I agree with Muscles, too much glory (reward) for cheating. My solution is simple, if you test false, or can be proven to have taken, banned substances all your accomplishments/records/awards are erased, period. After you serve you're suspension you start again as a rookie. So if you cheat, all you did before that moment is gone.
Take the glory away, raise the stakes.
From The Guardian:
"If you read between the lines, it's evident as well that Superman Returns was cunningly conceived as a belated threequel to the first two Christopher Reeve outings of nearly 30 years ago. "
Looks like Tour de France winner Floyd Landis failed his drug test. To be fair, there will be another test done on his "B" sample, but I can't remember a time where the "B" sample didn't confirm the "A." But here's hoping.
Real quick, I'm of the opinion that all cyclists dope, as do most athletes. Still loved the race this year, but his historic ride was tainted by my thoughts that the only way he could have done that is if he's on steroids. Now it looks like he was.
Better still is his mother's reaction.
Arlene Landis, his mother, said Thursday that she wouldn't blame her son if he was taking medication to treat the pain in his injured hip, but "if it's something worse than that, then he doesn't deserve to win. [italics mine]"
"I didn't talk to him since that hit the fan, but I'm keeping things even keel until I know what the facts are," she said in a phone interview from her home in Farmersville, Pa. "I know that this is a temptation to every rider but I'm not going to jump to conclusions ... It disappoints me. [italics mine]"
Now that's hard-core. You could show my mom actual video footage of me injecting steroids into my ass and she would deny it. She'd also launch into a long rant about conspiracies, how everyone does it, and a solid 15 minutes of indecipherable (except for the cuss words-those you could make out clearly) screaming. Those menonites are a hard crew.
Here's a copy of the Anti-Signing Statement Bill intorduced by Arlen Specter. No one's giving it a chance. Makes sense, when party politics rule there's no room for Constitutional divisions of power, just mucks up the works.
Also, here's McCain telegraphing how he'll vote. Personally I think McCain is done. His strategy of hitching his wagon to the Bush anchor will probably backfire. He's hemmoraging the Democratic and Independent voters he had in 2000 and, increasingly, this maverick is looking like a lackey. W said the anti-torture bill doesn't apply if he doesn't think it does. This was a bill written by a former torture victim who worked to insure a veto proof majority only to see it completely eviscerated at the end, yet he does nothing. I backed McCain in 2000 but I just don't see voting for him in 2008. The good news for him, I guess, is that it looks like Gore's the top contender for the Dems.
Sometimes I feel like crying.
More information about the White House's plans for alleged terrorists, "The bill would also bar “statements obtained by the use of torture” from being introduced as evidence, but evidence obtained during interrogations where coercion was used would be admissible unless a military judge found it 'unreliable.'"
CNN's version just had the first sentence but left the key clause about "coersion" out of the article.
Notice that the judge only rules if the information is "unreliable" not if the information was obtained through "torture" or "coersion." Also note that, according to the administration, waterboarding, a "coersive" technique that mimicks drowning-and can cause permanent injury or death, is not considered "torture."
"The senators have said they would support establishing a system based on the military's own court-martial practices and had been told the White House would support such a move. But senior officials from the Pentagon and Justice Department testified earlier this month that the Uniform Code of Military Justice would be too lenient on terror suspects and could expose classified information."
And here, note, "Rather than requiring a speedy trial for enemy combatants, the draft says they 'may be tried and punished at any time without limitations,'"
Unlimited detention without trial, how Amerikan.
Sort of.
The Senate passed a bill making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines so she can get an abortion. At least I think so, the article just references "girls"-great reporting.
While I think there's a minor -ha- point to be made here about the nature of laws in this country. If somethings not a crime in one state, how can it be a crime to travel to that state to do it? Using this logic, why isn't it a crime for a Texan to gamble in Nevada?
Anyway, what really sticks out about this bill is that once again, the girl is exempt from punishment. If a state feels that abortion is murder, and wants to reach out and punish a legal activity in another, then surely all involved must be punished. Punishing minors as adults for murder isn't a new concept, nor is reserved solely for murder, so why the carve-out? As it stands, the 16 year old boyfriend gets hit with fines and jail, but the girl doesn't. How's that make sense? Also, if states can hold bartenders liable for serving drinks to people who subsequently get a DUI, why not charge the parents? They raised the little harlot, why aren't they on the hook? Also, when W says "...and jeopardizes the lives of young women" is he referring to the likelihood of getting into a car accident? Because as near as I can tell, getting an abortion has a real low mortality rate.
I freely admit I'm adamantly pro-life, I'm just not stupid law pro-life.
I also love how the Senate refused to dole out more money for sex ed. If the goal is to reduce abortions (a great goal) then take the steps to do it. Don't hole up in a fantasy land where kids aren't having sex. If you want to save a life, take the steps to save a life. Don't make political pawns out of young girls , or more accurately their boyfriends, by punishing them without educating them.
"Punishment without Education!" That's my new catch-phrase for anti-sex ed/pro-life crowd.
Taking my advice that the legality of Signing Statements belongs in the courts, Arlen Spector is preparing to take W to court.
Maybe we should file a "friend of the court" document.
Tony Snow backed off his assertion that Bush vetoed the Stem Cell bill because he felt it was the Federal Government financing murder (to paraphrase). I guess they felt that "murder" was to radical a word.
