Thursday, July 21, 2005

WE, oui?



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?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Initiating Auto-Destruct Sequence "Hydrablog"

3000, Mike, Zero-Zero-Zero-Destruct-Zero.

CONCUR!

Friday, July 01, 2005

Broken Words

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.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

A Gulag By Any Other Name...

How easy it is to get attention these days. Everywhere you look there is a camera streaming images to somewhere on the cable spectrum. And people watching...for hours on end...watching. (Marx could not have been less prescient about what makes for good opiate.) And all that information. Good clean information. Well-considered and minty fresh. Oh, I know, you can't trust it ALL. I mean there are always a few kooks out there, a few exceptions to the rule of intellectual honesty and fair play. But certainly they get discredited quickly once the media has a chance to debunk. I mean who would risk that priceless jewel of credibility? Well, Amnesty International for one. And the mainstream media for two.

The United States has been charged with running a gulag, with ghost detentions and torture. Charges that one would expect would have to be well-documented to be credible. Or not. Ghost detentions and disappearances refer to summary and secretive executions usually carried out in dictatorships...catch the implication? Amnesty levels this charge without a single victim's name. Torture? Is this a well-defined term in the report that warrants the strong language? No, but there are some examples - like holding one inmate "incommunicado". Loneliness is torture. Thanks Amnesty International for your courageous war on boredom. The charges are laughable, the fact that the media accepted it uncritically is scandalous.

It's a shame. There was a time when a respectable thinker could quote an Amnesty International report to bolster an argument. Unfortunately, now such a quote would only reveal the mistaken use of "respectable".

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Zingered

For those of you fanatically following the Pyramid thread, Mr. Malone just proved why you never see two long-time friends run against each other in politics. They know each other too well. Mr. Malone just took my "having the Feds bail out the minority is just wrong" point and applied to homosexual marriage. He knows that I'm very much in favor of full CIVIL marriage rights for homosexuals, and he rightly points out that this is the minority position. To which I say "CURSE YOU MR. MALONE!" and "well done."

I moved this back to the front because I think this is worth its own space. Now pay attention as I attempt to maneuver out of this corner. Feel free to cry foul if I miss-step.

A point I made in the other post is that the free-market is often used in areas that it is not designed to handle. Law is just such a place. The free-market works in the FCC space because it is an economic issue. Pure and simple. Here are some of the reasons. Its not about emotion. It's real time. If the nation moves through a conservative period the market will immediately adapt. There is no lag. Also, those who don't want to buy the product don't have too. Furthermore, the market accounts for those that don't like what the majority have to offer. If you don't like what Spike TV is showing, you can watch PAX. So the minority shoppers also have an alternative. This is the free market at work. Its all about economics. This isn't the case for law, particularly homosexual CIVIL marriage.

The free-market accounts for the economic interests of the minority, and it does so in a real time fashion. Law tries to do the same, at least in the US, but it is not real time, and does not allow for entrepreneurial alternatives. So what is the place for law and minority interest? I think its an interesting question, and that's why I brought this forward as its own thread.

I think its incumbent on the strong (majority in this case) to protect the weak (the minority here). I have yet to be persuaded that allowing civil marriage is in any way harmful, so it seems easy that the strong allow the weak this privilege. I get that others feel that allowing homosexuals CIVIL marriage is extremely harmful, so this is the debate. But what I don't get are those that would also disallow civil unions or other legal contracts between homosexuals. This even takes away the attempt by the minority to fashion there own creative solution, it in effect outlaws PAX. This denial of any outlet strikes me as abusive. Unfortunately most laws, and the current proposed Constitutional Amendment do just that.

