Is there a "regime change" coming to UAE? The AP says that the UAE had links to Binny. Given that suspected high level talks between Binny and Iraq were one of the reasons for the invasion (and one of the few left), doesn't this mean that UAE is also a threat to the US? If so, book your trip to the indoor ski resort before its too late, and sell you private island.
W taking the Royal we invokes, "After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward." About said port transfer. Seems to me congress didn't review anything, hence their questions. Last I checked the White House was one component of "our" governemnt. "Our" government has three branches. Also interesting that he didn't say "I." Probably because he was unaware of his office's approval of the transfer until after it became an issue.
For the nitpicky, there's a little known clause put in in a 1993 amendment to these types of sales that stipulates that a 45 day investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is "controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government."
Maybe the Patriot Act gives him authority to get around that too. It does explain how the White House became "our" government.
Regarding the proposed purchase of port authority by the UAE, W says, "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."
Maryland Democrat Herman Taylor has a great idea, he want's the state to issue special license plates with DUI letters to drivers with two or more DUI convictions. Taylor, who apparantly never read the constitution, says, ""(The bill) will allow (police) to, without probable cause, pull them over and check" their driving records." Clearly no reader of this blog he. Granted he may be a little biased because a "drunken driver struck him last May, and at the time of the crash, police had no idea that person was a multiple offender." What I'm trying to figure out is how the DUI tag would have prevented that accident. It would make more sense to make all DUI offenders place sirens and blinking lights on their car so at least you could avoid them.
No, what would make the most sense is to take the licenses away from drivers convicted of a DUI. There shouldn't be multiple DUI's because you shouldn't be driving if you've proven you can't hanlde it and are a danger to the rest of us. No constitutional infringments, just the removal of a privilage they've shown they don't deserve.
Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Denmark? No.
Canada? No.
Some Islamist nation? Nope.
The Vatican? No way Jose.
Yup, its Taxachussets. Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
I'm especially proud because I found this all by my lonesome. And Stalin says we never break anything. Well, M3K does, but only after Chilifest (zoweee!).
I can't help but think that the west in being tested, even inadvertantly, with this whole cartoon thing. From the rapid response of the "demonstrators" to the media and governmental responses, to the way the cartoons were manipulated by the muslims in the first place to the fact that when they originally ran in Egypt no one cared. And the west failed. Terrorists must have noticed the way the west panicked and capitulated to the extremest demands. The fear is just too noticeable. No other group, ever, has managed to extend their sub-desires to the global community like this. I can only look at this as a major victory for the terrorist community. The damage that these extremests have caused to the western pshyche is amazing and troubling. These cartoons are not the last of this strategy, even if the terrorists have stumbled onto something.
Read this interesting piece on student visas (yes I said interesting). Apparantly, the only way to get a student visa in the US is to promise to leave as soon as you get it. So, the thinking goes, "hey come here, get your PhD, maybe even on scholarhship, and then leave before the US can get any benefit of your new education. Hurry! Get out, we don't want your lousy highly educated kind sticking around. Go home, and give them the benefit of your knowledge, learned here, on our dime. If you don't we'll arrest and deport you." I'm no immigration expert, but I think all PhD's should be excempt from any immigration quotas. Period. We'll take you if you want to come and your smart and home working. Seriously, we want you.
There are times when I think about how close this guy came to being president and I get that feeling in my chest that you get when you lean back too far in a chair and have to catch yourself at the last second before tumbling backwards.
The National Journal has been looking into the claims v. reality of Administration statements about GITMO, GWOT, and the like. Here, here, here, but start here. I hope these come through. My favorite is the quote that a majority of those at GITMO are there becasue they were fingered by reward seeking warlord and villagers. Well thats sound. "Here, we'll give you money if you turn in someone you don't like, saaaaay, a rival. We'll take them away forever, so you win. So you get money, no rival, and probably get whatever you're fighting over. Understand? But only use this power for good, and no cheating, you folks that have been fighting for centuries." How can that go wrong? How can that lead to false arrests? Or put more succintly, "It was "win-win," Haqqani said. "The Americans get their prisoners, Pakistanis get their praise, the guy who captures the prisoners gets his reward, and Al Qaeda gets its escape." Good thing the prisoners don't have the right to question their imprisonment. Habeus Corpus is for suckers. Ahh, the sweet smell of victory.
This part just made me sad:
The tribunal hearings, based largely on such guilt-by-association logic, have been travesties of unfairness. The detainees are presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence -- without help from lawyers and without being permitted to know the details and sources of the evidence against them. This evidence is almost entirely hearsay from people without firsthand knowledge and statements from other detainees desperate to satisfy their brutally coercive interrogators. One file says, "Admitted to knowing Osama bin Laden," based on an interrogation in which the detainee -- while being pressed to "admit" this, despite his denials -- finally said in disgust, "OK, I knew him; whatever you want."
And finally, this made me scared:
Bush said, "I know for certain ... that these are bad people" Well, if he knows "for certain" then that explains why we don't need the courts.
I heard a great statement about prayer. "There are those who pray they make the right decision, and those who believe they made the right decision becasue they pray." I admire those in the former, and fear those in the latter.
Glenn Greenwald does a solid job of making my point on the modern conservative (which I'm not, that's all you Stalin "Vader" Malone) v. the traditional conservative (which I am, as Luke, I'll bring you back to the good side Vader)(M3K gets to be Yoda, always spouting off in some language that's sort of english, but not really). Its long, but worth the read, and its worth hitting the embedded links.
Looking through the WSJ's breakdown of W's budget proposal I came across this idea (I'd post it but you have to be a subscriber-everyone should be). The "death tax" brought in about $24 billion last year. W requested $12.5 billion next year for Laura's "Preserve America" initiative (and all I got my little lady was one of those valentines bears for CVS). If he lets the initiative go to the private sector, he's more that 50% towards covering the death-tax short fall. He can hit two goals at once. Ridding us of a tax, and pushing the private sector to do the charity of the federal government. Everyone wins. Well, I'm off to the mid-east.
I originally thought that this cartoon thing would die out. It's not. I think the cartoon issue, and the reactions to it, on all sides, illustrates something that I can't quite put into words...yet. Michelle Malkin calls out what she calls the "War on Free Press." I'm going to take a quick shot at my view, this is off the cuff and largely stream of thought, so feel free to hammer away.
Malone and I go back and forth about risk. He views the risk from a protection from government side. "You can't take all the risk out of warrantless wire-taps" and I view the risk from outside attack, "You can't take all the risk out of another
terrorist attack." We're both trying to assess the risks, and how they interplay, but we also view these risks from very different perspectives. I don't view him as cowardly, and I assume he doesn't view me as alarmist.
However, I do view many in the press and politics as cowards. I have this gut feeling that too many American's are happy and supportive of our troops facing daily danger to fight for the "American Way," but when that risk of harm comes to them, they race to surrender whatever it takes to "feel" safe. Be it the Fourth Amendment, Freedom of speech, whatever. The press wants, rightfully, full freedom to publish photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq, but quickly sensor themselves over some really, really benign cartoons. The difference is risk. This can only be because they know the military will not riot and harm them, but they think some random Islamist will, so "shhhhh." That, to me, is cowardly. I'm willing to take physical risk at home largely because I'm asking our soldiers to die to protect my rights.
Globally, our fight for certain ideals is getting lonely. Canada's made itself useless. The EU is a joke. South Africa, Poland and Ukraine pre-emptively surrendered to the threat of attack from a few hundred muslims in Denmark. Very brave. I'm at a complete loss. I don't think the total number of deaths has reached 10, and the free-world is falling over itself to surrender its freedoms. We skirt that position, and that's what scares me. The reaction from the press and world governments is amazing given the relative size of the riots. What is causing all this fear? What would it be like if they had the ability to cause real harm? Would everyone just quit and become one large muslim state.
