tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14538230754138742212024-03-13T22:46:03.523-07:00Rowrz!Commentary, thoughts, pouncings, shreddings...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-35907967164171290522010-02-18T15:14:00.000-08:002010-02-18T15:14:05.387-08:00The South Carolina Lolgislature.....wants terrorists, rebels, evil organizations, and "every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means" to "register with the Secretary of State on forms prescribed by him within thirty days after coming into existence in this State."<br />
<br />
That's right. South Carolina wants villains to register. Mind you, you're not being outlawed...just made to register.<br />
<br />
Oh, it isn't limited to terrorists, the Illuminati, and die-hard Confederacy supporters either. The new law includes very broad provisions that apples to organizations "subject to foreign control", which includes everything from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE">S.P.E.C.T.R.E.</a> to the Manchurian Candidate.<br />
<br />
Y'know, just in case the CIA wasn't keeping track.<br />
<br />
The punishment for failing to register is a $25k fine and being jailed for ten years. Presumably in South Carolina. If this is not a comedic situation waiting to happen, I don't know what is.<br />
<br />
I'm just waiting for the headlines when South Carolina's Secretary of State is taken out by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Operative:_No_One_Lives_Forever">H.A.R.M.'s Director of Executive Action</a>.<br />
<br />
Full text of the new law is <a href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c029.htm">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-37994577076820860342010-01-27T09:09:00.000-08:002010-01-27T09:09:54.525-08:00Suddenly HaitiHaiti is in the news due to a large scale earthquake hitting the country, killing perhaps more than a hundred thousand and leaving a very large chunk of the population homeless. This one can easily verify by checking the newspapers and watching the evening news. However, they don't tell you that the country was in shambles BEFORE the earthquake, and honestly I can only think that the earthquake will be of long-term benefit to the island for drawing attention to a situation that has been regarded by many international observers as nearly hopeless since the '60's. <br />
<br />
This former pirate colony, wracked by the successive plundering dictatorships of François "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, and the initially promising but ultimately criminal Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is the poorest country in the Americas and one of the poorest in the world. Scores of people live in the shanty towns strewn with garbage and lacking basic utilities and sanitation that constitute most of Port-au-Prince's urban sprawl. Nearly half the causes of death in the country have been attributed to HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, meningitis and other diseases according to the World Health Organization. The country has been occupied by U.N. peacekeepers since the 2004 rebellion that toppled Aristide. All this is before the earthquake.<br />
<br />
Really, it's a shame that it took an earthquake for normal people to respond to the constant misfortunes of this small and vibrant nation with a rich cultural heritage.<br />
<br />
The White House's web site has set up a link to the relief effort spearheaded by Bill Clinton and W. Not that that really inspires confidence, but here's the <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/haitiearthquake_embed">link </a>anyway. Do offer help. It's entirely possible that these new channels for aid are secure enough to not be siphoned off by the likes of Duvalier or Aristide.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-9819615988705967652010-01-27T08:47:00.000-08:002010-01-27T08:47:46.248-08:00MadagascarOne has to wonder if the arrogant energetic insane idiot lemur king, Julian XIII, of the movie <i>Madagascar</i>, was based on real politics of the island of Madagascar. Recent events there could make for an epic dark comedy, with larger-than-life characters and ridiculous situations tinged with violence, and probably deserve a little more analysis than why the lemur king doesn't have a more Malagasy name. The cast of characters is as follows: <br />
<br />
President Marc Ravalomanana is a former peddler of yogurt from the back of a bicycle, a business that he built from distribution to dairies to farms and is now a megaconglomerate, TIKO. TIKO owns a monopoly of all dairy and oil production on the island as well as several media outlets. A fervent Christian, he has before mentioned dreaming of a Christian nation in Madagascar, and has managed to remove limits of religion in government by constitutional referendum. He was elected mayor of Antananarivo (Madagascar's capital) in 1999, and won the presidency in a contentious election in 2001. Since then he has been a very popular leader, and won re-election to a second term by a comfortable margin. Unfortunately, this comfort has led to what many of his people to consider corrupt mixing of national interests and TIKO's business interests. <br />
<br />
Mayor Andry Rajoelina of Antananarivo used to spin popular tunes in the city's nightclubs. From that he built up an event organization business that eventually branched into the advertising and printing powerhouse Injet. He also owns the radio and TV broadcaster Viva. Since his election he has had to deal with the fallout of massive debts racked up by his government-appointed predecessor, including the water and power to the city being shut off. <br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