Put another way. If the 9th grade gym class decides that a particular kid is a nerd and that it is therefore ok to pick on that kid, that's the majority opinion, but its still wrong. I'm still not going to stand by and watch the kid get beat-up, or worse join in. I'm going to try to help the poor geeky kid. That way, maybe he'll help me with my math homework.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Pyramid Schemes

Expanding on Mr. Malone's "government treats Americans like idiots" theme, I'm taking aim at the FCC. The Feds in their ever growing desire to parent the rest of us want to increase indecency fines. While I think it perfectly appropriate that you can be fined more for saying a naughty word on the radio than for medical malpractice or product liability that causes death, I have to wonder is this necessary? The whole notion of a few people deciding for the nation what's appropriate is typical of the Feds. I'm fine with a rating standard, but fines and censorship? I can handle this for myself. Just as its silly that I need the Feds to tell me that a Big Mac is unhealthy, I find it equally silly that folks are surprised that someone known as a "shock jock" may be... shocking. I thought the GOP was the party of the free market. If the market doesn't like naughty words, then the market will penalize those shows that use them. I also like the feds think us so incompetent that we are unable to take the mighty step of changing the channel if we find something offensive. So while we're able to use credit cards, drive, vote, take out home loans, get jobs, fight a war, etc, we are apparently flummoxed by the idea of pushing a button.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

ACLU to America, "Bonk Bonk"

The parents have to sign a form before a child can be allowed to visit the local zoo with her classmates escorted by her teacher and transported in a big, yellow, happy bus. But if she wants to have an operation in another state to end a pregnancy? Well, Mr. and Mrs. America, it's none of your damn business what your daughter is up to. Huh? It's not a story that we are changing this law...the story is how we could have put up with something so twisted for so long. We are told that abortion is no different from any other surgery that removes something unwanted. And yet if a minor wants her tonsils removed mom and dad have to be informed, that seems different. Where is the outrage over this current tonsil-related oppression of our children? Where is the ACLU? Silent, because it would be asinine to argue against something so sensible. Just like it is asinine that secreting children across state lines for abortions without giving those responsible for their well being a say so was ever legal.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

MyPyramid...My arse

If you find yourself concerned that those dangerous tax cuts are threatening to starve our needy government let me give you some food for encouragement. Despite all the missing funds, our government is still able to tell us how to eat. Where would you or I be without our benevolent government and its geometric simplicities? My great fear is that all this budgetary bludgeoning may lead to the canceling of the much needed How-to-Coordinate-your-Clothing Octagon or the Channel-Changing-is-Easy Mobius strip. I tremble at the thought of a citizenry untethered to the daily guidance of Washington wise men, left to fend for themselves in this cold and complicated world like so many pilgrims. But apparently, even after such drastic and horrifying cuts, there is still enough cash in the coffers to devise ever more colorful ways to treat each and every American like a complete idiot.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Good God, y'all

Someone explain to me on what grounds religious influence is considered incompatible with American jurisprudence? The point of a jury of your peers is to bring the sensibilities and backgrounds of your fellow citizens to bear on a case. This, by design, allows for the subjective standard of mutual understanding to temper impersonal justice. The vast majority of Americans have a religious basis to their lives and, therefore, their opinions on justice. To consider this beyond the pale is simply ludicrous. If any of our esteemed bloggers has any sympathy for this ruling please speak up as I find it hard to fathom a thoughtful person seeing this as reasonable. If you share my disappointment, what do you think motivates such a bizarre ruling? Can we only select juries from a pool of atheists and agnostics? Or is the issue that jurors should not attempt to persuade one another during a deliberation?

(It appears the link for this post is no longer active. It was linked to a story that reported in CO a judge ruled a verdict was not valid because the jurors consulted a Bible in their consideration of the death penalty.)

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Mea Culpa

Let me apologize to Mike300 for simplifying his "Any Matter, Any Time" thread. His original post was much broader than my "comment". I probably should have posted a new article, but wasn't up to the effort. As important a topic as the Schiavo case is, especially for gauging where we are on the issue of life and its value (follow your heart McLeib), Mike3000 said much more.