Gonzalez wondered if Binny was smiling during the congressional "hearings" (an amazing farce on every level, utterly disgraceful) into the illegal wire-taps. He can only be giddy with joy at his latest victory. I want very badly for Bush to lash out at the cowards. Then I would be giddy with joy.
Try not to get it ripped out of your hands by a girl scout like last time...
Having leveled enough critisims about W to bore the world, I thought I'd highlight two things I think he nailed.
One, I love his reaction to the Hamas elections. Over the few days following the election his statements were basically, "hey this is what happens in an election. The people speak, we can't be upset if they don't choose what the West wants." For example, "When you give people the vote, you give people a chance to express themselves at the polls," Mr. Bush said. "If they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know." To any follower of US' exportation of democracy, this is a huge shift. In the past, if a new democracy elected someone counter to US desires, that person didn't last long, I'm looking at you Chile. It does appear that Bush genuinely cares about democracy, and his reaction to Hamas' win says more about his goals in the Middle East than he's getting credit for. I hope, with fingers crossed, that this lasts.
His follow-up is also excellent. Rather than dote on the new election, he's making it clear that Hamas must reject its "Israel must be destroyed" mantra before he will deal with them. Love that too. I view it as, "OK, you're playing with the big boys, now act like it. Give up the silliness or we can't take you seriously." I just don't think he's getting his due on this. Even in the conservative sites I've visited, this is getting no attention. Well, no more I say, no more.
I think its time to talk about the cartoon controversy. At first I thought this would flame out, but it turns out its flaming on. People are getting killed over some cartoons, which you can see here. One, they seem very mild to me, I draw meaner pictures of Stalin Malone in my oatmeal every morning. Having said that, lets review the actions of several US actors. One, the US media. Won't show them. No way, no how. So we have a free, but cowardly press. Very nice. If these cartoons aren't news, then what is? Is this how the mighty "4th wing" handles things? The Danes showed them again after the first wave of protest. Now that's the way to go. I wonder where the MSM gets its cue. Clinton warns about a rising anti-Islamic prejudice. Note, this is the same President who said nothing about Piss Christ. That's a-ok, but some mild cartoons about Mohammed, and, well, that's the time to step up and condem anti-religious actions. He also doesn't take the time to talk about the importance of free speech. But why should he when the press is falling over itself to NOT show the cartoons? I've heard that Kerry has made similar remarks, but I couldn't find them, but I don't doubt for a second that he said something equally as silly. Well if the press and the Dems are running scared, then the GOP should be standing up against this "threat." Well...no. The State Department says this while failing to call out any anti-Christian or Jewish cartoon over the last...ever. I think this coddling goes directly agianst Bush's speech in March where he says, "They hate our freedom. They hate our freedom to worship. They hate our freedom to vote. They hate our freedom of the press. They hate our freedom to say what you want to say. They can't stand what we stand for." THAT I loved.
So to review, the US press won't show them, the same press that will show ANYTHING, Clinton thinks that these cartoons are the start of a level of prejudice that rivals anti-Semitism, while he remained silent on true religious desicration, and the GOP is choosing to look the other way. I guess I can tell who's winning this war of ideals. Now, heaven help us if Hillary wins, her opportunism makes her husband look naive (that one's for you Malone).
Because we all need the feds help on everything we do, and the new GOP controlled government (meet the new boss, its the same as the old boss) isn't happy unless its involved with every aspect of your life, congress is proposing to spend $750 million to help with your marriage. Whew, now THAT's fixed. My favorite line is, "Congress approved a $750 million, five-year plan aimed at building healthier marriages Wednesday as part of its deficit reduction bill." You can't write that. Seriously, you just can't make this up. This is clearly must have spending. Crucial. It's a miracle marriage has lasted the thousands of years it has without congress' help. Again I ask, how does anyone support this "limited government" GOP. Why not just acknowledge that the party in control is just as liberal as Ted Kennedy's Democrats, and we can go about trying to figure out who really want's less government, and who just wants contol to spend our money on their visions.
With Valentines Day coming up, I'm lauching a new group and website. No names yet, thats where my fellow bloggers come in. But here's the focus. I want to declare war on Valentines Day, Easter and St. Patricks Day. Christmas gets all the focus, but I'm tired of Religious freaks pushing their values on me. So for now on, February 14 is "Love day" or if your single "Your a Loser Day." Easter is now "Magic Rabbit lays Candy Eggs Day" or "LSD Day." And St. Patricks Day is now, "Drunk Day." No longer will I tolerate the Christian right telling me how to love, drink, or what candy I can eat of a magic animal's butt.
This should ease that lil' civil libertarian in your heart...if just a little. No evil right wing plot to silence dissent. Just stodgy old rules of dignified conduct taken a half step too far.
It took one full day for the White House to back off its goal of reducing Middle East oil dependency. It seems President George Orwell only meant that as an "example." Recall this:
Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)
However, "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. This makes sense. Weren't we on some kind of "mission" to get a man to mars? It also explains "mission accomplished." To Bush its not so much about setting goals and achieving them, its more about saying things as examples of what would be cool. It sure would be cool to get a man to mars. It sure would be cool if Iraq was mission accomplished way back when, and it sure would be cool to decrease our dependence on Mideast oil (which, as I stated here doesn't make sense anyway).
I'm going to climb Mt. Everest. I'm going to cure cancer. I'm going to end all wars. Vote for me, like me, praise me, follow me, trust me. Don't worry that those aren't goals in the sense of things I'm going to actively try to do. They're more like examples of things I think are neat.
When does the dam break. When do people stop believing this stuff, when do people expect accountability and the truth? When will my Donnie and Marie tribute band finally get that record deal?
I'm confused by some recent polling numbers I've seen. As a general rule, Americans are against spying on Americans. Also as a genereral rule, Americans are for spying terrorists on US soil. Taken as separate items, both make sense. However, its not like terrorists walk around wearing "Destroy America Now, Ask Me How" baseball caps. The only way to spy on all the terrorsts in America is to spy on all Americans. This is where the two polls cease to make real sense. Everyone's gung-ho on doing what it takes and bending/destroying rules to get terrorists, but no one seems to understand the process. You can't say, "I'm for warrantless wiretaps on them" because to be effective, that means warrantless wiretaps on all. One can certainly make the freedom for safety trade, but I think the terms of that trade should be made clear.
I missed the big speech last night. But reading the transcript brought to mind an old issue with spending "cuts." Years ago, the Dems destroyed the GOP's attempt to alter medicare by claiming that the GOP was cutting benefits, while the GOP said that they were merely decreasing the rate of growth, and that's not a cut. The GOP cried "foul!" OK. Now, Bush is claiming he's cut discressionary spending on his watch, but the reality is that the rate of growth has (debatably) decreased, not actual spending. The GOP applauds. So when's a cut a cut, and when is slowing growth a cut, and not a cut?
Quickly looking at other items. I'm a huge fan of getting off of oil. But, you can't target "Mid-East" oil as oil is a global commodity. No matter where you buy it, if Saudi or Iran cut prodution, the price rises...period. So the reality is that its kind of all or nothing. I think its crucial from an economic security, and physical security standpoint, and this is where the Feds should be investing our tax money. However, zero emission coal plants are a crazy expensive dream, and we all know my feelings on the actual expense of nuclear. His hydrogen car push is a neat idea, but not much has happened with this since his last big push for hydrogen cars, its still not funded, and no one thinks it will be, so I'm doubtful on this latest push as well. Clean diesel has great potential, better emissions and better fuel economy, than hybrids, and the new standard just took effect in January.
