He's really hot - er, I mean, I was concerned about him - he was in a hot spot.
Shimkus: Well, they're worried, that you're being too friendly with him.
Foley: Well that's a load of crap!! (turns way from laptop, grabs several kleenex from a dispenser and turns his back) You know that I try hard to be a mentor to these boys, so far from home - so far from adult supervision (wipes drool from his chin).
Shimkus: Well that's all well and good, but there are concerns. You really need to dial back on your contact with this kid.
Foley: Really? (zips up his pants, closes laptop). Well, I need to go vote on this Internet Child Protection bill. Is there anything else?
Shimkus: No, I guess that covers it. So you'll stay away from the kid?
Foley: Yeah sure - Scout's Honor (crosses fingers behind his back).
Shimkus: Thanks a lot Mark. You've taken a great burden from my mind. I guess I can consider the matter closed. Hey, you've got a stain on your pants there.... Where's your aide with the drycleaning?
Foley: I'm sure he's around somewhere. See you later John (walks to the chamber door).
Shimkus: OK, bye Mark.
Scene: Cloak Room - U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Shimkus finds Rep. Foley hunched over a laptop computer...
Shimkus: Mark, you got a minute? Hey! why are your pants around your ankles?
Foley: My aide is bringing me some fresh dry-cleaned clothes, and you know, I am working on some serious business here. (types feverishly)
Shimkus: I've received a pretty troubling note from the parents of a page.
Foley: (eyes roll back into his head as he stares into his laptop) Uhhhhhhhhhhh.... Sorry - what was that?
Shimkus: Parents of a page - they're saying that you've been sending emails to their son.
Foley: (adjusts the crotch on his pants) Yeah, right. He's really hot - er, I mean, I was concerned about him - he was in a hot spot.
Shimkus: Well, they're worried, that you're being too friendly with him.
Foley: Well that's a load of crap!! (turns way from laptop, grabs several kleenex from a dispenser and turns his back) You know that I try hard to be a mentor to these boys, so far from home - so far from adult supervision (wipes drool from his chin).
Shimkus: Well that's all well and good, but there are concerns. You really need to dial back on your contact with this kid.
Foley: Really? (zips up his pants, closes laptop). Well, I need to go vote on this Internet Child Protection bill. Is there anything else?
Shimkus: No, I guess that covers it. So you'll stay away from the kid?
Foley: Yeah sure - Scout's Honor (crosses fingers behind his back).
Shimkus: Thanks a lot Mark. You've taken a great burden from my mind. I guess I can consider the matter closed. Hey, you've got a stain on your pants there.... Where's your aide with the drycleaning?
Foley: I'm sure he's around somewhere. See you later John (walks to the chamber door).
Shimkus: OK, bye Mark.
Operation "Hey, Look Over There!"
OK, I'll can the "Frostbite Falls" bit--ANY humor here is completely inappropriate
Four US soldiers have been killed in an attack in north-west Baghdad, the US military said....The latest deaths bring to 21 the number of Americans killed in combat since Saturday.Of course a sex scandal attracts the attention of that tiny percentage of Retard America that pays ANY attention to politics, but may I remind you that Iraq's hellhole is raging out of control and of course, Afghanistan is meeting RECORD levels of opium production, while the administration weaves toward attacking Iran. One creep and however many kids is distracting attention away from an impending disaster.
Murrow on Hastert
"Have you no decency, sir?" asked Murrow, using the words of a witness before McCarthy's committee. The answer by Denny Hastert---apparently not.
In an interview with the Tribune on Wednesday night, Hastert said he had no thoughts of resigning and he blamed ABC News and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal that threatens his tenure as speaker and Republicans' hold on power in the House.
Sports superstars help us count down to Election Day
I should have started this yesterday with Sweetness, but I forgot.
Larry Bird
Add your own.
Larry Bird
Add your own.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
A sure sign of the apocalypse
Hannidate - The place where people of like conservative minds can come together to meet. Whether you are looking for a life partner, or just someone to hang out with, here you'll be able to find exactly who you are looking for, locally or around the world. Yep, the above is real--Sean Hannity's dating service. Just think...
Men, are you tired of calling those numbers you find scrawled in truckstop bathrooms? Ladies, are those hours you've spent lookin' for love at the Greyhound station and the police impound lot just not working? Then try Hannidate to find that mouthbreather of your dreams! And PLEASE remember to have your Hannity listener spayed or neutered!
Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls
from juancole.com:
Al-Zaman reports that 21 US troops have been killed in Iraq since Saturday, with 8 killed on Monday alone. As of Tuesday, 23,416 US troops have been wounded or killed in the Iraq War.
Al-Zaman reports that 21 US troops have been killed in Iraq since Saturday, with 8 killed on Monday alone. As of Tuesday, 23,416 US troops have been wounded or killed in the Iraq War.
You are not allowed to disagree with der Fuhrer!
From the Rocky Mountain News:
Steven Howards saw a news story one morning this summer reporting the latest casualty totals from Iraq, and a few hours later had the rare opportunity to voice his feelings to a man he considers directly responsible.
Doing so, Howards said, sent him to jail for allegedly harassing the vice president of the United States. And now he is responding with a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service agent who put him in handcuffs.
The suit filed Tuesday alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest also violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful arrest.
...
"Many of us fantasize what would we do if we had the opportunity to really tell Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney how we feel," said Howards, 54, of Golden.
"And to be honest, when I passed him, my initial thought was to keep walking. And then I said, I couldn't with a clear conscience let this opportunity pass."
So Howards approached the vice president and told him, " 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.' And I moved on. I didn't want to give anybody any excuses to come after me."
But a few minutes later, according to Howards, he was walking back across the mall with his younger son, Jonah, then 8, when he was approached by an agent identified in the lawsuit as Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr.
...
Howards denied touching Cheney, repeated for the agent what he had said to the vice president, and promptly found himself being handcuffed and taken to the Eagle County Jail, where he said he remained cuffed for three hours prior to being bailed out by his wife.
Steven Howards saw a news story one morning this summer reporting the latest casualty totals from Iraq, and a few hours later had the rare opportunity to voice his feelings to a man he considers directly responsible.
Doing so, Howards said, sent him to jail for allegedly harassing the vice president of the United States. And now he is responding with a federal lawsuit against the Secret Service agent who put him in handcuffs.
The suit filed Tuesday alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest also violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful arrest.
...
"Many of us fantasize what would we do if we had the opportunity to really tell Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney how we feel," said Howards, 54, of Golden.
"And to be honest, when I passed him, my initial thought was to keep walking. And then I said, I couldn't with a clear conscience let this opportunity pass."
So Howards approached the vice president and told him, " 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.' And I moved on. I didn't want to give anybody any excuses to come after me."
But a few minutes later, according to Howards, he was walking back across the mall with his younger son, Jonah, then 8, when he was approached by an agent identified in the lawsuit as Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr.