Instead, Snow says, the President feels that its wrong for the Feds to finance something that results in the "destruction of human life."
I actually liked his first reason better. Mostly because I think it was the truth. Truthful radicalism is great, we need more of it. However, Snow's new wording is just goofy. Does anyone really not equate "destruction of human life" with murder? Did W really think to himself, "This will result in the destruction of human life, but it's not murder." Or is a sentence like "The Hutus just destroyed a bunch of human life in Rwanda" really any different than "The Hutus murdered 800,000 Tutsi's?" Furthermore, how can the guy who signed more death warrants than any other American in modern history have any qualms about using state money for the "destruction of human life?" And doesn't War destroy human life, often innocent human life at that?
I get that the scientific community reamed Bush for the veto and called him a simpleton, but let's be honest, they're not the first to call him that. I'm no Bush fan, but when he vetoed the stem cell bill, I thought he was at least being honest, I think he does think its murder, and that's fine. He should have stuck to his guns, kept the debate about when human life begins, societies responsibility to protect life and the applications to abortion going. Not only that, but his conservative base appreciated his wording, why backtrack?
All this, dare I say, Orwellian wordsmithing just hurts his credibility even more.
Sen. Inhofe's not a beliver in the Global Warming debate. What better way to debate the issue than to compare Greenies to Nazi's.
Pot's not a "gateway" drug, much like you can't get addicted to crack after just one use. Article also says is looks like smoking pot may not have the same link to cancer as cigarettes.
Lot's of wasted money and lot's of wasted lives in the wake of a largely innefectual anti-drug crusade.
Another respected conservative speaks out against Bush. This is on the heels of George Will's article blasting the administration.
Again, there's a real issue brewing between the traditional conservatives and the social conservatives.
The American Bar Association is after W for his use of signing statements. While I'm no legal scholar, I do agree with their point that it oversteps constitutional provision on three equal branches. The White House contends that W's siging statements clarify the constitutionality of congressional laws, a point clarified by Clinton during his days as the big P.
From a DOJ brief: "If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority"
So just so I'm clear with Stalin, I'm not saying W invented this, actually Monroe had the first, rather, like most things excess may ruin the fun for everyone.
What I don't understand about signing statements, at least the way I remember civics class, is Congress makes the laws, the Executive enforces them, and the Judicial decides their constitutional legality. So if the Executive is concerned about a Congressional law infringing on it's power, then the Executive should take the law in question to the Court. Thus if the President feels that the anti-torture law passed by Congress infringes on his Commander-in-Chief powers, then he should take it to court. Not say,
"The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power."
W can't decide the constitutionality of the law, he explicitly does not have the power, before he was "the decider," he was "the enforcer." He can't elevate himself above the courts, and doing so in reference to Congress places the Executive above both of those branches. Not how things work here, at least I hope not.
It's just a weird form of civil disobedience.
Colorado just passed a wave of immigration bill's all expected to be signed by the Guv. These merit attention as CO is concidered a preview of what state's may do nation-wide.
Most are harmless, "get money owed by feds," some that aren't exactly "look out for our fellow man" types with the potential to cause more harm than good, mandating that CO only provide those services that are federally mandated, one that officially complains to the feds for the immigration problem. All of these are boiler plate bills. I do like the ones that make it a crime to extort from illegals, or threaten documents that allow workers to be here. Nice touch, I hope these also serve as a model for other states.
There are a few that really rankle me. These are the the bill's that place the onus on business to prove that they don't have any illegals working for them, and to vet each employee for legal/illegal status. One, I'm no expert on any document. If someone hands me a forged doc, am I responsible? Do I have to hire extra people, or incur additional expense to insure legal status? Thanks for the new taxes guys. Especially because I already pay the tax that's supposed to enforce these laws. Why do I have to pay more because someone else isn't doing their job. What's next, mandatory employee drug testing at my expense? How about verifying that no employee commits a crime. Not only that, but I get peanalized if I hire someone who I think is legal. Why is it my business' duty to enforce the laws? Shouldn't I just be able to hire people and let the enforcement agencies do their job and tell me when someone's illegal? Actually, why must I presume guilt on all of my employees? Isn't "innocent until proven guilty" something of a cornerstone of our American society. As this law is written, if I hire Muscles for some rescue work, eventhough I've know him for decades, I have to verify his legal status.
I don't like this trend of pushing enforcement onto business. Government should do their job and leave me free to do mine. Hitting my profitability with a "back up the government's ineptitude" tax just adds insult to injury.
Journalism hit an all time high as far as college majors (at least in 2005). I guess some people are a glutton for punishment.
From Comic Book Resources, Re: Cartoon Network's Hellboy cartoon premiering in February:
"A traditional Hellboy scenario, to be sure, but, disappointingly, the finished results are far from a traditional Hellboy experience. The entire look of the film, from the characters to the background, diverges greatly from [creator Mike] Mignola's comic style. Hellboy and Abe Sapien closely resemble their comic origins; there is no mistaking who's who, but they've been redrawn to reflect the styles of more typical American animation. Liz Sherman, however, has been radically modified, seen in 'Sword of Storms' as a petite, Lara Croftian type who looks as though she could be a guest star in Cartoon Network's 'Teen Titans.'"