The rest seems fairly boilerplate.
First, take time to absorb that title..."More Sheehanigans," its a gift, you can't teach that. I only wish Michael Moore could was involved, "Moore Sheehanigans" is gold.
Now on to the meat. Mrs. Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct for wearing some kind of anti-war t-shirt. Now, I get that she's controversial, but this is still America. Free Speech is still a right, and the House Gallery is definitely public space, so what is unlawful conduct as it relates to a t-shirt? Mind you, she wasn't yelling, sreaming, or causing a stir, she was wearing a t-shirt. Before, when King George would disallow public dissent and make people sign loyalty oaths, it was excused as ok because it was a political rally, not a governmental affair. But that can't be the case this time can it? Its the SOTU address, not a vote rally for the GOP. It certainly appears to be a creeping standard, or more frog boiling . Public space, t-shirt, arrested. No matter how you look at it, its certainly not "original intent." I say its creepy. I also get that there won't be much ado about this.
I don't have much time to go into this deeper but...I keep hearing 'bout King George's War Power Provisions, but I'm wondering about which war, and when it ends. I remember Congress declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq, but aren't we done in Afghanistan, and isn't Iraq "mission accomplished?" Since both states now have new governments of their own, aren't those wars over? I get we need to be there, but we were in Japan and Germany long after the "war" was over. I don't remember congress declaring war on terror (if I'm wrong please point me in the right direction). So far its been like the war on poverty, a named goal. If we're still at war against Afghanistan and Iraq, when are those wars over? If its against the terrorists, which ones, and when is that war over? If all these new acts are due to war, I think its fair to define those wars so we can understand the scope of the issues. If the elected officials aren't defining the scope, I think its fair to ask "why not?" I also recall a 2000 debate where King George said he wouldn't put the US into a war without a clear exit strategy. I think its time let us know what that is for Afghanistan, Iraq, and the possible war on terror.
I know that some don't think that deficits matter, and that some think that "Webster" was the greatest show of all time (I'm looking at you M3K), but look at the GAO chart. It predicts that interest alone will eat up nearly as much of the GDP as the entire budget for 2004. Sweet. Granted projections matter less that the digital paper they're printed on, this is more to illustrate that this is not free money. It has to be paid back. Now, when I then read that CBO projects the 2006 deficit to be $337 billion and that the economy continues to struggle, with a 1.1% Q4/05 (but a projected 4+ Q1/06), it is troubling.
Like George Will did with Kelo, he's again spot on with his views of the the Supreme Court's upholding of Oregon's physician assisted suicide law. As I've long said, activist judges are only activist when they rule against what the GOP wants. When they overturn public law that the GOP wants gone, then that's somehow ok. Its not the value, its the result that matters. I'm glad at least one conservative hasn't lost his mind, or given up his values.
Interesting article in the liberally biased, MSM like Christianity Today. Well, I'm not sure about that, but the article doesn't gush on and on about King George, and clearly tries to undermine both his Presidentcy and the War by mentioning 1) that his numbers among evangelicals is slipping (although the numbers are still where any politician would love to be) and 2) that the average daily US military casualties since fighting began are about 2.3. I know that Mr. Malone feels that any negative word about King George clearly comes from lying traitors who hate America, I thought the article was very interesting. I thought it did a good job with some decent numbers, and helped illuminate KING GEORGE's popularity, and why it should not be taken for granted the GOP or the Dems.
If the DNC was smart, and if I cried $100 bills, they would take the time to understand their opponent, look for common ground and isolate GOP weaknesses. Quit figting the GOP characterture. This is the problem with hatred, you wind up creating a mock enemy, and fighting the wrong fights. Never winning, and doomed to lose...hey look, that's what's happening. I'm starting a 1-900 number.
By the way, King George, King George, King George, King George, King George, King George, King George.
John McCain was a good looking man when he was younger. Be warned Mike3000 and Unknown Blogger. Your beauty will fade!
President Bush appears reluctant to bail-out Ford and GM, saying, get this, "I think it's very important for the market to function." And Michigan is in a battle-ground state!
Now, if he'd only do something about those tarriffs.
Real quick, my favorite part of the article is, "The newspaper said while neither GM nor Ford has sought a bailout, they have dropped hints they would welcome government help in areas such as coping with rising health care and pension burdens and the high costs of developing fuel-efficient vehicles." Hey, I'd like some government money to help with my business costs too. "Hey, look over here, give me money." Consider that as my not-so-sublte hint to the Feds.
But if you read between the lines, health-care is a major issue. Insurance costs are crippling most US businesses. It won't be long before some sort of major bill hits Congress to deal with this. I've even heard Trent Lott talking about how health care costs are a major concern of his constituents. My only hope is that its not in the form of more of the unbelievably lame "Tort Reform" bills. Serioulsly, I loathe those things.
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.
Thought it'd be edifying to end each week beginning today with a chance for you, the humans, to make what should matter to me matter to me at least a little. You humans fascinate me! Shouldn't your news? ):
Among the many current events in your world to which I am regrettably indifferent, I'll choose three each Saturday morning and on the following Friday pass Final Judgement.
Use your week well, but have a care, mortals. This is not rhetorical overstatement!! Truly, I could not care less about (A) , (B) , or (C)!
Please. Will you move me?
Not always, in any event, and certainly not when it comes to what this cementhead says about Broken Flowers. See the movie first, but know this: "It's whatever you want it to be," with rare exceptions, ranks right up there with "There's no stupid questions" on mike3000's "Wrongs to Right with a Hickory Stick" list.
And I will "vigorously" use Google as my search engine. Well, me and like three billion others, but still...
Ted Kennedy has written a children's book about the Senate and his dog, Splash.
When asked "Why Splash?", Kennedy said, "Well, she won't come when we call her 'Mary Jo Kopechne.'"
A new study reports that increased ad spending leads to more underage drinking. Not exactly groundbreaking news except for these parts: "The results also contradict claims that advertising is unrelated to youth drinking amounts: that advertising at best causes brand switching, only affects those older than the legal drinking age or is effectively countered by current educational efforts." And: "The study "calls into question the industry's argument that its roughly $1.8 billion in measured media expenditures per year have no impact on underage drinking."
Who accepts these "claims" and "arguments?" And if they're that bad, can they really be called arguments? Does anyone really think that somehow people under 21 are immune to advertising? Seriously, $1.8 BILLION has no impact on underage drinking? Can you just make any random claim or argument, no matter how dumb, and make it stick so well that it takes a study to refute it? Can't we all just say, "hey, I know you're getting paid to defend this, but I'm not drunk."
Actually, I get the alchohol industry's problem. It's a perfectly legal activity if you're over 21, but how do you advertise to just that demographic? Tobacco basically can't use ads and losing Winston Cup was plane idiotic. Personally, I think if its legal, you should get to try to build your product base. If its so bad you can't advertise it, make it illegal. But we all know how that goes. So we all just listen to these really bad arguements and pretend they make sense. Because if we don't the illogic of it all overwhelms us.
Well this blog doesn't tolerate illogic.
Talking with a friend yesterday about movies and the following came up.
Him: King Kong was actually a really romantic movie. Just a good love story.
Both of us: Blah, blah, blah for awhile.
Mrs. UBlo: What about Brokeback Mountain?
Him: No...
Her: Why not?
Him: Because...noooo...
Me: But its supposed to be a really good movie.