Politics, and perhaps all intellectual query, has a reductive quality to it. Scoop out the guts, we just want the Jack-o-lantern. Sometimes this serves to focus and clarify...sometimes it just triggers an Amber Alert for the bathing baby. When you introduce a press infested with gossip columnist poseurs, well, discourse is the bloodiest casualty; et tu, Brute.

There are some sincere optimists in public office, but they don't get fed press attention and slowly starve. It should be no surprise that journalists of our day reduce to nothing more than fertilizer, so hold your nose and shovel through another New York Times "story".

Is the media the only antagonist in this story? No. The politicians have free will and can pander or not pander. However, media influence is as corrupting as the ever-pilloried "money", and that's a shame because were it honorable, it could be palliative.

It certainly is easy to point the finger outward and blame institutions...but what about the institution of "citizen"? Could we handle the straight dope from a real straight talker, not the kind that has to put it on the side of a bus to be noticed. The press may just be giving the people what they want so keep the Tums in arms reach. No optimist am I, I look forward to reading my clippings.

Here's hoping I'm at least in the ballpark...because I sure am juiced.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Any Matter, Any Time

Randall Terry was right Friday about exactly this much: We're seeing what a G.O.P.-led House is made of — again, I'd add.

Thought I'd seen plenty Thursday afternoon as I watched what turned out to be Hour 7 of the House Government Reform Committee's hearings on baseball.

"Rule 10, Clause 4C2 gives us the ability to hold a hearing on any matter at any time," committee chair Tom Davis said the Sunday before the inquiry. "We're the major investigatory committee of Congress."

On Thursday, Davis, on the behalf of his committee, reminded the nation and its ballplayers that "Our primary focus remains the message that's being sent to" — you guessed it — The Children.

The ballplayers, said Davis hours later, "have an opportunity today to either clear their name or take public responsibility for their action, and perhaps offer cautionary tales to our youth."

Generously, Dennis Kucinich — a Democrat, it must be said — paid forward his final minutes of "face" time to the ballplayers, whom he invited, in English and Spanish (for Sammy), to "speak directly to America's youth."

Steroids? They agin'em! Canseco too, rat tale best-seller to the contrary. And 'til you've seen Gold Glover Rafael Palmiero field questions about which is worse for America — ballplayers betting on baseball or ballplayers juicing (hint: play with steroids, lose it all) — well, let's just say Rafy, 'though he came up in the end with the right answer, his game ain't softball.

Our Congressional Pasttime
No longer amused by playing with a presumably innocent man's livelihood, the committee on Friday — at Jeb Bush's and the congressional leadership's behest — began playing a sick game with the lives of Terri Schiavo and her husband, Michael, threatening him and his irreperably brain-damaged wife with congressional subpoenas — states' rights , the Schiavos' rights , and simple decency be damned.

Any matter. Any time.

The Senate , it must be said, also is deep into Florida's and the Schiavos' business, and that as I'm writing this on Sunday morning, Bill Frist appears to be the face of the G.O.P.'s prying eyes.

Party history, like any forgotten history, is doomed to be repeated. Frist, should he linger too long on the front line of the culture wars, will learn his history the hard way come a presidential campaign.

And it'll be his loss.

Eyes Without a Face
The front line's a fine line that Congress — the Democrats and the Republicans — walk with us. We're always looking out for outrage, especially when we can get indignant without even getting up from in front of the TV.

Democrats play mad, sure — Missouri's William Lacy Clay, he's so honked he wants Mark McGwire's name off a highway! — but since the mid-'80s, whether it's Darling Nikki, Sister Souljah, or Grand Theft Auto, Dems have stuck to little-d demagoguery, and quietly quit while they're ahead.

No Q - U - I - T in the G.O.P. — unless it's over Medicaid or Social Security or, y'know, a federal issue.

Hey, we all love a damned shame, the dirtier the better. Did you hear? Michael Schiavo's got a girlfriend, and they've got kids, and they're all rich because his wife's a vegetable.

And there's fewer of us who'd say that to his face then there are watching Fat Actress.