I didn't get to finish this post due to various interruptions, but the gist of it was going to be about the comic rallies that Rajolina was having to the tune of Vangelis' soundtrack to the film <i>1492: Conquest of Paradise</i> and the goofy one-upping that each of the candidates was doing in the form of media manipulation. The conflict then unfortunately turned bloody, with each side blaming the other for confrontations that killed over 170 people. Rajolina declared himself president, formed a cabinet, and won the military to his side, effectively forming a seperate government. President Ravalomanana resigned a month later (in March), and formed a military council to wield executive power. After the presidential palace was stormed, and Rajolina ordered the military to arrest him, Ravalomanana fled the country. The African Union, European Union, and many other international bodies refuse to recognize Rajolina's government, as it was installed unconstitutionally by force. Since then Rajolina has signed and then scrapped two power sharing agreements with Ravalomanana's supporters. So the situation is tense. In many ways, though, it continues to be ridiculous. Such as Rajolina's attempt to explain the many changes he's made to the constitution through <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8387385.stm">cartoons</a> and the fact that government ministries ignored his order to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/world/africa/03madagascar.html?_r=2">shut down</a> when he seized power. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Rajolina's popularity seems to be slipping as the economic situation in the country degrades. <br />
<br />
One almost wishes for a popular benevolent idiot autocrat like Julian to restore stability.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-72649035653514011892010-01-25T07:18:00.000-08:002010-01-25T07:18:52.342-08:00Back From HiatusI took a year off from frothing about politics and things in general in celebration of the election of Barack Obama, whom I still think is doing decently in a position that is notoriously hard for someone trying to do things the right way. All good things must come to an end, however. <br />
<br />
Actually I've just been busy and/or lazy. <br />
<br />
Which means that I have a backlog of things to bitch about and new ones are occurring every day. <br />
<br />
So here we go! Hello, 2010!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-18081096809103750212009-01-29T11:22:00.000-08:002009-01-29T12:13:34.179-08:00Irony for the AntiquarianI must note, for a snicker or two, that it seems in the general parlance of symbolic shorthand that the Staff of Asclepius (the doctor-son of Apollo and patron of medicine) seems to have mostly been replaced by the Rod of Hermes (patron of, among other things, merchants and thieves). <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SYINvomDjUI/AAAAAAAAAW0/k_36rmmtBAE/s1600-h/doctorsthieves.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 293px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SYINvomDjUI/AAAAAAAAAW0/k_36rmmtBAE/s320/doctorsthieves.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5296811223743171906" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-61267969188214713992009-01-28T11:58:00.000-08:002009-01-28T12:36:44.495-08:00Reinforcing the Monastic WallsThe <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school28-2009jan28,0,4594347.story?track=rss">Los Angeles Times reports</a> that a panel of the California 4th District of Appeal has ruled that a Lutheran high school has the right to expel students for being gay. Apparently, it is not a business (despite accepting money to perform a service) and therefore does not have to obey civil rights laws. This sets a lovely precedent for religious schools setting up a monastic culture in which students, sent by their parents, have parts of their humanity repressed in an environment that teaches not about the world, but about a world based on the ideals of the people running the school. They will be taught that such and such a lifestyle is wrong and to be shunned. You know, sort of like terrorists, Nazis, Kim Jong Il, and so forth.<br /><br />If I'm being alarmist it is because I am alarmed.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-22245626926114056702009-01-19T13:09:00.000-08:002009-01-19T17:34:58.174-08:00The Dream Fulfilled? Not quite...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SXUqKix3BtI/AAAAAAAAAWc/4BdTPlu4578/s1600-h/equality.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 197px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SXUqKix3BtI/AAAAAAAAAWc/4BdTPlu4578/s200/equality.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293183297666877138" border="0" /></a><br /><br />...and I'm not sure I WANT it all to be fulfilled.<br /><br />Yea, in honor of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s national holiday as well as the upcoming inauguration of this country's first black* president I am taking a moment to examine Dr. King's dream as stated in his speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. It seems that pundits, pastors and <a href="http://www.hannibal.net/news_local/x1621252739/Obama-presidency-called-fulfillment-of-King-s-dream">politicians</a> are saying that Obama is the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream. I do not believe that this is so, and upon reading the speech again — I have not really done so since middle school — I find that there are a few points that I am not entirely comfortable with wandering about in the generally uplifting and inspiring speech.