Him: So, its...
Me: But is supposed to be a good love story.
Him: Nawww.
So to recap.
Blond + Giant Gorilla = Sweet romantic story
Cowboy + Cowboy = Gross
I think the homosexual agenda people need to hire the Giant Gorilla Love Association's PR folks
Let’s pick up here where we left off.
Atmospheric electrical discharges occur naturally and are observable. Their presence in a primitive environment along with methane released from the earth, among other substances, is a possible explanation of the origins of life on Earth.
It’s a reasonable theory because it’s based on and supported by what we can observe and demonstrate, from the outgassing of methane from naturally occurring deposits around the world to the creation of amino acids with methane and other substances in a godless public school science lab.
But I digress, and so have you, repeatedly.
Why is ID, as you say, a reasonable theory? Your argument so far is based entirely on what mainstream biology fails to explain, and not at all on what ID as a theory is about.
My hunch: It’s not the theory of ID that’s persuaded you, but the fact that science gets taken on faith.
Am I mistaken? Show me.
Meant this to be much better, but it's too nice a day. Here, borrowing from Safire, is the "Office Pool" that'll keep us 'umble and 'onest in '06:
1. U.S. troops in Iraq at 2006 year's end will number: (a) current "base line" 138,000; (b) closer to 100,000; (c) closer to 90,000; (d) 80,000 or below.
2. The Robertscalito court will: (a) in the Texas case disengage from involvement in states' redistricting; (b) go the other way in Oregon, holding that federal power to prohibit substances trumps a state's authority to permit physician-assisted suicide; (c) decide that federal funds can be denied to law schools that prohibit military recruitment on campus; (d) uphold McCain-Feingold, enabling Congress to restrict political contributions but not expenditures; (e) reassert citizens' Fourth Amendment protection from "security letters" and warrantless surveillance.
3. Stock market will: (a) slump in midsummer, causing data-dependent Fed chief Bernanke to morph into "accommodative Ben"; (b) tread water while a barrel of oil gurgles down to $50 and media "convergence" zigs while corporate "disaggregation" zags; (c) finally reflect sustained 4 percent G.D.P. growth by Dow breaking through 12,000.
4. Super Bowl champ will be: (a) Colts; (b) Pats; (c) Broncos; (d) Bengals; (e) Bucs; (f) Bears; (g) Seahawks
5. Best sequel/remake will be: (a) Miami Vice; (b) Pink Panther; (c) Pirates of the Caribbean; (d) Superman; (e) X-Men
6. Moviestar most in need of a slap will be: (a) Michael Caine; (b) Tom Cruise; (c) Robert DeNiro; (d) Mel Gibson; (e) Sean Penn
Me? 1. (b); 2. (b); 3. (c); 4. (e); 5. (d); 6. (c)
Woke up one morning after a long night singing "Old McDonald" sniffling, sneezing, and the rest, so Mrs. 3000 saw our Good Family Pharmacist for relief . . . and stumbled smack into the hot zone .
No kidding, meth cookers and users' kids and neighbors drew some short straws living within a crow's mile of anyone ingesting anything maybe made of nail polish and drain cleaner that can kill or poison all around. For the bystanders, who wouldn't want to do more?
Putting my NyQuil behind the counter, yeah, that's more, but it's not enough and too much--except in our legislatures, of course, where "something" as always must be done.
According to the Palm Beach Post article, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement says "much of South Florida's illegal meth is smuggled from sprawling labs in Mexico, not brewed from a retailer's shelves of cold remedies."
And according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Thirty-six of the 416 children [in San Diego County] rescued from drug homes between May 2004 and May 2005 had meth in their system, according to county figures released in June. Most of the adults in those homes were chronic meth abusers," not cookers.
Anyway, there's now pseudoephedrine-free NyQuil (and my cold's gone). My thanks to Vicks for doing "something."
" . . . skyrocketing music-clearance fees are becoming major stumbling blocks for DVD reissues, often delaying or even completely derailing releases. Take WKRP in Cincinnati, for example: The 1970s sitcom used so much classic rock that it would cost 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment a mint to clear the tracks. Fox has suggested that it still is considering releasing WKRP, but others are not optimistic that the comedy and similar shows of its kind will ever make it into the market."
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
Just thought I'd give Mr. Malone a chance to whip up on me and 0ne of his favorite targets at the same time. Call it an early Christmas gift.
Sen. Clinton has joined the mutitude of the bizzare who seek to protect image of the country while destroying it from the inside. She co-sponsored an anti-flag burning law. Apparantly she, like so many others like her, is completely igorant of this country's birth and the power of the principles of freedom. I would never endorse such a bill, and I oppose the constitutional amendment that is surely coming. I just don't get these laws. Is there some epidemic of flag burning I'm unaware of? Is anyone being caused any real harm by this? (I get that Mr. Malone may feel that the harm in watching a flag being burned is the same as watching his family being tortured, you know six of one... But I still don't accept that). In any case, I view these flag burning laws the same way Mr. Malone views Murtha's comments. Blatant pandering for personal political gain, at the expense of the nation as a whole.
Frist is saying he will use the "nuclear option" if the Dem's filibuster Ailito. It's a great move. While I haven't heard any real credible discussion about the Dem's filibustering Ailito, it allows Frist to look strong facing the dems, and readdress a sore spot in his tenure as Majority Leader. I don't mean this facetiously. Creating an enemy and fighting him is a great way to get your feet when you're struggling. It all depends on the dems and how they respond. They quickly, and predictably, did. And the response is perfect. Rather than treating it as a non-issue and trying to make him look silly, they've fallen all over themselves to fight back. The imaginary became real. Now Frist has an issue he framed, on his timetable, and one that he's sure to win. That's just solid politics.
Could someone explain to me please why in the middle of this AP article the following information is included:
"More than two-thirds of those surveyed oppose the presence of troops from the United States and its coalition partners and less than half, 44 percent, say their country is better off now than it was before the war, according to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners."
And the following information from the same poll is excluded:
"A fourth of those surveyed, 26 percent, say U.S. forces should leave now, and another 19 percent say troops should leave after those chosen in this week's election take office. The other half say U.S. troops should stay until security is restored, 31 percent, until Iraqi forces can operate independently, 16 percent, or longer, 5 percent."
The second bit of data says that 52% of Iraqis agree with Bush's plan to keep troops there until the Iraqis can police themselves. I know there is a good explanation, because we all know that bias is a myth.
Here's an excerpt from a NYT story on Alec Baldwin' s near-record-setting appearance as an SNL host this week:
"I wish him the best of luck," Mr. Goodman said, speaking by cellphone Wednesday night, between bites of chicken pot pie, from backstage at the Geffen Playhouse in Los Angeles, where he was preparing to go on as Big Daddy in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." "God bless the kid."
Mr. Goodman's streak as host ended in November 2001, and except for a cameo two years ago, he has not been back. On Wednesday, he made clear that he missed the show terribly - "For me, it was the week of the year, always" - and that it saddened him to contemplate his future as a host.
"I think my best days are over on the show," he said. "I'm too old to run around like that."
"The kids are a lot younger than I am," he added. "Chris Walken" - who has been host six times, most recently in 2003 - "he always gets the specialty material. Me, I just don't fit in anymore."
Me, I love John Goodman. Nobody for my money's been better throughout his career, and if he's sad, I'm sad for him. Who seems less like he's acting in so wide a range of material? Mundane household comedy, surreal psychodrama, and "The Big Lebowski"? Mark it zero!