When we think for five minutes like people living face-to-face in the real world instead of as the faceless, heartless, mindless viewership into which citizenship has deevolved, we know this much about the Schiavos: They're nobody's business, least of all the United States Congress'.

And while we all love to hate facelessly from home — whether it's Michael Schiavo, McGwire, Hillary, or Slick Willie we want thrown under our moral bandwagon — our bandleaders, our surrogate scolds? Scolds, them sooner or later we just plain hate.

Buchanan. Starr. Gingrich. C'mon, look at 'em (if you can find them). That's not us, what we're about. What you do and who you do it with, when and where you did it, whether you really love each other, your life, that's not our business — that's our entertainment!

Really. They're not us.

Frist forgets at his political peril what the faces of Republicans Past mean to us when we look at ourselves and see what we'd rather see than somebody like them, looking long and hard for somebody somehow worse than we are.

They Never Forgot
Two elephants, at least, remember the lessons of the '92 convention and the Clinton impeachment.

Jeb, looking for all the world like he's simply done all he could do, he'll be remembered for this outside Florida for Terri's Law — his "by-the-book" and "The Good Book" bonafides ready-made for '08.

And then there's the Master of the House, I wouldn't know him if he hit me with a hammer: Not-Newt himself, Tom DeLay.

Newt was the speaker, you see. DeLay's not, that's that teddy bear, Denny Hastert. DeLay's the leader, at least for the moment.

He's no Newt, simply because with Newt we knew where he stood: in your face at all times, 'til America told him his time was up.

DeLay and the House looked, learned, and left him in the shadows. And for all the hell DeLay's raised from Texas backrooms to Terri Schiavo's bedside, what's he look like?

Exactly.

So here's Tom DeLay.

Here's our business.

Take a long, hard look into the matter.

Any time.

Friday, March 18, 2005

How I Wish I Read the News

and how I wish I wrote like Leonard Pitts.

Friday, March 11, 2005

Take it to the Bankruptcy

The Senate passed the Bankruptcy reform bill, and the house is expected to follow. An interesting provision makes lawyers vouch for the validity of their clients numbers, and holds the attorney liable if they're found innaccurate. I get that all lawyers are bad and they should be shot, but this strikes me as weird, and counter productive to the justice system. This just feels like a backdoor way to nail the lawyers at the citizens expense. I suppose we could do the same in criminal and civil courts as well, but I'm not sure that justice is served with this sledgehammer approach.

With St. Patricks day coming and all...

In a recent actual conversation with MCL (this was before he got too busy to talk to friends) he noted that Sinn Fein may be the example we're looking for in the Hezbollah case. Here's an interesting article that I think bolsters his case. I do think there are interesting and important similarities between the two, but I'm not sure of the Barkley factor. I avoided this because I was hoping our resident Irishman would figure it out, but like everything else in the Western World, the Greek had start the ball rolling.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Man Refuses to Sing "Happy Birhday" at Kids Party

New York- Local man MC Lieberman caused little Johnny Webster to burst into tears at his recent birthday party. "Look, I know the words, he knows the words, why do I have to waste my time singing the words?" Mr. Lieberman said. Johnny saw it a bit differently. "Why doesn't he like me?" he wailed to his mother. When asked about this Mr. Lieberman said, "Look, clearly I like the kid or I wouldn't be here. I mean, if I didn't want him to have a happy birthday, I wouldn't be here. He knows it, I know it, I'm just trying to save time. In fact, this interview is a waste time, I have to get back to filling up my wisk bottles." Mr. Lieberman had no further comments, and was last seen prancing to his car singing "wisk, wisk, makes me feel brisk" when his phone rang. "D--- it, why do my friends always call me?" he said angrily as he got into his car.