...
Howards denied touching Cheney, repeated for the agent what he had said to the vice president, and promptly found himself being handcuffed and taken to the Eagle County Jail, where he said he remained cuffed for three hours prior to being bailed out by his wife.
Another Jabberwocky Moment
She puzzled over this for some time, but at last a bright thought struck her. Why, it's a Looking-glass book, of course! And if I hold it up to a glass, the words will all go the right way again.
Wow, that must be some strong looking glass to turn this one around:
Hastert Image, Party's Moral Stance at Risk
As the Mark Foley scandal ignites D.C., the GOP base wants answers from the top
By Michael Tackett
Tribune senior correspondent
WASHINGTON -- Republicans consolidated power in the George W. Bush era by building a foundation based largely on the pillars of moral clarity and accountability.
OK, let me try to get my head around that one. Kenny Boy and the national energy policy, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, yellowcake, Halliburton and no-bid contracts, Katrina and war profiteering, stealing stuff from Target and so on and so on....
It seems very pretty,' she said when she had finished it, `but it's rather hard to understand!' (You see she didn't like to confess, ever to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) `Somehow t seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't exactly know what they are!
Wow, that must be some strong looking glass to turn this one around:
Hastert Image, Party's Moral Stance at Risk
As the Mark Foley scandal ignites D.C., the GOP base wants answers from the top
By Michael Tackett
Tribune senior correspondent
WASHINGTON -- Republicans consolidated power in the George W. Bush era by building a foundation based largely on the pillars of moral clarity and accountability.
OK, let me try to get my head around that one. Kenny Boy and the national energy policy, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, yellowcake, Halliburton and no-bid contracts, Katrina and war profiteering, stealing stuff from Target and so on and so on....
It seems very pretty,' she said when she had finished it, `but it's rather hard to understand!' (You see she didn't like to confess, ever to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) `Somehow t seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't exactly know what they are!
It's possible to miss the point so completely that the argument gets clarified
HOUSTON - Alton Verm filed a "Request for Reconsideration of Instructional Materials" Thursday with the district regarding "Fahrenheit 451," written by Ray Bradbury and published in 1953. He wants the district to remove the book from the curriculum.
"It's just all kinds of filth," said Alton Verm, adding that he had not read "Fahrenheit 451."
He looked through the book and found the following things wrong with the book: discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions beliefs. The Verms go to Grand Parkway Church in Porter.
Alton Verm is the father of a fifteen year old who was given the classic anti-censorship book to read in class.
Alton Verm's request to ban "Fahrenheit 451" came during the 25th annual Banned Books Week. He and Hines said the request to ban "Fahrenheit 451," a book about book burning, during Banned Books Weeks is a coincidence.
The book has been used for at least 19 years in the district, and parents are given the option of having a different book assigned to their children. That, of course, is not good enough for Mr. Verm, who wants the book removed from the curriculum entirely. And just to prove the point about how dangerous thinking is, Diana Verm, the 15-year old in question, had this to say:
"The book had a bunch of very bad language in it. It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. ... If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all."
They shouldn't have a book at all. Indeed.
"It's just all kinds of filth," said Alton Verm, adding that he had not read "Fahrenheit 451."
He looked through the book and found the following things wrong with the book: discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions beliefs. The Verms go to Grand Parkway Church in Porter.
Alton Verm is the father of a fifteen year old who was given the classic anti-censorship book to read in class.
Alton Verm's request to ban "Fahrenheit 451" came during the 25th annual Banned Books Week. He and Hines said the request to ban "Fahrenheit 451," a book about book burning, during Banned Books Weeks is a coincidence.
The book has been used for at least 19 years in the district, and parents are given the option of having a different book assigned to their children. That, of course, is not good enough for Mr. Verm, who wants the book removed from the curriculum entirely. And just to prove the point about how dangerous thinking is, Diana Verm, the 15-year old in question, had this to say:
"The book had a bunch of very bad language in it. It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. ... If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all."
They shouldn't have a book at all. Indeed.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A quick note to all voters in Illinois' 14th District
Dear Folks:
If any of you vote for the Republican nominee, you are voting for an enabler of sexual abuse. I would love to hear how you sleep at night.
Have a nice day.
If any of you vote for the Republican nominee, you are voting for an enabler of sexual abuse. I would love to hear how you sleep at night.
Have a nice day.
President Bush molests Straw Man, sets fire to own pants
STOCKTON, California (AP) -- President Bush, on a campaign swing in the West, is arguing the Democratic Party is weak-kneed on national security and shouldn't be trusted to hold the reins of Congress.
"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like -- it sounds like -- they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again," Bush said Monday at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nevada, for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign.
Bush delivered the administration's oft-repeated claims about the Democrats as it struggles with persistent questions about a recent intelligence report that suggests the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a new book, "State of Denial," by journalist Bob Woodward that contends Bush misled the country about the war.
Mr. Lying Fuckwad Murderer Terrorist Coke Fiend Drunkard Jackass President, with all respect due to you and your office, go jump in a woodchipper.
"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like -- it sounds like -- they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again," Bush said Monday at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nevada, for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign.
Bush delivered the administration's oft-repeated claims about the Democrats as it struggles with persistent questions about a recent intelligence report that suggests the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a new book, "State of Denial," by journalist Bob Woodward that contends Bush misled the country about the war.
Mr. Lying Fuckwad Murderer Terrorist Coke Fiend Drunkard Jackass President, with all respect due to you and your office, go jump in a woodchipper.
How about this one?
It's a little older:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
Is this one still good?
I found this one lying around, and wondered if it was worth keeping:
Nah, didn't think so.
The history of the present King...is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
Nah, didn't think so.
Where does this rank on the despicable scale?
Looks like the GOP is throwing ol' Denny Hastert under the bus. What a miserable miscreant. His story didn't even pass the smell test. So Rep. Foley was "overly friendly?" OK, maybe for one guy that isn't such a bad thing
but for any other guy that has to set off every "ick" alarm in town.
I know they've set the bar pretty low, with illegal wars and torture, but where does protecting a pedophile to maintain a congressional majority fit on the list of horrible things done by our government?
but for any other guy that has to set off every "ick" alarm in town.
I know they've set the bar pretty low, with illegal wars and torture, but where does protecting a pedophile to maintain a congressional majority fit on the list of horrible things done by our government?
Who would you believe?
The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave..... The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
George Washington
or the musings below from letter-writers who would receive the coveted "Go sit in the corner" treatment if I wasn't so angry:At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Abraham Lincoln
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, isn't a descendent of the stereotypical wild-eye dictator. The threat from Islamic radicals, what some call Islamofascists, isn't ordinary. And the threat posed from even a handful of such zealots is significantly greater than the threats posed from Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Mao Tse-tung.