Perhaps this is as controversial as calling Ted Kennedy a blowhard, but could a college professor get away with this type of slander if the target were blacks? Or gays? Would he only be asked to step down as the chairman of the Department of African American Studies? Would anyone ask what he was doing in that department in the first place? Or why this person was going to teach the course in the first place? Is it news to anyone that it is the media along with activist groups that peper an organization with hard questions when it behaves in a descriminatory way? I know that hypocrocy in one case does not prove the rule, but I ask you to consider when the media gets sturred up and when it doesn't.
I've been hearing rumblings regarding McCain and his anti-torture bill. Mostly from the talking heads and mostly along the lines of, "look I know he was tortured, and so clearly he has issue with it, but he will also tell you he broke, and it worked." Until now I haven't seen any actual references to what McCain said about his personal experience, but a web site called newsmax.com had an editorial about it by some guy named Carl Limbacher. Not to be dismissive, his bio is pretty impressive, but I've never heard of him. Anyway he makes the point that " Nearly forty years ago, however - when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp - some of the same techniques were used on him. And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked! " I thought, "well that's interesting," but when I read what Mr. Limbacher considered "worked" I missed it. McCain said he gave up his ships name, squadron number, and target, instead of the just name, rank and serial number. And then, after another episode, and 5 1/2 years later, signed a prepared document confessing to war crimes that he obviously didn't commit. I admit that I'm not a general, but I don't see the first "give"of information being that helpful, and the second is a joke. If we're looking to torture to get people to sign sheets of paper after 5 1/2 years, then OK. But in the most common hypothetical, a nuclear bomb is in the US and about to blow, I'm willing to bet that it would have blown after 5 1/2 years. The case against torture isn't that people will admit things under torture, its that they will admit anything. To call McCain's torture a success based on those two events is wrong. 5 1/2 years of torture isn't helpful, its sadistic. Maybe that's why he's so concerned with this. I'm sure he views the torturers and the government that supported them in a certain way, and he's honestly ashamed that his own leaders are now embracing the same useless assault on detainees.
So "cyber monday" was a hoax. It was created by shop.org an association of online retailers, yet the media jumped all over this. No one did any fact checking or they would have found that its only the 12th biggest online shopping day. In fact their press release even states that its "ONE of the biggest online shopping days of the year." But by the time the talking heads got it, it became "THE biggest online shopping day of the year." Why is this a defense? Because it demonstrates that the media is more inept than conniving. Had this been a mistake about a right wing issue, this would be yet more proof that the media is out to get the right. To me it's like government conspiracies. How can something so demonstratably inept be capable of pulling off anything nearly as complicated as a secret dedicated strategy against something, someone, or some idea? I just haven't been able to buy the biased liberal media arguement. Everything I've seen is explained by ineptitude, market forces, and the very human penchant for making mistakes. I've heard both liberals and conservatives decry their portrayal by the media. I've seen political candidates from both parties lose in part because of the media. I think its more that when bad things happen to you, or those you support, its both more noticable and it feels worse than when it happens to someone else, or someone you don't care about. I know this drives Stalin nuts, but he's so clouded by anger that he's barely my friend because I'm left handed.
The small government GOP strikes again. Texas Republican Joe Barton has decided to call a hearing on the BCS. Seriously. Its like he got a hankerin on this issue and decided that while this is a great debate to have around the bbq, he would just take it on himself to waste lots of time and money on this. The best part, he doesn't even have any idea what he wants to do with it. He just want to talk. How does any conservative still support this party? Is there nothing the GOP won't use the government to solve. My bananas are a little green. Can I get Barton to call a congressional hearing on this? I played in a 3 on 3 basketball tournament a while back. I was in the sub 6' group but there were definitely people taller than 6'. I was sad. Can he call a hearing for me?
Sorry this is not exactly a breaking post on Bush's speech. First off, I'm glad he didn't name a timetable. I was concerned that it could happen. I do think we will begin troop withdrawals prior to Iraq being truly stable, but I just haven't heard a convincing argument for naming a day, and number for bringing the troops home. Given what I know (and it isn't much) I'm one of the 7% or so that would like to see more troops in Iraq. So kudos to Bush not bowing to growing political pressure from both parties to set a time-line. But what did surprise me is the general admission that the immediate post war planning was so inept. Two examples. One, the President said, " When our coalition first arrived, we began the process of creating an Iraqi Army to defend the country from EXTERNAL threats, and an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to help provide the security within Iraq's borders. The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training -- they proved to be no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars. So the approach was adjusted. Working with Iraq's leaders, we moved the civil defense forces into the Iraqi Army, we changed the way they're trained and equipped, and we focused the Army's mission on defeating those fighting against a free Iraq, whether internal or external." I'm sorry, but who did he think would be the external threat to Iraq, Gary Larson's Pillow Vikings? Which bordering enemy doesn't have machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars? I don't even know what to do with that. Then he mentions, " When our coalition first arrived, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time of their training in classroom lectures -- and they received limited training in the use of small arms. This did not adequately prepare the fight they would face." again, what post war scenario plan was he looking at. How do you not properly prepare police in the use of their gun. Even in America, with no post war anarchy, police get extensive training with their guns. Did they talk to cops in Detroit? Miami? NYC? Again, disgraceful. And finally, his general statements of progress in safety just scared me. For example, there was a Purple Heart Boulevard? And even now, the best we can say is "attacks are down" in Purple Heart Boulevard. I thought he said "Mission Accomplished." However, I really liked the following statement, " Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, "stay the course." If by "stay the course," they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they are right. If by "stay the course," they mean we will not permit al Qaeda to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America -- they are right, as well. If by "stay the course" they mean that we're not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong. As our top commander in Iraq, General Casey, has said, "Our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to out-think the enemy and get ahead of him." Our strategy in Iraq is clear, our tactics are flexible and dynamic; we have changed them as conditions required and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy." Just thought he was at his best here. Great lines, great way to nullify the political attacks, and a great compliment to the leaders and troops. If it weren't for that middle part where he basically admits that a group of monkeys planned the post war occupation, then it was a nice speech. On a personal note, I don't like his delivery, but that's just me. Didn't like Clinton's either. Why can't we get a president who can really deliver a speech. Everything is so much more fun.
I'd love to go to a pep rally run by Senator Murtha. How inspiring it would be to hear him describe how our team would mop the floor with that other team...if only they weren't broken and worn out.
It is completely reasonable to say that our approach to Iraq needs to be improved. It is completely irresponsible to say that our military has been rendered inept by current bad polices. I guess when your Murtha and you spend a week in the glow of constant media praise and attention it emboldens you make a bigger fool of yourself than you might otherwise.
And for those who might mistake Mr. Murtha for an informed gadfly please answer me why this "broken and worn out" military remains the strongest proponent of President Bush and his Iraq policies? How can it be that an old man in the safety of Washington knows better of a war effort than the men and women fighting it? This man is a joke...a sad and pathetic joke.
A quick collection of sports related blogging. Michael Irvin was charged with misdomenor possession of drug paraphanillia. ESPN will allow him to continue to work as an anchor until this is resolved. Earlier a Judge ordered Gerogia Tech to reinstate a player facing trial for participating in a drug ring. I agree with both decisions. Innocent until proven guilty must mean something. After guilt is proven, then both organizations should act according to their standards. But firing or suspending folks pre-trial does not suppose innocence.