<br /><br />This country has changed much for the better since 1963, when racial segregation was law, lynchings were commonplace, and the majority of white people seemed to think this was just fine. This was the atmosphere in which Dr. King gave his speech, and he gave it partially in his role as a Baptist minister. This explains, perhaps, why he chose to argue the way he did.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"</span><br /><br />My version of the dream has the creed changed to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are equal." I do not wish for creationism to be promoted.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."</span><br /><br />This has, for the most part, come to pass. Racism lingers, but there is no longer a legal divide, and the generations since 1963 seem to be increasingly race-neutral. For a person used to gender neutral language, though, it is left to wonder why it is the sons and not the daughters, or simply the children.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />"I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."</span><br /><br />Mississippi is still <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050711/younge">contested territory</a> for the forces of tolerance and those that would oppose them. It is better than it was then, but it has a very long way to go.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." </span><br /><br />One can argue that this has come to pass with Obama's election, but it seems to me that too many people are still judged by the color of their skin. Not large public-view things, of course, and not usually things in which a legal action may take place, but stealthily and in personal situations.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"</span><br /><br />Aye, he didn't acknowledge all genders, creeds and religions, as I would have done. I wonder if this was simply the shortsightedness of the era, or perhaps a limit to King's dream. I do not know enough about the man to consider what might be his view on the Equal Rights Amendment, but I am saddened by the fact that this amendment is still not law. I also wonder what he might think of the diversity of religion in America now, and in fact what he thought of the diversity of religion in the world then.<br /><br />Dr. King's dream was a worthy and lofty goal for 1963, but we can do better in 2009. We can have a dream in which all people, of any race, of any religion, of any gender or no gender at all, of any creed, of any sexuality, can be treated as equals under laws that are fair in a society that values all of its constituents.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* Barack Obama is of mixed ethnicity. His mother, Ann Dunham, was an Irish-American from Kansas. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was a black African from Kenya. He seems to strongly take after his father's features. I don't mean to say that this precludes him from being "black", I just find it interesting. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-80945670930307720602009-01-13T18:59:00.000-08:002009-01-13T21:05:57.488-08:00I call Bullshit.This is why I don't watch prime time TV.<br /><br />I happened to be in the same room as tonight's episode of CBS' "The Mentalist", which, from what I can tell, is a permutation of the police/investigation genre with a snarky asshat as the main character. Said asshat uses a combination of Sherlockian observation and pop psychology and apparently always gets his criminal. <br /><br />This episode (whose title was "Red Rum") had one of those plots that network writers grab out of their trash bin five minutes before the deadline...you know, the ones that take a minority, religion, or obscure subject and represent it as exactly what they think their midwestern, white, Christian family audience believes it is. This time they did it with Wicca.<br /><br />The rough plot is this: Football player found dead with a small amount of evidence that suggests an occult connection. Police interview the parents, who immediately bring up "that witch", and point the investigators to a "witch" who apparently lives in the neighborhood and has accused said football player of killing her cat. The title character and his unprofessional, uninformed partners go to this house and find a pentacle on the door-step as well as a goat decoration by the door. It is explained to the audience that this is a mark of devil-worship. As no one answers the door bell, the investigators go question the football coach and search the locker room. They find, in the deceased's locker, a shirt with blood on it. They go to try the "witch's" house again, and break in with the assurance that a search warrant is "on the way". The owner is in residence, and welcomes them in. When asked about not answering the door, she says that she would have been at a disadvantage that way. She proceeds to explain that she did lay a curse on the football player in revenge for him killing her cat. She knew of the football player's death before the police did because she had her apprentices (of whom she is "High Priestess")looking for herbs in those woods that day, and she didn't tell the police because she believes that he'll just return to the earth, and there is no helping him now. She also says that he was an evil man. She liberally uses the word "cowen". Eventually it falls out that the football player's younger brother is an apprentice of the "witch's", and the police break into the "witch's" house in time to interrupt a cleansing ritual involving blood and lots of Latin chanting for effect. They bring in the "witch" and the brother, who was the object of the cleansing ritual. The witch curses one of the investigators (who is made fun of for the rest of the show for being superstitious), but then tells them about the brother and how he came to her willingly, curious, and is happy with her brand of witchcraft. For his part, the brother says he feels safe with the witch. This leads the main character to leap to the conclusion that the father is abusive and killed his son, and he's right. <br /><br />No further mention of the cat.