Mark E. Kramer
SchaumburgIran is now governed by an Islamic dictatorship. If this dictatorship were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would almost certainly use them if its survival was threatened. I see no alternative to war.
Frank Brunner
Park Forest
All kidding aside
I've been having trouble wrapping my mind around the catastrophe that is our current Congress, and specifically the Torture Bill which passed last week (what's taking the Murderer in Chief so long to sign it, anyway? Waiting for a new shipment of blood beaten out of people at Gitmo?).
Thankfully, I don't have to come up with the words. Thomas Jefferson already did:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thankfully, I don't have to come up with the words. Thomas Jefferson already did:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
A robust, energetic hobbit just out of his tweens
Man, if I'm this cranky, and I'm just turning 33, what the hell am I going to sound like at 60?
I suppose if Drinky McTreason gets his way, I'll sound something like "Ow! Quit it! Stop torturing me! Man, I wish they'd never passed the law that said that the blackshirts could enter my home without warrant and torture me whenever they wanted. Ow!"
I suppose if Drinky McTreason gets his way, I'll sound something like "Ow! Quit it! Stop torturing me! Man, I wish they'd never passed the law that said that the blackshirts could enter my home without warrant and torture me whenever they wanted. Ow!"
We'll be here all week. Try the chicken!
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "inserting the Foley".
The liberal media strikes again
From CNN.com, in an article about Dennis "I would never ever do anything to hurt or endanger...my job" Hastert and the Washington Times' call for him to resign as Speaker of the House:
The Times editorial could be a signal that conservative Republicans are growing tired of the moderate Hastert.
At one time, sure. But since he's become speaker, ol' Rubber Stamp Denny can't be called moderate by anyone with a functioning brain. Of course, this is CNN we're talking about.
The Times editorial could be a signal that conservative Republicans are growing tired of the moderate Hastert.
At one time, sure. But since he's become speaker, ol' Rubber Stamp Denny can't be called moderate by anyone with a functioning brain. Of course, this is CNN we're talking about.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Bill Frist reaches out to the Taliban
I could have sworn that we went into Afghanistan for two reasons:
1) To get Osama bin Laden. We know how well that's gone so far.
2) To remove the Taliban from power.
[Frist] said the only way to win in places like the volatile southern part of the country is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."
"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me ... that the Taliban is everywhere."
1) To get Osama bin Laden. We know how well that's gone so far.
2) To remove the Taliban from power.
[Frist] said the only way to win in places like the volatile southern part of the country is to "assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government."
"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer," Frist said. "Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me ... that the Taliban is everywhere."
ABC News digs up even more from Foley
Warning - this is really repulsive. Mark Foley was one very sick person. If you read this, you may need to wash your eyes out with rubbing alcohol.
We also know that as far back as 2001, people were warning pages in Congress to stay away from Foley. This is from after that. Denny, you done screwed up, big time.
We also know that as far back as 2001, people were warning pages in Congress to stay away from Foley. This is from after that. Denny, you done screwed up, big time.
Mark Foley on Bill Clinton
"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
drmagoo on the electoral prowl
As of today, we're at 36 days left until Election Day 2006 (call or write your representatives and let them know that Election Day should be a national holiday, and that there should be multiple verification techniques for ballots, if they care at all about honest election results). Yours truly is attempting to participate in the process, in my own small ways:
1) My university is hosting the Illinois Gubernatorial debate tonight. The moderately corrupt Democrat will be debating the Republican who was politically in bed with George Ryan, perhaps the most offensive politician to hold court in Illinois in a very long time. J-Barr also had the "honor" of overseeing the truly entertaining debacle that was the Republican campaign for the Senate in 2004.
2) For the first time in my life, I went looking for yard signs for local Democratic candidates. Of course, the county campaign office is open about 6 hours a week, and only 2 after 5 pm, so that will have to wait until tomorrow.
3) On 11/7, I'll be taking the day off work to serve as an election judge. The rep from the county clerk's office said that they're getting a lot of Democrats this year. I told her that "we just want to make sure everything goes correctly."
1) My university is hosting the Illinois Gubernatorial debate tonight. The moderately corrupt Democrat will be debating the Republican who was politically in bed with George Ryan, perhaps the most offensive politician to hold court in Illinois in a very long time. J-Barr also had the "honor" of overseeing the truly entertaining debacle that was the Republican campaign for the Senate in 2004.
2) For the first time in my life, I went looking for yard signs for local Democratic candidates. Of course, the county campaign office is open about 6 hours a week, and only 2 after 5 pm, so that will have to wait until tomorrow.
3) On 11/7, I'll be taking the day off work to serve as an election judge. The rep from the county clerk's office said that they're getting a lot of Democrats this year. I told her that "we just want to make sure everything goes correctly."
Why did they pull it down?
Sorry for the small pic, but they've pulled the page--Mark Foley, Protecting Our Children!
"Fake" emails, eh?
From ABC.
Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun
Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see
Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun
Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see
Spin Cycle
If you dare go to Little Green Footballs and similar dreck sites (find them yourself, unfortunately, I won't promote them) you will see the new Foley spin--ALTERED EMAILS!! Seriously.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
A further note to visitors
Please don't come in here and accuse us of attacking Republicans for things we'd let Democrats slide on, at least unless you can create some evidence (out of whole cloth, I believe). If Barack Obama was in Foley's shoes, I'd be calling for Durbin and Reid's heads on a platter, the same as Hastert and Boehner. If we have to incarcerate 2000 Congresspeople and Senators to get rid of the creeps, then that's what we'd do. I'd rather have 535 honest and rational Republicans (assuming there was such creatures existed) than 535 perverted, creepy, corrupt Democrats.
That the GOP has the monopoly on corruption right now just makes the accusations pretty one-sided.
That the GOP has the monopoly on corruption right now just makes the accusations pretty one-sided.
A note to "Anonymous" below
"Anonymous" commented below on Rep. Happypants:
First of all, in terms of "content." Sure we have an ideological bent. EVERYONE has an ideology, that complete body of all your life experiences, and your ideology influences how you deal with so many aspects of your life. Anyone who claims to be "impartial" or "objective" in so many areas is either naive or lying. If we have made factual errors, please point them out by comment or email.
Beyond that--there is no ideological lockstep on this blog. We publish your stuff, right? Any cogent thought goes up here, we have NEVER edited any comment for content. Unless it's downright spam, personal, racial, etc. --it goes up. And in terms of individuals? I teach Sunday School, we have atheists and agnostics, we have moderates, liberals, some libertarian influence, we're all across the board here in terms of ideology and occupation. We don't agree on things a lot of the time, and that's what makes it fun.
You write:
Doc Magoo wrote:
One could certainly come to the conclusion that you're implying that only Republicans lie. It's not much of a stretch based on the content of this blog.Well, Anon, I would certainly like to see some evidence that 1) Doc Magoo or anyone here made such an implication and 2) how that was based on the "content" of this blog.