Sight unseen, I say "What's the problem?" Yeah, Mignola has a signature style, but the live-action movie did more than right by the material, it being one of the best--and by far the most underrated--comic book adaptations. And DC seemed to get a lot of narrative mileage since the Batman cartoon out of an animation style far removed from their characters' current comic book looks. Also, as the Hellboy cartoon's producer says of the choice to create new stories for the cartoons: " . . . the fans have the comics. Why give it to them again?"
That said, I'd love to see a live-action sequel, which according to the article won't be anytime soon.
From ESPN.com's Bill Simmons:
"You're not allowed to complain about four things in life: nudity, free food, free drinks and fantasy football. So why would I want to tinker with the latter, a multibillion-dollar business that brings us so much joy? Because we screwed this up from the beginning, that's why.
You know how pro sports were totally messed up in the '40s and '50s, back when the NBA had no shot clock, hockey goalies didn't have masks and football players went all 60 minutes? Back then, fans thought everything was fine, right? That's where fantasy is: great concept, semisuccessful execution, tons of potential. It's not Kathy Griffin's face; we don't have to renovate everything, we just need to make some adjustments. And I'm more than willing to be the Winston Wolfe of the whole thing."
The Christian themed market is now more than $4 billion strong. I think its great, seriously. If you think losing a golfball helps spread the gospel then more power to you. But I do have some questions around just what a "Christian" product is. Is it like organic, where certain standards have to be met? For example, is something Christian if it's produced in athiest China? Can you just slap a bible quote on something for it to be considered Christian? Can you run a Christian product company if you're on your third marriage? What's the proper way to dispose of a Christian product? I assume tossing it in the trash doesn't show the proper respect, so what should one do, or, I guess, What Would Jesus Do?
Personally, I'm not sure merchandising Jesus is the best idea, but at least this shows that Christians are freer in the marketing of their beliefs than the Muslims. Score one for free markets.
Aside from being the right thing to do, allowing gay marriage also helps the economy. In MA, where the gays can marry, they can also separate (as the founding couple just announced), and get divorced. Think of all the extra legal, accounting, therapy, and other bills having a whole new class of folks who can divorce will generate. We all know that marriage is bad for the economy, instead of owning two houses, with two refrigerators, two big sreen tv's, etc, married coupes share one house, one refirgerator, one big screen tv, etc. All this sharing shrinks consumption, which shrinks revenue, which shrinks profits, which shrinks salaries and even jobs, all bad for the economy. In fact the only good thing, economically, about marriage is the divorce, which brings a flurry of spending (got to buy and furnish that new bachelor pad), and all the fees that surround the process. Now that the gays can get divorced think of the boom (we all know that a gay man spends more on his house than a striaght one) that is surely coming. Since they've already been living together the damage of sharing is already priced into the system, now it's all upside! Hooray the gay's, and their future divorces! Bye, bye, turns into buy, buy, which means buy, buy stocks.
This is what I picture when I think about the GOP. It's like they're desperate to get something to stick going into November, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with any real issue facing the nation. They're the party in power, they're the ones who are supposed to be getting things done, they're the ones constantly reminding us that "We're at War," and they're spending their time one this American Values drivel. Now we get an attempt to bar Judges from ruling on the legality of "Under God" in the Pledge. This is because a line that was added to the pledge in 1952 is apparantly needed to "defend America's founding principles." I guess if 1952 was when the nation was founded, and a purely political move to demonstrate how we're not like communist athiest USSR means anything, sure. But I'm just curious, what about the founding principles of the "three branches of government" and "checks and balances?"
We're at a time when Afganistan is deteriorating, and attacks in Iraq are on a dramatic increase ("Last throes" anyone?), Iran is gone completey antagonistic and is going nuclear, nuclear N. Korea is launching missiles, Japan is making noises about bombing N. Korea and altering it's constitution to allow a military (China will love that), Israel is moving towards all-out war and this is what the House GOP is spending it's time on? Seriously?
Again, everyone complains about "legislating from the bench," but I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the real danger is "judiciating from the chamber."
Cato has an interactive webpage showing paramilitary style no-knock invasions of private houses laid out against a map of the US. I hope they at least stop to wipe their feet on the Fourth Amendment on the way in*. It's also interesting to note that, to the best of my knowledge, no one was penalized, charged, or reprimanded in any of the cases involving "wrong addresses" even when they resulted in the death of an innocent. If you want to dig deeper, Radley Balco has been following this closely on his site, www.theagitator.com.
*My attempt at inflamatory rhetoric. I have to work on it, but thought I'd get some quick practice in.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid declare Iraq a civil war. I expect more Dems and the like to try, over the next few weeks, to make the concept that Iraq had decended into civil war, or "Iraqi Civil War," stick with American's. I also expect the GOP and the like to bitterly contest this observation.
This will be key to the Dem's attempt to retke the House. If they can get American's to accept that Bush has bungled this so badly that civil war has broken out it will greatly damage his standing as a "War President" and/or Commander in Chief. These titles have greatly helped him in the past, and I believe that the Dems see tainting those titles as keys to winning in November.