On other football news, the collective bargaining agreement is up at the end of this season. Its time for the NFLPA to again show how it doesn't understand the union concept. Every year players complain about how short a their careers are, and that's why they need to make so much money. No disagreement here, but I've never understood why the union doesn't address chop-blocking and lousy field conditions for example. The backbone of any union is safety. Why doesn't the NFLPA simpy put into agreement an abolishment of chop-blocking, and write something in that states that artificial fields must be replaced every three years with the best commercially avialiable turf, and that natural fields meet some sort of standard? I know this is outside the normal parameters of this blog, but everytime I hear someone like Sapp complain about chop blocks, I just think, "take it the union." But the NFLPA is too consumed with the cash side of the negotiation. Lengthening careers means more cash to the players too. If you have a union, at least use it correctly.
I'm itching to do my typical (and cathartic) railing against journalism and it's unapologetic biases, but I'm going to hold off util Mike3000 weighs in. I have not been trained in journalism and so perhaps it is my ignorance that leads me to ask why a story about a very typical left-wing organization's opposition to a conservative court nominee would be written under the heading "Jewish Group Votes to Oppose Alito". Granted, the heading is technically correct, it is a Jewish group. But when one reads "Jewish Group Opposes..." it deliberately puts in your mind the idea that Alito has done something to offend Jews even bringing to mind possible anti-Semitism. Just as the title of a book is very carefully chosen, so is the "title" of an article. When I read this article I was surprised to find not a single Jewish reason for the opposition. The fact that it was a Jewish group had no bearing on their decision to oppose Alito, so why would the story be set up with an emphasis on the group's Jewishness? This story was so short that I'm confident as much time was spent on the headline as on the body, so "sloppiness" does not seem a reasonable defense.
Thought this was a fair piece that makes its points without being inflametory.
Yesterday the Senate reached a compromise on enemy combatants right to habeas corpus. There are two related votes and, at first blush, I'm ok with either of them. But what's also interesting is the civic lesson being played out. There's been a few posts on this blog about Bush's ratings and what that means. With the President recently hitting an all-time low, we're starting to see the fall-out, or pile-on, depending on your point of view. The Senate is now starting to reel in the broad authority it gave him just after 9/11. With language calling for Bush to explain what's happening in Iraq, and requiring him to report every three months on progress, restricting torture, and asking about secret detention centers, this is not the compliant Senate we've witnessed over the last five years. Also, the recent gubernatorial race in New Jersey saw the dem run an ad saying, "Doug Forrester, he's Bush's choice for Governor, is he yours?" And Forrester lost. Slamming your opponent as a Bush ally is a stark contrast to the Lousiana Senate race four years ago when both the Dem and Rep both ran largely on how much they would support Bush. The incumbant Dem, Landreau, even touted her high percentage of voting with the President as a reason to vote for her. A President's biggest weapons are his popularity and the bully pulpit. Bush's never been fond of talking to the people, at least not to a non-prescreened audience, and he's rested on his popularity numbers to get things done in congress. As long as his numbers stay down, and if he continues to be viewed as a liability, he will be in real trouble. And yes, I know that's an obvious statement.
Earlier, Mr. Malone said, " The purpose of using Clinton's words (and the words of all Democrats) is to show the complete hollowness of the "Bush lied to take us to war" charge. We generally agree here. I think many Dems voted for the war and failed at their duty because they were afraid to look weak and get the Sam Cleeland treatment. Personally, I think most of them voted for the war but did not believe the arguments, and looked the other way at intelligence inconsistencies because they lacked the courage to stand up and question the war. This was Kerry's biggest problem. He could not come out aggressive against a war he didn't support (I believe) because he made a political vote for it. Putting politics above conviction is what killed the Dems, and they continue to be trapped in the same dilemma. I agree with Mr. Malone that it is "hollow." But not because what is now coming out is without merit, but because at the "stand-up and be counted" moment, the Dems pulled the nifty trick of standing up because they cowed down.
There are two types of courage. The courage to fight and the courage not to. It's the middle ground where cowards dwell.
Joe Lieberman defends his vote to deny foreign nationals the right to challenge their detention in court by stating, "A foreign national who is captured and determined to be an enemy combatant in the world war on terrorism has no more right to a habeas corpus appeal to our courts than did a captured soldier of the Axis powers during World War II." That's great. For torture, the argument is that "at least its not as bad as what Hussein did." Now, we're not even trying to be better that the most despicable people in history. Hey, if the Nazi's did it, it must be ok. Lovely standard. We are sinking into a very dark place.
PS. For you "original intenter's" out there, Habeas Corpus was one of the major points at the start of the Revolutionary War. This is a big give-up.
So Bush says, "we don't torture." But we have, here, and here apparently want to again as Bush is threatening to use is veto, if he can find the thing, on an Anti-Torture Bill that passed the Senate 90-9. Sometimes I need a map to understand what's going on.
*Apologies for leaning so heavily on Sullivan, but he's been on this case for awhile, and does a good job of it.
So Penn St. coach Joe Paterno becomes the next victim of "racism" by pointing out what everyone knows, in a very complimentary way. I've read this article several times looking for anything that could honestly be defined as racist. Is it that "black athletes have just done a great job as athletes and as people in turning the game around"? Man, now that's harsh. If Stalin Malone ever said that about me, "the Unknown Blogger has just done a great job as an athlete and as a person in turning the game around," I know I'd want to take a swing at him.
As a side note, I do think the Airforce coach should be reprimanded for apparantly not reading a newspaper in 40 years. "Afro-American?" I just have this image of this guy driving home in his Studebaker, chaninging into his sweater, and turing on his black-and-white TV.
Look like political PATRIOT's are really Soviets. The jist, the Feds can look at anything under the very specific title of potential threat, there is no oversight, records are kept even if the target is innocent (a new change), and over 30,000 probes are launched by random, unaccountable beurocrats every year. But don't worry, one, this is not abused (and since that kind of power never is, rest easy), and two, if your not guilty why should you care.
Not me. Not when my grass is high, or my salad is short a vine ripe. Who's going to trim my tree? Him?
"Simply adding more border agents won't work unless there is one every hundred yards or so along the entire border. That would require between 150,000 and 200,000 agents and support personnel, rather than the 11,000 at present, and an annual budget of five to ten billion dollars.
A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars."
--WENEEDAFENCE.com
I'm so happy with this Eminent Domain Bill that I may send flowers to every member that voted for it. Checks and Balances may work, AND both parties working together? Time to get Satan that parka.
What is absolutely amazing these days is the boldness of political spin. Politicians are behaving as if there is no public record of anything that happened before yesterday. The Democrats called a closed door session and served up a barrage of criticism aimed at the WMD intelligence used to partially justify our invasion of Iraq. Obviously an attempt to capitalize on the Scooter Libby indictment, the Democrats are trying to strengthen the surreal argument that the Bush administration concocted the evidence that showed Iraq as a WMD threat.
Here is the talking point, rarely challenged by the mainstream media: The Bush administration fabricated or exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. This line is often stretched to imply that no reasonable person would have ever concluded that Saddam was a well-armed threat. Bill Clinton amazingly went on the record to say that the Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq "with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."
Please stand for a moment of truth:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." - Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program..." - Hillary Clinton 10/10/2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." - William Cohen 4/03
"Saddam's goal...is to achieve the lifting of UN sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." - Madeline Albright 1998
This is a tiny sample of the proof that very few of today's critics did not share the views of the Bush administration. The statement that Bush lied to take us to war is not an argument...its slander, and all the Democrats know it.
No one knows when or where something might happen, so to stay on the safe side, I've staged a mock outbreak of bird flu:
"Chickens!"
"Stop touching me!"
[Millions die.]