First of all, in terms of "content." Sure we have an ideological bent. EVERYONE has an ideology, that complete body of all your life experiences, and your ideology influences how you deal with so many aspects of your life. Anyone who claims to be "impartial" or "objective" in so many areas is either naive or lying. If we have made factual errors, please point them out by comment or email.
Beyond that--there is no ideological lockstep on this blog. We publish your stuff, right? Any cogent thought goes up here, we have NEVER edited any comment for content. Unless it's downright spam, personal, racial, etc. --it goes up. And in terms of individuals? I teach Sunday School, we have atheists and agnostics, we have moderates, liberals, some libertarian influence, we're all across the board here in terms of ideology and occupation. We don't agree on things a lot of the time, and that's what makes it fun.
You write:
WHO is willing to do anything to retain and increase their power? Come on. You are accusing them of something that you yourself and the Democrats are incredibly guilty of. That's ridiculous for you to even suggest otherwise.The press reports suggested that the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE knew that a GOP member was engaging in improper sexual conduct with a youth. That speaker DID NOTHING before the election to deal with something INCREDIBLY disgusting. I don't know about you, Anonymous, but I would put not put party above principle on SEXUALLY SOLICITING CHILDREN??? Please post where "we" are guilty of such a thing? I don't care about control of Congress, this is a man IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with children.
Doc Magoo wrote:
That should be condemned by everyone, regardless of how it affects the election. If you don't, then you truly deserve to be with these bastards. and you respondedSo, it's black and white, huh? You're either with us or against us. Now, isn't that the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Neat political trick, that.Yeah, I think you are either against pedophilia or not, sorry.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
What if the Christians are right?
Let's suppose that the Christians are right, and I'm going to spend eternity in hell because I don't follow their rules. I would imagine that my primary reaction, upon learning that, would be something along the lines of "Huh. I guess they were right after all." But while I'm spending the rest of time at Abu Ghraib, I mean being tortured by Beelzebub and his minions, through the pain I'll at least be able to look over at the Liar in Chief, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and all the rest of those falsely pious bastards and see the gobsmacked looks on their faces as Jesus himself shoves a red-hot poker in one side and out the other and explains the special treatment they will get for being such utter fucking hypocrites.
There are worse fates.
There are worse fates.
I'm sure it's worthless, but a letter to Tim Johnson, R-IL
Congressman Johnson,
We write you tonight regarding the seemingly expanding scandal surrounding your former colleague, Mark Foley. There are extraordinarily disturbing reports that the GOP House leadership, including the Speaker of the House and fellow Illinois representative, Dennis Hastert, knew that Foley had engaged in inappropriate behavior. If Congressman Hastert, Congressman Boehner, or anyone else knew that there were allegations, and chose not to investigate the situation further, they are guilty of putting the welfare of minors at risk. We hope that you and your fellow representatives will put party aside and recognize that no seat in Congress is so sacred that it should be used to protect those who prey upon children.
Anyone who participated in any coverups, decisions to protect Mr. Foley, or who willfully chose not to investigate in this situation does not deserve to be in our government. You owe the country better than that.
We don't expect better, but you owe it to all of us nonetheless.
We write you tonight regarding the seemingly expanding scandal surrounding your former colleague, Mark Foley. There are extraordinarily disturbing reports that the GOP House leadership, including the Speaker of the House and fellow Illinois representative, Dennis Hastert, knew that Foley had engaged in inappropriate behavior. If Congressman Hastert, Congressman Boehner, or anyone else knew that there were allegations, and chose not to investigate the situation further, they are guilty of putting the welfare of minors at risk. We hope that you and your fellow representatives will put party aside and recognize that no seat in Congress is so sacred that it should be used to protect those who prey upon children.
Anyone who participated in any coverups, decisions to protect Mr. Foley, or who willfully chose not to investigate in this situation does not deserve to be in our government. You owe the country better than that.
We don't expect better, but you owe it to all of us nonetheless.
Thinking or Sitting Exclusive
BREAKING NEWS
Here at The Thinker, we've just learned that Speaker of the House, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R- IL) did, in fact, seek counsel on how to deal with now former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), when Hastert received word months ago that Foley was engaged in inappropriate relationships with minors. He sought advice from the source he knew had the most experience in dealing with these sorts of issues.
Here at The Thinker, we've just learned that Speaker of the House, Rep. Dennis Hastert (R- IL) did, in fact, seek counsel on how to deal with now former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), when Hastert received word months ago that Foley was engaged in inappropriate relationships with minors. He sought advice from the source he knew had the most experience in dealing with these sorts of issues.
You've got to give the Republicans credit
When they have an ethical scandal, they don't screw around with any halfway measures.
Everyone knows about Republican Congressman Mark Foley's resignation by now. He was chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children. He also had IM coversations like the following:
Maf54 (Mark Foley): You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Another message:
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
And this one:
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.
No wonder he resigned as soon as it was known.
Wait, check that. No wonder he resigned as soon as it was made public. From the Washington Post:
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged online exchanges between Foley and the boy.
That's BS, Mr. Speaker, and you know it. Anyone with any sense of dignity immediately calls for an ethics investigation and/or the resignation of a Congressman who is having any kind of a sexual relationship (even if it's only online) with a minor. You have to investigate these things - corruption doesn't only come in the form of the money they use to lure your soul to hell, you know.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took the House floor last night to demand an investigation into the Foley matter. But Boehner headed her off, calling on the House to refer the matter to the ethics committee, which the House promptly voted unanimously to do.
Of course Boehner did, but the real question is not what the ethics committee will do, but how much they will cover up. They're Republicans, after all. Telling the truth would be unconscionable.
h/t Daily Kos and TPM
Everyone knows about Republican Congressman Mark Foley's resignation by now. He was chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children. He also had IM coversations like the following:
Maf54 (Mark Foley): You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
Another message:
Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
And this one:
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.
No wonder he resigned as soon as it was known.
Wait, check that. No wonder he resigned as soon as it was made public. From the Washington Post:
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate "contact" between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
It was not immediately clear what actions Hastert took. His spokesman had said earlier that the speaker did not know of the sexually charged online exchanges between Foley and the boy.
That's BS, Mr. Speaker, and you know it. Anyone with any sense of dignity immediately calls for an ethics investigation and/or the resignation of a Congressman who is having any kind of a sexual relationship (even if it's only online) with a minor. You have to investigate these things - corruption doesn't only come in the form of the money they use to lure your soul to hell, you know.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took the House floor last night to demand an investigation into the Foley matter. But Boehner headed her off, calling on the House to refer the matter to the ethics committee, which the House promptly voted unanimously to do.