<br /><br />This "witch" did lots of things that practitioners of Wicca (of whom she claims to be one) don't, including cursing on a whim, not reporting discovery of a corpse (that's really just stupid), invoking her Goddess as protection from police interrogators, claiming that she is the only witch in Los Angeles, conducting her rite in Latin using her blood-covered (supposed) athame like a wand...et cetera. There is one sequence, as they break in on the cleansing ceremony, which is shot in such a way as to suggest that the brother is going to be ritually sacrificed. Gardinerian? A little maybe, but I think it's more laziness on the part of the writers. Laziness and irresponsibility in promoting a damaging stereotype. <br /><br />The "witch" character is, of course, damaged goods (because no one sane comes to Wicca), having never known her father and seen her mother murdered. She's a college drop-out and has been jailed fro petty theft before. Of course. The actress (Azura Skye)plays her creepy as all get-out, of course.<br /><br />My favorite quote: "Why would you feel safe at a witch's house? If your father is abusing you."<br /><br />*sigh*Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-78018239122256250662008-12-03T15:24:00.000-08:002009-01-19T17:38:29.600-08:00Support the environment, get rid of Bushes.Jebediah Bochepus Wonkerston Bush, err...I mean John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, former Florida governor, <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1017-03.htm">disenfranchisement conspirator</a>, <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jeb_bush_interview/2008/11/30/156557.html">"shadow government" proponent</a>, arrogant authoritarian policy-maker, neoconservative hawk, lobbyist and general jackass is "seriously considering" a run for the soon-to-be-vacant U.S. Senate seat of Mel Martinez. <br /><br />You can probably see what I have to say coming.<br /><br />NO MORE JEB. NO MORE BUSH POLITICAL DYNASTY.<br /><br />More when I stop frothing.<br /><br />Edit: Update: J.E.Bush isn't running for the Senate, but his father and other political figures keep mentioning that he would be a good president. They are, of course, wrong.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-35180449249348628432008-11-29T12:05:00.000-08:002008-11-29T13:41:31.034-08:00Murdered for a BargainJdimytai Damour was attempting, along with co-workers, to hold together the sliding glass doors that were beginning to bulge and break under the press of eager shoppers as Wal-Mart's opening time neared. This action cost him his life.<br /> The overstrained doors shattered, and a throng of eager shoppers streamed in, knocking Damour and his co-workers to the ground and viciously trampling them. Other workers who tried to help were beaten back by the streaming crowd. <br /> When I read the reports of the New York Times and Associated Press regarding these events, I was horrified. How could people be so callous? Is a half-price vacuum cleaner really worth a person's life? What's more, shoppers stepped over Damour's body to continue getting into the store. More shoppers casually walked by, through the broken doors, as rescue crews tried to revive the slain man. Further, when it became evident that he was dead and management tried to close the store, the crowd resisted! <br /> “When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, ‘I’ve been on line since yesterday morning,’ ” a witness told The Associated Press. “They kept shopping.” <br /> The police had to help employees clear the store. <br /> Ridiculous is too mild a word to describe the situation. It is positively criminal. The people who broke down that door and through that man are murderers. The ones who stepped over him are guilty of negligent homicide. Did they forget their conscience at home when they went to wait in line for what they knew would be days? How does the desire to buy gifts override the instinctive concern one has for those who are injured? Perhaps these people have no such instinct. <br /> Wal-Mart addressed the issue mildly through a spokesman, affirming the "priority" of the "safety" of their "associates": “The safety and security of our customers and associates is our top priority. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this tragic time.” <br /> The New York Times thought to seek the opinion of the United Food and Commercial Workers, whose attempts to unionize Wal-Mart employees have been continually rebuffed by the discount chain. <br />“Where were the safety barriers?” said Bruce Both, the union president. “Where was security? How did store management not see dangerous numbers of customers barreling down on the store in such an unsafe manner? This is not just tragic; it rises to a level of blatant irresponsibility by Wal-Mart.”<br /> One has to see Mr. Both's point, even though he obviously has an agenda. Wal-Mart and store management could have done numerous things to prevent this occurrence. I doubt that Damour and his co-workers went to barricade the door of their own free will; it must have seemed dangerous at the time. Store managers must have ordered them to. This was shortsighted and irresponsible, yes, but who could have foreseen the inhuman mobbish mentality of those who broke down the door?