Zvi Rav-Ner is correct, one UN member has just called, unapologetically, for genocide against another UN member. An organization that has already lowered the bar for bureaucratic uselessness (a Herculean feat in itself) with its failures in Rwanda, Sudan, North Korea, et.al., and raised the bar for Mafia-style deceit and corruption via the oil-for-food program, now faces a profound moral choice. That's right, a moral choice, the one thing that the UN is perfectly unsuited for. In a world in which the accidental killing of civilians (by Israel) is equated with targeted killing of civilians (by Palestinians) can any of us have any doubt as to the type of solution that will be coming from the halls of the UN? I wouldn't go out on a limb far enough to predict an actual slap on the wrist. I'm not even sure I see a threatened slap on the horizon. The absolute pointlessness of this pathetic organization will be on display through this entire process, and in the end the UN will be revelealed for what it is - unnecessary. My bet is that Iran will be punished, much like the despicable Sudan, with a seat on the Commission for Human Rights. Please let me be wrong.
Standing in Jackson Square last night Bush signaled the rebirth of New Orleans, and the death of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. Key quote: "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice." So here's the President saying that we need to get used to more Federal authority, and as an added bonus here comes the military. So the "war on drugs" required that we give up the 4th Amendment, the "war on terror" requires that we allow the government unfettered access to our lives, and confiscate toe-nail clippers from air travelers, and the "war on natural disasters" requires that the Federal Government take an even larger role in local issues, and that it brings the military with it. The Founding Father's would be so proud. How do Reaganites stick with this guy? Hurricanes Camille, Andrew, and Charlie didn't require that the feds take over everything, nor did the San Francisco earthquake, the Chicago fire, the LA riots, or the last time my car didn't start. Not only that but the fix is "hey free money everyone." No Democrat could get away with this, why the long leash for Bush? No cap on spending? Well you can trust Congress to be frugal. But, just in case you're a cynic check here, and here. There is an argument, made famously by Cheney, that deficits don't matter. Now, I totally disagree. But for those that don't, just look at it this way. The deficit is the measure of government intrusion in our lives. That money's going somewhere and the first "here" link shows the programs. If you're at all a small government type, then rising spending should bother you because it signals a larger government. Its sad, but Reagan was betrayed by his own party.
Tom Delay proudly claims that federal spending can't be cut anymore, in a must read article. I have a good friend who claims to be an independent but always votes Republican because he feels that he has the best chance of seeing a shrinkage of government with the GOP. Since House leader Delay believes there is no fat in the federal budget, and that all that spending is crucial to the economy (including, I imagine, the $231mm bridge to a small island in Alaska named after SITTING Senator Don Young). At what point does the illusion that there is any better chance for fiscal responsibility under the GOP give way. Over the last 11 years the budget has exploded, and we've added $2 trillion in debt since 2000. Reagan once vetoed a bill with 167 "pork" items, and the last budget had over 6000. In true Orwellian fashion, the GOP has taken the Reagan dream of less government, promoted it endlessly during campaigns, but has acted in exactly the opposite manner at every opportunity. The country has had six years of total GOP control, and has not moved one inch closer to Reagan's vision for the country. Reagan has been characterized as a "tax cuts only" visionary, but that's only part of the story. He wanted less government, and saw tax cuts as a method to that end. The current GOP makes FDR look like Scrooge. It keeps the tax cuts (good) but endlessly ramps up spending (bad). I just don't see how long GOP loyalists can continue to buy into the illusion that the GOP is for fiscal restraint and less government. The proof is in their actions, and the actions are very, very clear. Now that the head of the GOP congress says that there is no fat in the budget, all GOP voters have to confront that real statement with the election cycle hype.
I will never cease to be amazed by the level of economic ignorance that is sustainable in a great economy. I have yet to hear the man on the street (or the woman in the next cubicle over) say anything even close to realistic while attempting to explain the short term fuel crunch we are now experiencing. Supply and demand are lost on people. Market-pricing is a concept they have never heard discussed on The View. What's really sad is that these people have 16 plus years of education and yet remain utterly ignorant of the simplest economic concepts. While struggling to explain our current situation I actually heard someone say, "It's all in The Movie." Which is a reference to the Michael Moore fantasy piece of the last election cycle. It's no wonder that we have people who follow religions started by science fiction authors. I'm guessing that critical thinking has never been a strong suit of humanity and that I'm probably falling into the short-sighted "this is really bad so it must be the worst ever" camp by even acting surprised. If education has the ability to improve the thought processes of the masses as some argue, I say let's have some.
Just to continue my thread about why the GOP shuould be concerned about holding onto power. The overtly liberal Foxnews.com ran this article about how the GOP has changed. The article does a very good job of illustrating the points I've fumbled to make. Granted, for Republican voters, where can they go? But they can allways stay home and, in the face of a motivated Dem base, that alone can spell disaster for the GOP. At some point voters will realize that the party that they sent to power is not at all like the party in power. While not a historical first, it is, none-the-less, reality.
CNN/Money has an article under a tab called "Power Packed Muscle Cars Come Roaring Back" which takes you to this article. What I love about this is somewhere some executive at Ford said, "SUV sales are declining, gas is pushing $3 a barrel, everyone's clamoring about the need to rely less on foreign oil, and people aren't buying cars. What should we do?" And some genius yelled, "MUSCLE CARS!!!"
Amazing. Didn't this happen in the 70's? Japan focused on mileage and utility, and Detroit kept producing bigger gas guzzlers. Does Detroit not study history? Do they ignore market trends? SUV sales are falling, and Detroit throws up even less useful gas hogs. At least SUV's hold lots of people and things. But muscle cars? Just what every family needs, a low-milage, low-utility vehicle. Normally, I would just note the raw stupidity of these execs, but I also remember the taxpayer funded bail-outs that came afterwards. Its one thing to let businesses make bad decisions and suffer the consequences, but its another when businesses make bad decisions and taxpayers have to suffer. And thats the other part of history that seems doomed to repeat itself.
Hey we have spam! So we're not popular enough to get actual comments, but the spammers have found us. Eventhough any comment makes me feel special, I put an end to the spammers (I hope) by enabling a varification window for comments. I hope it doesn't hurt our popularity.
Pat Roberton becomes the latest person who, despite actual video evidence, says I didn't say what I said on TV. At some point, people need to realize that TV is recorded. I just don't get how you can say something on TV and then think you can get away with saying "never said it, nope, not me." At least review the tape and formulate a good story. But to just out right lie, amazing.
So he says he didn't call for Chavez's assassination. "If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war."
What he says he meant was, "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him." "Or our special forces could "take him out," like on a date. Bring him some flowers and candy, you know, take him on a nice date. If the special forces are feeling the right vibe they could kiss him on the cheek, but not the lips, it is after all a first date. Sometimes just showing someone you care is all it takes to bring them around. And lets face it, no matter how much lobster he eats, its cheaper than the bill for a war."
Recent Polls show Bush's flagging approval ratings on most major issues. What's striking is that 80% of Dems dissaprove, while 90% of Republicans approve. The only thing worse than Bush's ratings are those of Congress, and that is the problem for the GOP. That core group of Republicans that approve of Bush do so out or personal loyalty. Key quote, "I may not approve of every single thing he does," McAllister said, "but he's a true leader because he's not leading by the polls." This quote, and other's like these, are rattling the rest of the GOP. Personal approval of Bush, even while disagreeing with his policies, does not translate to other candidates. I think this is why we're starting to see cracks in the GOP wall. Leading Republicans are aware that they are not Bush, and cannont rely on high personal approval. The concern must be that the blame for bad policy, because it is not sticking to Bush, will land on them. This will lead to more objections/defections, which could lead to lost opportunity for the GOP, and dissatisfaction of the base. Everyman for himself is a dangerous plan for the GOP, but this is the result of Bush's numbers. He must figure out a way to balance his numbers, and the rest of the GOP must figure out a way to garner some of his love with the base. GOP Presidential hopefuls (especially) must decide if they want to follow lock-step with a "war time" President who's numbers are below 50%, or do they want to risk the ire of a GOP base that is proping those numbers up?