Of course Boehner did, but the real question is not what the ethics committee will do, but how much they will cover up. They're Republicans, after all. Telling the truth would be unconscionable.
h/t Daily Kos and TPM
Friday, September 29, 2006
Soon to come - "No, I swear, some of my best friends are brown!"
Let's come back to the House, Senate, and President deciding we can torture (as Barack Obama said, hopefully the courts will overturn this one, and we'll be back to the beginning). We can talk later about Macaca DeerHead. Today we'll hear from Senator Trent Lott's hair (not, as far as I can tell, from his porch).
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.
"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."
Here we pause, because this is stupid. This is "go jump in a woodchipper" stupid. The real people in the real world don't talk about Iraq? You'd think they'd have learned from Bush's "I honestly don't think about him much" moment with Osama bin Laden. But no. Message to all you "in the real world". While you might think that Iraq is a big deal, it's just not. Really. Not a big deal at all - our elected officials barely talk about it. Stop obsessing about the war. You know what, if you think about the lower gas prices, you'll never notice the dead bodies (2708 Americans, and roughly 45000 Iraqis, as of this morning), and you'll feel all warm and fuzzy and Republican.
Continuing:
Lott went on to say he has difficulty understanding the motivations behind the violence in Iraq.
"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israeli's and despise their right to exist?
Why, indeed, Trent. Why did the Christians carry out the Crusades? Why do we fight over having the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why does George Allen hide his Jewish heritage? All good questions, really.
But as ignorant as that is, and as much as we should be talking about how our "leaders" are willing to ignore the dominant issue of our time, or how stupid Trent Lott is for not understanding that religion has been the cause of many, many wars throughout history, what made my wife wonder why I was cursing so loudly was his summation:
Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
Pause.
Pause.
Pause.
How do they tell the difference?
They all look the same to me?
Trent, you complete frickin' racist idiot, here's a little question - do the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland look a whole lot different? Would it be better if they did - then could you understand why they killed each other?
Reading this actually caused me pain. Although, thankfully, it's now okay for our government to torture people.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.
"No, none of that," Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. "You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part."
Here we pause, because this is stupid. This is "go jump in a woodchipper" stupid. The real people in the real world don't talk about Iraq? You'd think they'd have learned from Bush's "I honestly don't think about him much" moment with Osama bin Laden. But no. Message to all you "in the real world". While you might think that Iraq is a big deal, it's just not. Really. Not a big deal at all - our elected officials barely talk about it. Stop obsessing about the war. You know what, if you think about the lower gas prices, you'll never notice the dead bodies (2708 Americans, and roughly 45000 Iraqis, as of this morning), and you'll feel all warm and fuzzy and Republican.
Continuing:
Lott went on to say he has difficulty understanding the motivations behind the violence in Iraq.
"It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," he said. "Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israeli's and despise their right to exist?
Why, indeed, Trent. Why did the Christians carry out the Crusades? Why do we fight over having the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why does George Allen hide his Jewish heritage? All good questions, really.
But as ignorant as that is, and as much as we should be talking about how our "leaders" are willing to ignore the dominant issue of our time, or how stupid Trent Lott is for not understanding that religion has been the cause of many, many wars throughout history, what made my wife wonder why I was cursing so loudly was his summation:
Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."
Pause.
Pause.
Pause.
How do they tell the difference?
They all look the same to me?
Trent, you complete frickin' racist idiot, here's a little question - do the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland look a whole lot different? Would it be better if they did - then could you understand why they killed each other?
Reading this actually caused me pain. Although, thankfully, it's now okay for our government to torture people.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
A billion here, a billion there.....
Cost of Iraq war nearly $2 billion a week
By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe Staff
Read the pathetic story at the link above, but just think--TWO BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK.
By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe Staff
Read the pathetic story at the link above, but just think--TWO BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK.
And now for the comic relief
Man with 10-year erection may lose award
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A former handyman from North Providence who won more than $400,000 in a lawsuit over a malfunctioning penile implant may not get the money after a judge dismissed his claim. Superior Court Judge Edward C. Clifton on Sept. 18 granted a request by the implant manufacturer's insurer to dismiss Charles "Chick" Lennon's claim, which his lawyers say will amount to $1 million with interest. The implant has caused Lennon to have an erection for 10 years.
Walk proud Chick--walk proud.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A former handyman from North Providence who won more than $400,000 in a lawsuit over a malfunctioning penile implant may not get the money after a judge dismissed his claim. Superior Court Judge Edward C. Clifton on Sept. 18 granted a request by the implant manufacturer's insurer to dismiss Charles "Chick" Lennon's claim, which his lawyers say will amount to $1 million with interest. The implant has caused Lennon to have an erection for 10 years.
Walk proud Chick--walk proud.
The Dumbass Hall of Fame
A unanimous first-ballot choice here:
Nah, I'll just say
As a longtime subscriber to the Chicago Tribune, I have been disappointed with this page and the many unwarranted attacks on President Bush, his party and conservatives in general. I thought of canceling my subscription even though I enjoy other aspects of the paper.Ah, so much dumbass, so little time. Shall we point out the Tribune's long-standing and well-deserved reputation as the best friend GOP money can buy? Should I ask how conservatives are possibly "protecting" us?
I changed my mind when I realized conservatives must be aware of the warped ideas of the many confused people in our society. We need to vote for conservatives to protect us, our children and the confused.
Ben Kischner
Geneva
Nah, I'll just say
Jonah and the Wail
Jonah Goldberg is an editor at the National Review. I'm pretty sure that he gets to keep his job there because of his ability to butter up the boss/founder ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When confronted by the assertion that the Soviet Union and the United States were moral equivalents, William F. Buckley Jr. responded that if one man pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus and another man pushes the old lady of the way of a bus, we should not denounce them both as men who push old ladies around."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg goes on to throw Time Magazine's Andrew Sullivan under the bus as being soft on national security when he (Sullivan) dares to oppose our tactics in dealing with "high value" terrorists:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tactic (comparing Chimpy's administration to Stalinist Russia) hasn't worked, partly because many decent Americans understand that abuse intended to foil a murder plot is not the same as torturing political dissidents...(t)he sole aim (of waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) was to stop an ongoing murder conspiracy, which is what Al Quaeda is...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By linking our current "war on turr" to our moral superiority during the Cold War, Mr. Goldberg sees a useful entry into a defense of torture (nicely hidden in asking that our political leaders "discuss" the issue). Of course there are a couple of problems here:
First, we're not at "war" at all, and second, even when we tettered on the brink of nuclear devastation, we didn't publicly contemplate torture nor rendered for torture, our enemies - perceived or otherwise. Apparently, godless communists were higher on the food chain than today's "IslamoFascists."