From USAToday.com's Pop Candy:
"- RollingStone.com has posted video of Elvis Costello and Billie Joe Armstrong performing Alison on Decades Rock Live. The special, which also features Costello performing with Fiona Apple and Death Cab for Cutie, airs July 21 on VH1 Classic. (Here's a fan-filmed video of Costello and Armstrong playing Green Day's Good Riddance at the show.)"
Here's what happened in Congress yesterday.
The Gay Marriage Amendment failed today. Hopefully this Amendment is losing steam. But here's where I ashamed to admit that either I don't remember my civics classes like I used to, or my math skills are poorer than I thought. Article says this vote failed, 236-187, 47 votes shy of 2/3's needed. Last year it failed 227-186, or 39 votes shy. How's that work? The bad guys picked up 9 votes and are farther away. Oh, well maybe it's bad journalism.
Also, one of my issues was formally re-intorduced, getting rid of the penny. Almost no chance of it passing, but still, its fun to tilt at windmills.
And of course, a Stem-cell research bill sits on the President's desk awaiting veto.
Gay Marriage and Stem-cells are part of a new-fangled "Contract with America" called "American Values Agenda." I think what it shows is the nation needs more than two parties. An "American Values" party would do well, and would allow government conservatives (Republicans/Libertarians) and big-government social conservatives (AV's) to finally split up, giving constituents of each a real voice in Congress.
From The Palm Beach Post:
"WEST PALM BEACH -- While covering his head amid the barrage of flying fists and feet, his legs bound with a jump-rope by children half his size, a bruised and bloodied Craig Mack had a sudden realization, police say: He'd picked the wrong family to mess with.
Mack arrived at the Perez family home at 611 28th St. Monday night just as an exhausted Mateo Perez was getting home from a 12-hour day of landscaping and cleaning buildings. Mack probably figured he could swipe Perez's wallet and get away without much of a fight, police said.
But he didn't count on having to brawl with the rest of the Perez clan: Candelaria, the 4-foot-9 housewife with a wicked right hook she honed as a girl on the streets of Guatemala; daughter Imelta, the mellow 13-year-old who never dreamed she would take a chair to a robber's head and tie him up; and son Juan, the 10-year-old Miami Heat fanatic who traded his basketball for a stick to whip an attacker."
Big movie fun, but between my theater's busted first reel and a bathroom break, I'm still a bit behind on the plot: Jack is after the key to the Dead Man's Chest to escape the curse of the Flying Dutchman, and Will is after Jack's compass to barter his and Elizabeth's freedom from the East India Company, so why at the end doesn't Jack just jump up and down on Davy Jones' heart 'til it stops beating? Won't that end the curse? Is the "bargain" Jack talks about at the end to save Will's father, the undead Bootstrap Bill?
Just writing this is more fun than I've had at the movies in years.
From TPMCafe:
". . . a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower."
In the process of writing an "I agree" comment to Stalin's entry, I realized that I'm not sure I do. And since unlike Stalin, I'm not a follower, I decided to start a new thread.
Here's the hard part. I do agree with Israel on this one, sort of. I agree in the sense that every nation must protect it's citizens, period. Given today's tools, strategies, thoughts, and environment, they get to invade a state that sponsors terrorist action against them. The question is, is it the right move? For a parallel, I turn to US/Iraq/Afghanistan. If you take the view that we invaded Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attacks, then let's review. 9/11 saw about 3000 US casualties, Iraq (2,539 dead and 39,050 injured)/Afgahanistan (308/924) wars are more costly in that sense. Also, cost to date of the two wars is projected to hit $811 billion. Factor in the severe damage that the Iraq war is causing to US relationships, image, and negotiations, the question is, was it the best path? Furthermore, even if it was, it certainly is not repeatable, something N.Korea figured out early, and Iran and potentially Pakistan have also discovered. So what we do next time? Same for Israel.
Before, I move on, a quick aside. It's the unique nature of terrorism, and state sponsored terrorism, that make it such a difficult problem. Let's imagine Ihateamericaistan is a state sponsor of the stupidjackass terrorism group. The citizens of Ihateamericaistan really have nothing to do with greater US Ihateamericaistan relations, nor do they have any say over what the government does, and in fact, they may be neutral or even like the US. Yet in order to protect US interests, the US invades Ihateamericaistan. The citizens bear the brunt of that attack, and does this turn neutral/favorable Ihateamericaistani's into pro or anti US types, and are they more or less willing to help the terrorists they previously had nothing to do with? This is the dillemma facing Israel. In order to stop state sponsored terrorism, they have to kill/injure lots of civillians, giving the survivors a real reason to hate Israel and help the terrorists, and to continue to support their dictator in his quest to rid the region of Israel. Terrorists may actually do more damage in creating no-win situations for their targets than actual physical damage against them. In its best day, Al Qaeda could not have imagined the damage that their attack caused the US, not in bringing down the towers, but in everything that happened after. I've said in the past this is a conflict about ideals, not land. I'm starting to think that winning it will be mental not physical as well. How do we beat the position they put us in?