Unless McCain gets the bid, the GOP may be in real trouble in 2008.
Once Bush is gone, however, the Dems would be wise to hit his policies while leaving him alone. But looking for wise strategy out of the Dems is in itself bad strategy.
Bill Novak writes a long article bashing Frist. I'm not a huge fan of Frist, and he's done a host of laughable things, but Novak hits him, in part, because, "A month earlier, Frist missed the counting of Electoral College votes (including the Ohio challenge) to leave on a medical mission to the Indian Ocean following the tsunami. This was a decision by a doctor, not a politician."
How dare Frist do such a thing! Helping out in the tsunami relief instead of sitting there watching a foregone conclusioin in the EC? Why I never. This just shows why the beltway is its own twisted universe. Only in DC is this even an issue. Seeing the known conclusion to the Electoral Votes over helping in a disaster, where's the conundrum. It would be like a fireman saying, "hold on, I'll get there, I just want to catch the end of this Star Trek rerun, maybe Kirk dies this time?"
My favorite is the last part. I don't love Frist, but the more any politician thinks like anything other than a politician the better. I would love to see more Congressfolks making decisions like an accountant, banker, store clerk, mechanic, whatever than a politician. I mean, "thinking like a politician" isn't that an insult?
Since Congressfolks are not required to take Econ 101, we get this. Apparantly Congress is flummoxed by the concept of supply and demand. Next they's tackle such brain busters as "why do people need to eat?" And, "where do clouds come from." I think my favorite statement comes in the third paragraph, " Lawmakers admit there is no short-term fix to pain at the pump, but are nervous about political fall-out. " Just kind of says it all. I just hope, and this is a long-shot, that they don't put in some kind of cap, or some other useless command economy tool.
Barbaro Rosseland, 5, of Norway, undergoes explosives detection screening at Palm Beach International Airport. Inside the "Puffer", a burst of air pushes dust particles from your clothing to be analyzed for bomb material.
"It was no trouble at all," Ingvild Mo--Barbaro's mother-- said with a shrug following her screening. "I like fresh air."
August approaches, and unless the Bill Murray movie comes to town, I--for the first time in at least 25 years--likely will end the summer without having gone to the movies.
Sure, I'm cheap and a churl when it comes to me paying to go see slop I spent years watching on the clock ushering. But check out my Netflix queue and about all that's out this summer that I'm even mildly interested in seeing even at home other than Broken Flowers is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Bewitched, and The Brothers Grimm.
So, with the streak all but at an end, but a legacy left to tarnish, is it time to say, "Enough"?
Quick review of the "Profile Views" for Hydrablog reveals that Stalin Malone is the clear winner.
Stalin Malone: 90 views. Great Job Stalin, almost six times the nearest rival. Clearly in a class by himself. Legend of the blogosphere.
Mike3000: 16 views. Just added a fancy picture...looking to make a move.
McLieberman: 16 views. McLieberman better do something, Mike3000's picture could break this tie.
Unknown Blogger: 8 Views. Clearly the Cincinnati Bengals of this blog.
90 views, seriously...90? I mean people aren't even checking out the other bloggers just to see. How's that? The rest of us need to take a long look in the mirror and ask if we have what it takes to hang with the likes of Stalin Malone.
Quick note to those that argue that renewable energy is overly subsidized against carbon fuels. Notice that Tom Delay, GOP budget minded, fiscally responsible House Majority leader is fighting hard for: “A Senate-passed requirement for an inventory of offshore oil and gas resources and a House-approved measure, pushed by Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, to provide $2 billion in subsidies for research into oil exploration in the deepest parts of the Gulf of Mexico.” Notice, this is $2 billion for RESEARCH into EXPLORATION. Its not even money to recover known quantities. Its taxpayer money to find out if we can look for something. Not to mention that at oil companies are doing great right now and are flush with cash to do this all by their lonesome. Here Bush has it right, “With oil at more than $50 a barrel, energy companies do not need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas." But the GOP controlled congress has other thoughts: The energy bill under consideration on the Senate floor would reduce royalty payments for oil and gas producers drilling in federal waters -- a break worth almost $100 million over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
I am not using this to justify "green" subsidies. This is to point out that everyone eats at the federal trough. I wonder who would survive if everyone had to fend for themselves? About the only given there is that the Nuclear boondoggle would be exposed.
Should Congress fail, Daylight-Savings activist Jim Ahmed vows to set this clock forward again and again until Washington gets it, and gets some sun!
"DON'T COME TO ME WITH A PROBLEM, COME TO ME WITH THE SUN!"
Two weeks ago, the Underground was the world's busiest subway system, ferrying three million people each day through London.
"Madrid carried terror to the heart of Europe, but we never believed we would be a lonely, unique case," said Jorge Dezcallar, the head of Spain's foreign intelligence service during the Madrid attacks. "[Madrid] just had the bad luck of being chosen as the first target, but not the last. London, like Madrid, proves how vulnerable we are."
And this is who "we" are: Brits and Spaniards, yes, but also Pakistanis, Australians, Israelis, Americans--Christians, Jews, and Muslims--and, oui, the French.
Take Tony Blair, for all that's wrong with the war in Iraq, at his word: "[Islamic extremism] and the violence that is inherent in it did not start a few years ago in response to a particular policy."
Nor should Paris count on Islamofacism's end safely beyond the secularized borders of France, a nation that licenses its clerics, bans religious dress in its schools, and imports more than 400,000 barrels of oil per day from caliph-avorites like Saudi Arabia and Algeria.
Algeria, a Mediterranean neighbor to Spain and the North African Al Qaeda hotspots from which the Madrid bombers came--Morocco and Tunisia--knows terror, too: Between 1992 and 1998, more than 100,000 Algerians were killed during the army-led Algerian government's struggle with the Islamic Salvation Front and other Islamacists such as the Armed Islamic Group. France perhaps remembers the Armed Islamic Group as the terrorists responsible for the 1994 Air France murder-hijacking in which the fully-fueled plane was meant to be crashed into the Eiffel Tower, as well as Paris subway bombings that killed eight people the following year.
No, the Armed Islamic Group attacks against France were not, as those in Madrid and London, the work of Moroccans, or Tunisians, or Pakistanis, or British nationals of Pakistani descent, or Jamaican-born British residents like Germaine Lindsey, who murdered 27 people on the Piccadilly line train. And the Armed Islamic Group had no apparant hand in the Al Qaeda attacks since 2002 against French citizens in Morocco and Tunisia and Pakistan and Yemen.
Yet, somehow, it's all about Iraq?
There is no federally recognized "reporter's privilege." When a journalist refuses to reveal a source's identity to a federal grand jury, that journalist stands on principle, not the law.
Time Inc. editor in chief Norman Pearlstine, by revealing the identity or identities of confidential sources in Time's reporting on Valerie Plame, abandoned principle and broke what little of my trust in confidentially sourced reporting remained.
"The journalist and the lawyer were fighting in my head," Pearlstine said. "But if presidents are not above the law, how is it that journalists are?"
They're not. Concealing sources is not a right or a privilege, it's a responsibility. A journalist who accepts this responsibility should accept the consequences.
A confidential source not worth fighting for 'til the source says the fight is over is a source whose side of the story isn't worth writing or reading.
Posts
All Comments