In case you think I'm being unfair or alarmist, look at Goldberg's reasoning:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every society, murder is punished more harshly than non-lethal torture... even if I beat you for hours with a rubber hose, my punishment will be less than if I murder you, simply because it is worse to take a life than to cause pain... Yet according to the torture prohibitionists, there must be a complete ban on anything that even looks like torture, regardless of CONTEXT, even though we'd never dream of a blanket ban on killing."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be wrong here, but doesn't it seem to you that Goldberg is trying to justify torture as being morally superior to, oh -- MURDER???
You think maybe I have misunderstood him? Read on:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law recognizes a host of nuances when it comes to homicide... but there is no equivalent word for murder when it comes to torture. It's always evil. Yet that's not our universal reaction. In movies and on TV, good men force evil men to give up information via methods no nicer than what the CIA is allegedly employing. If torture is a categorical evil, shouldn't we boo Jack Bauer on Fox's "24"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look Jonah, using a fictional TV show is all well and good, but how about this: if these "good men" should be portrayed torturing INNOCENT people, are we allowed to boo then, or do we simply shrug our shoulders and say that the ends justify the means?
You seem to indicate as much when you go on to state "calling aggressive interrogation techniques 'torture' when they're not doesn't make such techniques any worse (than aggressive)."
And I'm really surprised that you didn't go back to "Dirty Harry" and use that fictional example... here let me refresh your memory. Harry Callahan is hot on the trail of a psychopathic twisted little fuck who calls himself "Scorpio." Well, he's been wreaking havoc upon the innocent citizenry of San Francisco, tweaking Harry's nose all the while. Scorpio's latest crime is the kidnapping of an innocent young girl. He sends a gruesome missive informing the police that he's buried the girl alive with only a short supply of oxygen. Harry - through dint of investigation (and a little luck) - tracks down the evil Scorpio, wings him with a shot from his
.45 and proceeds to grind his shoe into Scorpio's wounded shoulder until he presumedly (offscreen) gives up the location of the kidnapped girl. In the next scene, a body bag is shown being carried off (presumedly holding the kidnapped girl's body).
Now here's where it gets interesting. Our next scene finds Harry in a D.A.'s office, where he's told that nearly everything he did was unconstitutional. Scorpio gets to walk. Harry can't question a suspect without "Mirandizing" that suspect. He can't grind his shoe heel into a wound in order to extract vital information - that's torture -- EVEN if his action is done with the intent of saving a life.
Perhaps Harry should have waterboarded him...
How about this for beginning the discussion Jonah. Let's allow the CIA to test these aggressive techniques on you. Then you can tell us that doing so isn't really a problem - even if the person being pummeled is completely innocent. After all, as you state in your article, "Would you rather take some lumps in a dungeon for a month or take a dirt nap forever?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When confronted by the assertion that the Soviet Union and the United States were moral equivalents, William F. Buckley Jr. responded that if one man pushes an old lady in front of an oncoming bus and another man pushes the old lady of the way of a bus, we should not denounce them both as men who push old ladies around."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg goes on to throw Time Magazine's Andrew Sullivan under the bus as being soft on national security when he (Sullivan) dares to oppose our tactics in dealing with "high value" terrorists:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tactic (comparing Chimpy's administration to Stalinist Russia) hasn't worked, partly because many decent Americans understand that abuse intended to foil a murder plot is not the same as torturing political dissidents...(t)he sole aim (of waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) was to stop an ongoing murder conspiracy, which is what Al Quaeda is...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By linking our current "war on turr" to our moral superiority during the Cold War, Mr. Goldberg sees a useful entry into a defense of torture (nicely hidden in asking that our political leaders "discuss" the issue). Of course there are a couple of problems here:
First, we're not at "war" at all, and second, even when we tettered on the brink of nuclear devastation, we didn't publicly contemplate torture nor rendered for torture, our enemies - perceived or otherwise. Apparently, godless communists were higher on the food chain than today's "IslamoFascists."
In case you think I'm being unfair or alarmist, look at Goldberg's reasoning:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In every society, murder is punished more harshly than non-lethal torture... even if I beat you for hours with a rubber hose, my punishment will be less than if I murder you, simply because it is worse to take a life than to cause pain... Yet according to the torture prohibitionists, there must be a complete ban on anything that even looks like torture, regardless of CONTEXT, even though we'd never dream of a blanket ban on killing."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be wrong here, but doesn't it seem to you that Goldberg is trying to justify torture as being morally superior to, oh -- MURDER???
You think maybe I have misunderstood him? Read on:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law recognizes a host of nuances when it comes to homicide... but there is no equivalent word for murder when it comes to torture. It's always evil. Yet that's not our universal reaction. In movies and on TV, good men force evil men to give up information via methods no nicer than what the CIA is allegedly employing. If torture is a categorical evil, shouldn't we boo Jack Bauer on Fox's "24"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look Jonah, using a fictional TV show is all well and good, but how about this: if these "good men" should be portrayed torturing INNOCENT people, are we allowed to boo then, or do we simply shrug our shoulders and say that the ends justify the means?
You seem to indicate as much when you go on to state "calling aggressive interrogation techniques 'torture' when they're not doesn't make such techniques any worse (than aggressive)."
And I'm really surprised that you didn't go back to "Dirty Harry" and use that fictional example... here let me refresh your memory. Harry Callahan is hot on the trail of a psychopathic twisted little fuck who calls himself "Scorpio." Well, he's been wreaking havoc upon the innocent citizenry of San Francisco, tweaking Harry's nose all the while. Scorpio's latest crime is the kidnapping of an innocent young girl. He sends a gruesome missive informing the police that he's buried the girl alive with only a short supply of oxygen. Harry - through dint of investigation (and a little luck) - tracks down the evil Scorpio, wings him with a shot from his
.45 and proceeds to grind his shoe into Scorpio's wounded shoulder until he presumedly (offscreen) gives up the location of the kidnapped girl. In the next scene, a body bag is shown being carried off (presumedly holding the kidnapped girl's body).
Now here's where it gets interesting. Our next scene finds Harry in a D.A.'s office, where he's told that nearly everything he did was unconstitutional. Scorpio gets to walk. Harry can't question a suspect without "Mirandizing" that suspect. He can't grind his shoe heel into a wound in order to extract vital information - that's torture -- EVEN if his action is done with the intent of saving a life.
Perhaps Harry should have waterboarded him...
How about this for beginning the discussion Jonah. Let's allow the CIA to test these aggressive techniques on you. Then you can tell us that doing so isn't really a problem - even if the person being pummeled is completely innocent. After all, as you state in your article, "Would you rather take some lumps in a dungeon for a month or take a dirt nap forever?"
Sent to DC
Dear Senators Durbin and Obama,
We read with dismay that the House has passed the interrogation bill yesterday, which gives the President far too much latitude in what acceptable interrogation methods are. It also seems that the Senate, and specifically the Democrats in the Senate, are not doing everything they can to protect the human rights of people in our custody. Not only will this endanger our troops when captured, but its a violation of everything this country stands for. We will hold you and your fellow Democrats accountable if at the end of the process, we find out you could have done something to prevent even one person from being tortured and did not. We expect this kind of behavior from Republicans, but you are supposed to be doing better.