So what to do. I don't have a good answer, but I know a crummy situation when I see it, and Israel and the US are in crummy situations. What if the US spent $811 billion in finding a substitute to oil? Taking away the funds that support terrorists, and the political leverage that Iran has because it supplies a crucial part of our lives may help. Not only would it starve Iran of the funds to support terrorsts and keep its citizens at bay, but it would free the US to act without fear of losing the economic, strategic, and stability benifits that oil provides. Or is the answer in just air attacking sites in the state that sponosors terrorists, and not enganging in a ground war? Do you assasinate foreign leaders? I don't know. My point is that the debate aroudn Iraq isn't was it good v. was it bad, it's not two dimentional. Just as you can't view Israel in should it v. shouldn't it in regards to Lebanon. I get what they did, and mostly support it. However, what all free nations need is a repeatable tool for dealing with terrorists hiding in other nations.
It's not invasion, so what is it?
It's a storytelling problem if it has to be explained, but anyway, what if the Superman II kiss wiped away Lois' memory not only of Superman's secret identity, but the whole movie? It'd explain how she moved on so quickly.
White House says it will abide by Geneva Conventions, it just wants to rewrite parts of it. It's the equivialant of the singing statement on the anti-Torture law he signed. "Sure, the US will abide by the Geneval Convetions, Congress is just going to unilateraly re-write parts of it to suit our desires."
I'm willing to wait and see how this develops, but so far this stock is plummeting.
I found several things in this Slate piece about medical malpractice interesting.
The basic idea is that people, like our resident award capper Mr. Malone, are being sold a myth by politicians when it comes to curbing damages on malpractice suits. The idea that all these runaway jury awards are killing the medical industry and driving up health insurance is, depending on how hard you want to go, either wrong or a lie unless you consider one half of one percent debilitating. Nope, it turns out that there's real evidence of malpractice, imagine that. No conspiracy, just people doing wrong and getting punished. Could it be that the legal system works? The article also shows how the market can do far more to lower medical insurance than Congress. Anesthesiologists went from having the highest and most claims to actually decreasing claims and insurance when they decided to take action, something that I guarantee all the state award caps, and/or any future national law, won't accomplish.
What I find particularly interesting 'bout this whole "let's cap awards" movement is that combined with the new FCC fines for naughty words it highlights two issues. Hypocracy, which is nothing new, and the arbitrary nature of punishment in Amercian law. In the article is an example of the kind of language that proponents of the FCC fine increase use, "We hope that the hefty fines will cause the multibillion dollar broadcast networks finally to take the law seriously." Ok, it's a defensible position, but it's also the exact language that attorneys use when arguing for jury awards against multi-billion dollar company's who's faulty products cause damage to customers. However, the GOP, in pushing it's cap agenda routinely say's that's a bad argument, and a clear sign of runaway juries or lottery victories. So the GOP says high fines bad when people get the award, and good when the governement gets the award. "Got to teach them a lesson" for saying bad words, "Got to stop people from cashing in" when it comes to us getting damaged. In essence you have two laws with contradictory mandates, creating mirror image problems. Now big corporations have fines set too low to matter, and broadcast corporations give the Feds lottery victories. Hypocracy, we love you.
Also note that the Feds have now arbitrarily decided that saying a naughty word is worth millions in peanalties, while medical malpractice or knowingly putting out a harmful product that results in permanent injury or death is capped out at $300k. This is particulary interesting given that the FCC is a political, not legal, organization prone to political motives and not bound by such hassles as "evidence," "witnesses" or "laywers." Take the recent record $3.3 million fine levied against CBS for an episode of "Without a Trace" based solely on what the article calls "manufactured" evidence, and what I call "hoax." Talk about frivolous and my bet is that that claim wouldn't survive a legal challenge. Good thing a government tribunal metes out the fines. At least docs and corps get a trial by jury, and the citizen has to make a claim in court. Someone please show me how this makes sense.
Lebanon and Syria have continued to allow Hezbollah to operate against Israel from their territory. As a result, Israeli civilians have been killed and now Israeli soldiers have been taken prisoner. Lebanon claims that they should not be held accountable for Hezbollah actions and Europe appears to agree. The US was correct to consider any country knowingly providing a home for Al-Qaeda an enemy state at war with us. And so too is Israel correct to assume the same of Lebanon and Syria. The Europeans have accused Israel of a "disproportionate use of force". The reality is the opposite. Israel has been remarkably restrained as they have attempted to trade land for peace and been rewarded with violence time and time again. Let Europe turn their security over to China and Russia and see if that protects them from Iran.
Sen. David Vitter (R) Lousiana. I can't say I know much abut Vitter, but I like his thoughts on this one. He was speaking about his voting for a Senate measure that would ban Customs and Border agents from seizing perscription drugs puchased in Canada from US citizens.
I wasn't even aware that this bill was up, nor was I aware that the House passed a similiar measure. Now it's up to W.
From the article:
"From the outset, President Bush declared that the battle against al-Qaeda would be a war like no other, fought by new rules against new enemies not entitled to the old protections afforded to either prisoners of war or criminal defendants.
The White House acknowledgment on Tuesday that a key clause of the Geneva Conventions applies to al-Qaeda detainees, as a recent Supreme Court ruling affirmed, is only the latest step in the gradual erosion of the administration’s aggressive legal stance."
UBlo: buyin' or sellin'?
The House voted today on a bill that outlaws internet gambling. Well, sort of. It allows states to run lotteries on-line and allows people to bet on horseracing. Somehow lotteries and ponies are safe forms of "crack cocaine."