Monday, March 07, 2005

Best use of time

In a departure from our normally high minded conversations allow me to go Seinfeldian on you. My issue: Messages on cell phones. If you are callinjg someone you know from a phone you have called them from before, why leave a message if you have nothing to say? If a friend calls and my phone shows a missed call I can assume that that friend had something non pressing to say/ask and can be called back at my leisure. Why should I have to take the time to check my messages in order to hear "Just saying hey" or the equivelent?

Don't call it a comeback

Maybe the flat-tax is making a comeback. And once again someone else does a better job discussing it that I could (here it's Mr. Bartlett). The flat-tax is one of those ideas that had traction but just died, and I never could figure out why. I'm borderline single issue on this. If Bush gets this passed, then he will move way up in my book (and we all know how bad everyone wants to move up in my book).

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Question for MCL and SMf

I'm moving a point in the "France..." entry, largely because I have the power, and I love to wield my power.
Reading the posts in that entry, I wonder if MCL and SMf view terrorism as a viable means of gaining legitimate political power? The notion of rewarding Hezbollah by giving them political power opens the door to all terrorist thinking its the way to go. The standard protocol is don't negotiate or pay-off terrorists, but is this changing? I remember SMf railing against the UN for allowing Libya to chair of the Human Rights Body. There was no talk of forgiveness, legitimizing, or the need for peace then, what's changed? If Bin Laden succeeds in overthrowing the Saudi royal family, should we try to "take away his ferociousness" by recognizing his legitimate authority in Saudi Arabia? This is not a new point. It often pointed out that the US "patriots" were "rebels" until they won. And that southern "rebels" were "traitors" because they lost, so I get the thinking. But this terrorism vein is new. SMf, do you feel that Hezbollah is just a modern version of GW and the gang? Certainly "threads" exist. If so, I get your point and see why you don't have a problem legitimizing this group. Maybe the question isn't about Hezbollah in particular, but the use of terrorism in general?

Also, I did add another comment to the "France" section, please don't disregard. I know the front page is all splashy, but the behind the scenes efforts mean something too.

Good News/Bad News

The Supreme Court overturned existing law allowing the execution of minors. Here's my dilemma. I am against capital punishment, but I think the courts got this wrong. Citing the Eighth Amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fine imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" the court, in a 5-4 vote, determined that capital punishment of minors was "cruel and unusual punishment." "Cruel and Unusual" are two pretty vague words, but I'm not sure they apply. What was not cruel in the 1700's may be considered very cruel today, and what was unusual in the 1700's may be usual today. The wording is another example of 'breathing room" the framers built into the document. Is capital punishment of minors cruel? Balanced against a lifetime in a maximum security prison, the argument may get circular real fast, and I'll leave that to others. Is it unusual? This is the interesting side. We live in a country where murder is illegal, euthanasia is illegal, suicide is illegal, and most think abortion is murder. Therefore, is it "unusual" to kill someone? I say yes. But is that enough? For the “evolving standard of society” to apply, what constitutes unusual? If 50% of the citizens think it’s unusual, is it so? What about 75%, 95%? This is where I think the Court overreached. The Court cited no direct statistic in its ruling, only a compilation of numbers, plus international standards. (Quick aside for Malone, were we like Iran because executed minors, and if so, should those that opposed Iran, also opposed the US? What about those of us in the US that don’t support Iran. Should we also not support the US? I’m very confused, and I want to be a good patriot.) You can base law on 51%, but societal values? I don’t think so, and this is why I disagree with cause of a ruling whose effect I support. The Court also focused on culpability. Does a minor know what they’re doing, and are they responsible. Reading the case, this guy did. But the larger question is how different is a 17 year old from an 18 year old? But that topic is to brainy for me.
Personally, I think this Amendment addresses torture, public humiliation and the like. Also, do I think Bush's vision of a society that "embraces life" should also abhor the death penalty, absolutely? I just think that this should have come from national referendum, not the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Looney Toons

I think this guy is one of the best conservative editorial cartoonists going. This picture sums up my dissapointment with the GOP. I think this thought will continue to grow in the GOP ranks. Its the Chuch Asay post from 2/28/05.