We read with dismay that the House has passed the interrogation bill yesterday, which gives the President far too much latitude in what acceptable interrogation methods are. It also seems that the Senate, and specifically the Democrats in the Senate, are not doing everything they can to protect the human rights of people in our custody. Not only will this endanger our troops when captured, but its a violation of everything this country stands for. We will hold you and your fellow Democrats accountable if at the end of the process, we find out you could have done something to prevent even one person from being tortured and did not. We expect this kind of behavior from Republicans, but you are supposed to be doing better.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Damn, I'm tired of this
I am about to point out some presidential idiocy--surprise, surprise. What bothers me about this, beyond its mere repetitiveness, is the simple fact that this is MY country and MY president goes before the world and preaches a bizarre blend of nonsense and lies. I am damn tired of this embarrassing man embarrassing me.
Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.Mr. President, need I remind you that you did not go on the "offense" against "people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm." You "offensively" invaded a country for a variety of misguided vainglorious and ideological reasons. That country had NO desire to "do us harm" because its leader, no matter how reprehensible, knew that he was on the administration's radar screen and did not seek self-destruction.
The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan.May I again mention that you are not fighting "terrorists" in Iraq, that you are facing an indigenous opposition to your illegal invasion? That your "young democracies" in both Iraq and Afghanistan are jokes? In Iraq the militias control much of the area outside the Kurdish areas--an area where the Iraqi flag may not even be flown.
We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.
Oh my God. Has anyone EVER suggested that Iraq CAUSED terrorism? For starters, let's lump every criminal, political activist, resistance fighter and bipolar psychopath under the rubric of "terrorist." Then let's ignore the incredibly disparate causes for the cited attacks in the past and trivialize the impact of the hostilities you have generated. In effect, just because you're walking doesn't mean you aren't chewing gum.
Stop it Mr. President. You are embarrassing me, yourself--and your country.
Secretary Spellings and the attack on higher education
Following the rousing success that has been the No Child Left Behind era in American Education, the Bush Administration, through its lackey, err, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, has decided to take on higher education. Early signs are that this will be undertaken with the same forethought and success that every Bush initiative has had.
An advisory commission report sent this month to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings recommends a wide range of proposals related to the accessibility, affordability and accountability of higher education.
I agree that higher education has become prohibitively expensive in many places. When costs rise 5-10% per year, that far outpaces inflation and earnings, and many schools have priced themselves out of the running for many students. However, the cause of these increases is not often identified. It's not new buildings, or faculty salaries, or Porsches for the dean. It's health care, same as with other businesses. Health care costs rose nearly 8% again last year (and 80% since 2000), and that's directly connected with the rise of tuition and fees at colleges.
To say, on the other hand, that higher education is not accessible or accountable, is patently absurd. There are hundreds and hundreds of four-year colleges and universities in this country, and thousands of two-year community colleges. In nearly any town of any reasonable size is some sort of institution of higher learning. Distance learning is becoming more and more common (see, for example, the University of Illinois' Global Campus Initiative).
Dealing specifically with accountability, Spellings wants to:
• Provide matching grants to colleges, universities and states that collect and publicly report student learning outcomes.
• Convene a meeting with higher-education accrediting groups this year "to move toward measures that place more emphasis on learning." She says accreditation, the primary source of quality control in higher education, is focused "more on how many books are in a college library than whether students can actually understand them."
These are even more clueless than the comment about accessibility. Where I work, we are hip-deep in our every ten year reaccreditation process. We're part of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. You can read their handbook on accreditation here, but I can say unequivocally that accreditation is entirely about student learning. We are dedicating thousands of hours of work compiling hundreds of documents detailing what we expect students to learn in each course, what artifacts and data we collect to measure student learning, and what processes we have and are developing to use that data to improve our teaching and increase student learning. I could provide you with some of the number that I've written, if you're really interested. Spelling's comments are entirely non-sensical, and will do far more harm than good. I expect no less out of a Bush appointee.
A number of years ago, back when the Liar in Chief took office, I said something about how we would look back fondly on the time before Bush took office, "back when we had schools."
Sigh.
An advisory commission report sent this month to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings recommends a wide range of proposals related to the accessibility, affordability and accountability of higher education.
I agree that higher education has become prohibitively expensive in many places. When costs rise 5-10% per year, that far outpaces inflation and earnings, and many schools have priced themselves out of the running for many students. However, the cause of these increases is not often identified. It's not new buildings, or faculty salaries, or Porsches for the dean. It's health care, same as with other businesses. Health care costs rose nearly 8% again last year (and 80% since 2000), and that's directly connected with the rise of tuition and fees at colleges.
To say, on the other hand, that higher education is not accessible or accountable, is patently absurd. There are hundreds and hundreds of four-year colleges and universities in this country, and thousands of two-year community colleges. In nearly any town of any reasonable size is some sort of institution of higher learning. Distance learning is becoming more and more common (see, for example, the University of Illinois' Global Campus Initiative).
Dealing specifically with accountability, Spellings wants to:
• Provide matching grants to colleges, universities and states that collect and publicly report student learning outcomes.
• Convene a meeting with higher-education accrediting groups this year "to move toward measures that place more emphasis on learning." She says accreditation, the primary source of quality control in higher education, is focused "more on how many books are in a college library than whether students can actually understand them."
These are even more clueless than the comment about accessibility. Where I work, we are hip-deep in our every ten year reaccreditation process. We're part of the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. You can read their handbook on accreditation here, but I can say unequivocally that accreditation is entirely about student learning. We are dedicating thousands of hours of work compiling hundreds of documents detailing what we expect students to learn in each course, what artifacts and data we collect to measure student learning, and what processes we have and are developing to use that data to improve our teaching and increase student learning. I could provide you with some of the number that I've written, if you're really interested. Spelling's comments are entirely non-sensical, and will do far more harm than good. I expect no less out of a Bush appointee.
A number of years ago, back when the Liar in Chief took office, I said something about how we would look back fondly on the time before Bush took office, "back when we had schools."
Sigh.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
All units, we have a pants on fire...
Poor George Allen.
First he's a liar, then he "finds out" he's a Jew and then he's a liar again.
The lie? He NEVER said the "N" word--ever.
Besides the eyewitness testimony to the contrary, I would call basic common sense into question. I'm supposed to believe that a senator from Virginia with a fondness for Confederate flags and nooses NEVER was cut off in traffic by a black driver and let loose an epithet? That his friends are lying? Senator, thou does't protest WAY too much.
First he's a liar, then he "finds out" he's a Jew and then he's a liar again.
The lie? He NEVER said the "N" word--ever.