Anyway, not sure why Congress, again, is sticking it's nose in our business. Make it legal, bring that business on-shore, and collect taxes, create jobs, and provide a service that American's clearly want. In fact, one of the main beefs that people have with allowing gambling is that, supposedly, bad sorts hang out around casinos. Well, internet gambling takes care of that. All the revenue, none of the hassle.
People want to gamble, let them. People spend too much money gambling, that's their problem. Are the feds going to tell me when I've bought too much on Ebay? How about if I buy a new car I can't really afford? What's next, putting a cap on my credit card limit, or telling me I'm too extended on that second mortgage. How about doing something about all those no interest for six months credit cards I keep getting pre-approved for? Lot's of people lose their homes because they can't make the payments. It's sad, but it's also on them. Why is gambling any different (well except for lotteries and ponies-no one ever overextends on them. Nope, no compulsive gamblers ever get into trouble on those two, that must be why they get a special carve-out). This isn't the government protecting us, it's the Feds arbitrarily deciding which businesses get to survive, and which go under. Which entreprenuers get to make money, and which have to lose. Who gets a job, and who loses one. Talk about slapping away the invisible hand.
Also note that states have the right to decide if they want to allow bricks and mortar casino gambling within the state, but under the House law they have no say in internet gambling.
The good news is that it doesn't look like the Senate will pick this up. The bad news is that the House will keep passing it, at 317-93, it's going to be around for awhile.
Bet on it.
I was thrilled to read this article and find out that for once I am not alone. Soccer is a great sport in theory, but in practice it is just plain silly. You'd think every game was being played on an active fault line the way these guys can't stay on their feet. The amount of diving and flopping is simply pathetic. Take a page from a man's sport - hockey. If a guy flops he's penalized...or better yet...shot. And I don't care how good you think you are...two names please. You know darn well that if you are an American there was only one thing about this World Cup that provided any entertainment at all...watching France lose. And the only surprise in that match was when France came out for the second half.
Don't get me wrong. If you call me tomorrow for some pick up on the pitch, I'm there. But if you end up on the ground it's because you got beat...not fouled. Welcome to America.
This review of Superman has some potential spoiler info, so read forth with caution.
The good. The special effects are amazing. Best flight sequences I've ever seen. I completely bought in. Pretty much all special affects were outstanding. I thought Brandon Routh was a decent Superman/Kent. I like Kevin Spacey's Luthor, and Parker Posey (but she's usually a scene stealer-check out "Best in Show"). I also liked the way it tried to keep the story going from the original movies (I called the final scene-thus confirming my comic geek status). Unfortunately, by picking up after the second movie, (and wisely rendering numbers 3 and 4 a comic never-happened) Superman Returns ran smack into the power of the "Threequal" curse. You just shouldn't mess around with this kind of magic. The movie was doomed before the camera's even rolled.
The bad. I hated the story. (Here come the spoilers) Superman has a kid? I have a general rule agianst introducing kids to movies (think Temple of Doom) or shows in general (I have a 2 season rule for when kids get randomly introduced to TV shows. When you see a kid come into a sitcom, it has two years tops left before its off the air. Brady Bunch, Family Ties, even DiCaprio couln't beat the rule on Growing Pains. If you could bet on this stuff I'd make millions. Except for The Cosby Show-he brought in a new kid every season, I'd have gone broke betting against him-anyway, where was I?) Right, the kid. So here's how it works. Veteran reporter Lois lane, who looks like she's 22 in the movie (Meaning she was in her late teens when she was with the big S), slept with Superman before he left for 5 years. Thus, the kid is about 4, but like all movie/TV kids looks and acts approximately twice his suposed age (This is common. Baby born one season, off to kindergarten next-Family Ties took this to a new level. That kid was off to college by the end of the second season after she was born). Only now she has a fiance who thinks the kid is his. So Lois must have waited, like, zero days until she hooked up with the guy, that or he's Forrest Gump gullible. This whole triangle is less realistic than a man in tights flying around saving everyone. I just couldn't get past this, I hated it. Seriously. The villan plot was fine. Luthor does his evil genius thing, that worked. Also, as you can probably guess, I thought Lois Lane was completely miscast. They should have gone with someone older and more believable as a verteran reporter.
Overall, Superman Returns, or Superman III if you like, was a big dissapointment. I can't completely pan it because the afore mentioned special effects make you believe, but the story makes you disbelieve.
Recent article in the Washington Post gathered a lot of attention environmental/fuel debate.
The gist is that WaPo says that biofuels are not the answer because even using all the current US cropland to produce the fuel won't cover our projected gas needs. And using all of our crop land for fuel is bad because people will starve.
My first thought after reading this article was, "Who's out there saying that biofuel will completely replace gas? Who is this article debating?" And, "what kind of moron really thinks that it's being seriously debated to use our farm land for fuel only."
I'm fairly plugged in to the alternative fuel debate, and I've never heard anyone serious saying that biofuel will replace gas. It's always phrased as "biofuel can help replace our reliance on gas and reduce our C02 emmissions." That point was never discussed in the article, it was sort of an all or nothing debate. "Will using all our crop land replace our reliance on gas? And is it worth starving? No. Thus, biofuel is a 'False Hope.'"