Besides the eyewitness testimony to the contrary, I would call basic common sense into question. I'm supposed to believe that a senator from Virginia with a fondness for Confederate flags and nooses NEVER was cut off in traffic by a black driver and let loose an epithet? That his friends are lying? Senator, thou does't protest WAY too much.
One Sunday, two presidents
I'm sure most of you have seen or heard the smackdown that William Jefferson Clinton gave to Foxboy Chris Wallace (I miss the Big Dog...)
And then, the current [p]resident gives us this on Blitzer-a-palooza:
BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil war…. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.
BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.
OK, the problem is--IT'S ON THE TV! And has someone mentioned to the [p]resident that this "enemy" is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion and the imposition of a puppet government? And now, I just ask you to re-read this one:
And then, the current [p]resident gives us this on Blitzer-a-palooza:
BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil war…. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.
BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.
OK, the problem is--IT'S ON THE TV! And has someone mentioned to the [p]resident that this "enemy" is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion and the imposition of a puppet government? And now, I just ask you to re-read this one:
Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracyand tell me what the hell that means.
Never could have seen this one coming....
Army Extends Troops' Iraq Duty Yet Again
(AP) The Army is stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it is again extending the combat tours of thousands of soldiers beyond the promised 12 months - the second such move since August. Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division had been expecting to return to their home base in Germany in mid-January. Instead, they will stay an extra 46 days in Iraq, until late February, the Pentagon announced Monday. The soldiers are operating in western Anbar province, one of the most violent parts of Iraq.
The Pentagon also announced that the 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division will deploy to Iraq 30 days earlier than scheduled, starting in late October. The announcement did not say why the speedup was deemed necessary, but three officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said it is part of a plan to beef up forces in Baghdad, where U.S. and Iraqi troops are struggling to contain insurgent and sectarian violence. The Pentagon said troop rotations could be changed even further "based upon changes in the security situation." Sectarian killings in Baghdad and continuing insurgent violence elsewhere in Iraq have foiled Pentagon plans to begin a troop reduction this fall.
"The Army is coming to the end of its rope in Iraq," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a private research group. "It simply does not have enough active-duty military personnel to sustain the current level of effort."
More here.
(AP) The Army is stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it is again extending the combat tours of thousands of soldiers beyond the promised 12 months - the second such move since August. Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division had been expecting to return to their home base in Germany in mid-January. Instead, they will stay an extra 46 days in Iraq, until late February, the Pentagon announced Monday. The soldiers are operating in western Anbar province, one of the most violent parts of Iraq.
The Pentagon also announced that the 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division will deploy to Iraq 30 days earlier than scheduled, starting in late October. The announcement did not say why the speedup was deemed necessary, but three officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said it is part of a plan to beef up forces in Baghdad, where U.S. and Iraqi troops are struggling to contain insurgent and sectarian violence. The Pentagon said troop rotations could be changed even further "based upon changes in the security situation." Sectarian killings in Baghdad and continuing insurgent violence elsewhere in Iraq have foiled Pentagon plans to begin a troop reduction this fall.
"The Army is coming to the end of its rope in Iraq," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a private research group. "It simply does not have enough active-duty military personnel to sustain the current level of effort."
More here.
Did you buy his hair growth formula too?
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Unhappy customers who sued Dr. Phil McGraw over his now discontinued Shape Up! diet plan have reached a $10.5 million settlement agreement with the TV psychologist, an attorney for the plaintiffs said. The lawsuit, filed in 2004 on behalf of three disappointed consumers, claimed McGraw defrauded fans with his yearlong venture into the diet supplement business, making false statements about the pills.
I am SHOCKED that a weight loss scheme marketed by the svelte Dr. Phil didn't work--shocked, I say!
I am SHOCKED that a weight loss scheme marketed by the svelte Dr. Phil didn't work--shocked, I say!
The Simian Boy King Talks Techie
By allowing Americans to Google their tax dollars, this new law will help taxpayers demand greater fiscal discipline.
He is so inspiring.
He is so inspiring.
Speaking Volumes
Anthony Zinni, Marine Corps General (retired)
Paul Eaton, Army Major General (retired)
Gregory Newbold, Marine Corps Lieutenant General (retired)
John Batiste, Army Major General (retired)
What do these four men have in common? They are NOT doves. All four served in "leadership" positions in the Iraq Debacle. In retirement, they have come to understand that their duty as CITIZENS trumps their training to follow the chain of command. All testified before congressional committees looking into the conduct of the Debacle.
They all believe that Donald Rumsfeld is both a danger and a major doofus.
Here is a link to highlights of Batiste's testimony.
Paul Eaton, Army Major General (retired)
Gregory Newbold, Marine Corps Lieutenant General (retired)
John Batiste, Army Major General (retired)
What do these four men have in common? They are NOT doves. All four served in "leadership" positions in the Iraq Debacle. In retirement, they have come to understand that their duty as CITIZENS trumps their training to follow the chain of command. All testified before congressional committees looking into the conduct of the Debacle.
They all believe that Donald Rumsfeld is both a danger and a major doofus.
Here is a link to highlights of Batiste's testimony.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Back in New Orleans
So I'm watching the pregame for tonight's Saints/Falcons game. If you pay any vague attention to sports, you know the significance of this game - the first game back in the Superdome since the catastrophe that was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
First of all, can we please all just agree that the NFL should make a contract with U2 and have them play at all big games? They were incredible in 2002, playing the Super Bowl after September 11, and along with Green Day and a brass band, kicked ass again tonight.
The media makes much of such events, and tonight is no execption. (Oh my. The elder Bush is flipping coins. I wonder where Barbara is.) They'll try to suck all the life out of the event with maudlin speeches and fancy-sounding words. Ignore them. Watch the players. Watch the fans. Look in Joe Horn's eyes, remember the words he said 13 months ago. Remember the devastation. The failures. The dead.
First of all, can we please all just agree that the NFL should make a contract with U2 and have them play at all big games? They were incredible in 2002, playing the Super Bowl after September 11, and along with Green Day and a brass band, kicked ass again tonight.
The media makes much of such events, and tonight is no execption. (Oh my. The elder Bush is flipping coins. I wonder where Barbara is.) They'll try to suck all the life out of the event with maudlin speeches and fancy-sounding words. Ignore them. Watch the players. Watch the fans. Look in Joe Horn's eyes, remember the words he said 13 months ago. Remember the devastation. The failures. The dead.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
From the "Duh, Ya Think?" file
Washington The war in Iraq has become the primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers are increasing faster than the United States and its allies are eliminating the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.
Wow am I surprised. I NEVER would have guessed that an unprovoked invasion and occupation coupled with torture would have inflamed any opposition. Silly me!
Wow am I surprised. I NEVER would have guessed that an unprovoked invasion and occupation coupled with torture would have inflamed any opposition. Silly me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!