But let's look at the debate another way. Biofuel will help replace gas. It won't be a magic bullet, in fact there probably won't be any kind of exact replacement for gas, and that's a good thing. Why would any rational person want to replace one monopoly, with all the economic turmoil that comes with it, with another? Ideally, in the future transport fuel will be a basket of products. Corn based fuel, sugar based, cooking by-product fuel, gas, hydrogen, etc. Because gas is a crucial product it makes sense to have multiple sources coming from multiple areas. Rather than have the stock market tank everytime crude prices increase, imagine that when crude goes up, maybe corn/sugar/switchgrass prices go down due to a bumper crop. This smoothes the market. A basket also decreases the amount of pricing (and political) power that any one provider possesses. Furthermore, giving consumers more choices is generally considered good for the consumer and the economy. In the end, our national security (economic, political, and physical), is enhansed by searching for a basket of transport fuel options, rather than seeking another single source fuel.
These choices may also be regional. Maybe more corn based gas in the midwest, more traditional gas in the northeast, more cooking waste fuel for city based delivery fleets, hydrogen for high-tech/high income regions, etc. This isn't that far fetched. Biodiesel can run in a regular diesel truck with zero modifications. GM has a "flexifuel" truck that can run on ethanol or normal gas.
I agree with WaPo, biofuel will not completely replace gas, but it can be a part of a much better solution (a diverse basket of fuel options). Anytime someone only presents one side of a debate, and argues against a point that no one is really discussing, beware. Here's what we do know. Oil prices are going up, oil is controlled by people who don't like us, oil is finite (although Limbaugh disagrees). Sitting around waiting/hoping/only searching for an exact replacement for oil is a bad idea. Plus, another monopolistic commoditiy is actually bad for the economy, security, and stablility.
"Boy let me tell you that its no fun (its not much fun) being an illegal-eagle alien." Genesis. GENESIS RULES!!!-sorry, the 17 year old version of the blogger came out for a sec...all better now.
Now that immigration is the hot button issue of the year I'm going to have to start paying attention to it.
So where what have I learned. Well listening to the political shock-jocks (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) illegal immigrants are clearly destroying the country (I thought gay marriage was, but I guess that's so yesterday). Not only that, but
ordinary citizens are constantly bombarded with pushy, cheap working, criminally inclined. non-English speakers. Listening to some of the callers and the sympathetic shock-jocks it sounds like just walking downt the street in America is akin to walking down the barrio in Mexico City. With emotions running so high I keep waiting to wake up to a call to boycott Taco Bell, lousy Mexican fast food taking jobs away from good ol' American fast food companies. No wonder Burger Queen failed. I have to be honest, having lived in Florida, Texas and Colorado for more than thirty tres el decades I can honestly count on one hand the number of times I've run across anyone who didn't speak any English, and at least two of those fingers go to Greeks (but not the middle one-the Unknown Blogger is a known Greek). So when I hear stories of people being surrounded by all these folks who can't speak English, I have to wonder where they're standing. Or maybe, just maybe, they do speak English, but have figured out that pretending not to let's them escape having to talk to you. Believe me, I've tried that before, but pretending to speak just pig latin only takes you so far in this world.
In the spirit of fairness, I'm going to hanlde the main issues devoid of facts, with counter arguement devoid of facts.
First, some fun with math. 12 million illegal immigrants, 300 million Americans. Roughly 4%. Keep this in mind when you hear of all the damage being caused. All this hullabloo surrounding 4 in 100 people.
No speaka the Englaise. Yes, some small percentage of immigrants can't speak any English. But this is a small percentage. English is the most widely spoken language on earth, even when I travel abroad, it's rare that I find someone who doesn't speak any English-so unless countries are making the concerted effort to send us those that don't, it's safe to assume that most immigrants speak the language. Not only that, but to get around, even in a well protected sub community, you have to speak some English. However, the second generation speaks English, period. By the third generation, the first generation is now complaining that the grandkids don't speak any of the native tongue and that the culture is lost. This is no different from any non-English immigrant, legal or illegal, for the entire history of the nation. The melting pot works. Also, when people say they "constantly come acrosse people that don't speak English" think of this. If the full alotment of illegal immigrants didn't speak a lick of English, that's still only 4 in 100 people. And since we know that the illegal immigrants are not dispersed evenly, the chance of encountering anyone who doesn't speak any English is extremely remote. My bet is that a lot of these anecdotes are like when my friend told me that his cousin knew the "Hey Mikey" kid, and he was dead.
Crime. Oddly, with more than 12 million depraved illigal immigrants in the country, crime has stayed near it's hisoric low levels.
"Lousy Mexican's taking all our jobs." Just to be clear, these immigrants, who can't speak English, are taking jobs away from Americans. Apparantly the vast resevoir of wealth that is the non-speaking, non-understading, completely unskilled section of our economy is in danger! Clearly we need 500 bills at the state level this session to deal with this. PS, unemployment is near the historical lows. Here's my example. When I was growing up, before the Dukes of Hazzard came on I had to mow the lawn. I didn't know anyone who had a lawn service, and I don't think I ever saw but one Lawn Service truck, and I grew up in Florida. No one could afford it. Now, just about everyone with a lawn can afford to hire someone to mow it. The question is this, are illegal immigrants taking lawnmowing jobs from Americans? Nope. If you take away the immigrants, the cost of the service goes up, and less people can afford it, meaning less work, meaning less jobs, meaning I risk missing Dukes of Hazzard re-runs, which means I miss the hilarious hijinx of Cooter and Cleatus. Immigrants are creating their own jobs. Since they're poor, they spend nearly 100% of the deneros the earn, the economy expands and more jobs are created. Thanks Pepe. And Pepe is lonely, again what kind of job damage can be caused by 4 in 100 people.
Illegal Immigrants suck up all our services. Apparantly while being so hardworking that they will take the absolute crap jobs for almost no money, they are also so lazy that they suck up all our assistance spending. This while being terrified of being deported if they report anything. These are truley advanced people.
Education. "They're killing the education system, kick them out!" I agree, the best way to deal with people who are poor and uneducated is to keep them that way. And yes, they're the cuprits behind the failling US education system. Vote Pedro.
And one of my favorites as heard by one of the shock-jocks (I honestly don't remember which one, they all sound the same to me). Paraphrased-"If I hear one more automated prompt, you know from a bank or something, asking for English press 1, or Spanish press 2, I'm going to blah blah blah." Dude, I feel the same way. When I'm at Disney World and the monorial voice tells me to be careful in English, and then tells me to take the nino's by the hand, man that ticks me off. I don't care if they are a business making a business decision, it bugs me so they must stop. Same with Starbucks and their "vendi lattes." I think their ought to be a law making them call it a "medium milk," and if I go to Taco Bell I don't want to hear any talk of "Taco's el Grande," I want to order a "Large Mexican sandwhich."
This is America, el go-o el homo.
PS, I'll try to put together some fact for my next foray.
I spent a lot of the 4th trying to figure out what exactly "patriotism" is. What I find so interesting about the word is that the actual definitions don't really answer the question. I'm sure that most people concider themselves "patriots," well at least 71% do, but within that 71% some do things in the name of patriotism that others in that group would find distinctly unpatriotic, and vice versa. What is it about patriotism that two people, both being adamant "patriots" could not only take two distinctly different actions, but condem the other as being unpatriotic?
Here's my answer. I think there are two types of "patriots," those that are proud of and fight for the borders and physical security of the nation, and those who are proud of and fight for the ideals of the nation. The former believe that the ground is the most important thing, for without a secure ground there's nowhere for the "ideals" to flourish. While the latter feel that the ground is just dirt without the ideals that make is special. Hence, when both sides call for sacrifice, they are looking to sacrifice different things. The physical patriot sacrifices the ideals to keep the self safe, while the idealistic patriot sacrifices the self to keep the ideals safe. To a certain extent the Flag Burning Amendment crystalizes this point. There are those that wish to protect the physical flag, even if it means sacrificing the ideals that it represents, while there are those that are willing to protect the ideals that the flag represents even if it means sacrificing the physical flag. Thus both sides believe that the other is being unpatriotic. The "war on terror" also shows this gulf between the two patriot parties. "Put our rights on hold while you protect us" v. "Our rights are our protection." Because both sides come at the issue of patriotism from such different philosophical points, it is hard for them to reach any sort of common ground, especially as each sees the other as reckless and unpatriotic. Not only that, but because the other is unpatriotic, following their lead will lead to the harm of the country. No patriot can stand that thought, and discourd ensues.
I fall squarely into the latter group (no surprise to long time readers). I've always felt it was more noble to sacrifice self for the greater cause than to sacrifice the greater cause for self. But I do understand the other side. Preservation is the guarantee of opportunity, self sacrifice requires the hope that it wasn't in vain. I think this is why I'm so disturbed by the actions of the Bush administration. They are clearly physical patriots, placing them in direct opposition to my own idealistic patriotic philosophy.
The CIA has decided to shut down the unit soley focused on finding Bin Laden.
First, this will undoubtedly be viewed as a victory by Al Qaeda. Nice time to embolden the enemy.
Now for a recap on the man who no longer merits special attention.
Binny is responsible for:
Bringing down the Twin Towers
The direct deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans
The Afghan War
The Iraq War
The several thousand military deaths incurred in those wars
The tens of thousands of military wounded in those wars
The tens of thousands of civilian deaths in those wars
The untold number of civilan wounded in those wars
Gitmo
Softer issues like the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wire taps, etc
So I guess it makes sense that we no longer need a dedicated unit to bring him in. Clearly there's nothing special about him. The longer he's out there the less dangerous he and his organization become, right?
Move also has benefit of getting rid of having to "work" and "think."
"It's a win-win!"-raves Sean Hannity
"Worked Great for Stalin."-notes V.P. Dick Cheney
"Bold move-not even China has that. This is just the move to show that we're still ahead of them."-Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist.
"Getting the press to plead for State sponosored media is Carl Rove's crowning achievement. I tip my hat to the master."-Rush Limbaugh
Looks like the penny debate is back, finally. As a long-time penny dissident, I'm happy to see that getting rid of the thing is again being debated, this time because it cost's more to make the penny than its worth. But dismayed that 75% of Americans want to keep minting them. Now we're even redesigning them-just for the fans. Get rid of it, round everything to the nickel, and save the taxpayers some money. If you're nostalgic for them, collect them.
I can't believe I'll lose this argument to Kevin Federline, maybe it's time to retire.
Posts
All Comments