<br /> What truly chills me to the quick about this tragedy is that I have a dear, wonderful friend who has had the misfortune to be assigned by her temp agency to Wal-Mart for the holidays. She is nowhere near Nassau County and didn't work on Black Friday, thanks to the graces of fortune. <br /> Negligence and a tepid concern for safety are what we have come to expect from Wal-Mart, so their role in this is unsurprising. It fits their modus operandi of low-grade insidious evil. However, it is disturbing when one realizes that each of the members of the crowd that broke down the doors of a discount store and trampled a man to death in search of bargains is a human being; a thinking, reasoning individual. They made decisions that resulted in this end. This Wal-Mart is situated in one of the richest counties and villages in the United States, and it also attracts shoppers from neighboring Queens, New York. These were not people forcing their way in out of true necessity. What was different in their experience that made it okay to break down the doors of a store in search of Black Friday bargains? Has advertising worked that heavily on the American consciousness?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-36053856407776209152008-11-08T12:41:00.001-08:002008-11-08T13:37:47.220-08:00Swing State Blues...or WTFlorida?!They're better than the red state blues, but a lot more confusing. Oh, I know this state is purple, and that political allegiances shift like the waves as the population grows and moves around, but a lot of the results around here point to an electorate that is maybe a wee bit schizophrenic. <br /> The state managed to elect Barack Obama with 50.9% of the vote, which is close, but not unusually so for Florida. On the other hand, 62% of the electorate voted for Amendment 2, which seeks to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and outlaws anything else that "is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof". It's a sweepingly overreaching constitutional amendment, especially considering that homosexual marriage is prohibited by state statute anyway (blame Jeb Bush). Also, in rejecting Amendment 1 (by 52.1%), Florida elected to retain language in the constitution that allows the legislature to prohibit aliens ineligible for citizenship (like, oh, the king of Bhutan) from owning land. <br /> This means that, statewide, there are about 200,000 people who voted for a black, liberal, pro-choice, pro-equality president, but also voted to ban anything that smelled like legal marriage between homosexuals and to retain the possibility of taking land away from law-abiding resident aliens. Conservative black voters? Maybe. Crackers Against Palin? Maybe. Who knows?<br /> Locally, the results are equally as odd. I live in Hillsborough County, which is comprised of the sizable city of Tampa, its suburbs, a few smaller towns, and a large amount of rural land in the southeastern portion (it also comprises the central section of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, whereas the northern and southern ends of the bridge are in Pinellas and Manatee counties, respectively. Not that there are any voters living on the bridge). The county elected Barack Obama with 53% of the vote, reflecting the trend of population centers going blue. Amendment 1, however, failed by the same margin. Amendment 2 passed by 59% here, which I personally find sickening. However, this county elected the openly gay Kevin Beckner to the county commission with 55% of the vote. This means that 14% of this county's electorate think it is a good idea to have a gay man on the county commission, but he can't be allowed to marry his partner. Quoi?<br /> These observations are, of course, oversimplifications in that I barely paid attention to that commission race and am not sure what arguments were thrown back and forth. I personally voted based on my dislike for Beckner's opponent Brian Blair, the former professional wrestler who has been avidly pro-uncontrolled-growth and arrogantly anti-environment.<br /> But that's not all the fun in Hillsborough! After five years of ridiculous problems with nearly every election he supervised, Buddy Johnson (a Jeb Bush appointee), conceded his own race to his opponent Phyllis Busansky after losing votes, miscounting votes, and being out of communication for several days, leaving the Supervisor of Elections election in limbo. Tribune columnist Daniel Ruth today described Johnson as "dumber than a sack of toothpicks".<br /><br /> I guess the good thing is that all this swinging about keeps us Floridians on our toes.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-9827248672581112862008-11-04T20:16:00.000-08:002008-11-04T20:24:55.717-08:00Election Night IVI was planning for this to be a long session, to wait for into the night for election returns, and prattle on about the candidates as I did so. But with John McCain's concession speech, that closes the deal. Hopefully. I didn't get to nitpicking and criticizing Barack Obama tonight, but it seems that I will have four years to do that!<br /><br />Honestly, I am so happy that our country could overcome so much in the way of nastiness and racial hatred, bigotry, dislike of "foreignness", and mudslinging. I have never been more proud to be an American than I am right now.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-88353138422647583642008-11-04T20:02:00.000-08:002008-11-04T20:04:13.787-08:00Election Night IIIThe BBC, adding the west coast to Obama's score, is calling the election for Obama. Of course, they're British, so not too sure how right that is. <br /><br />But yay anyway!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-35427384574874250042008-11-04T18:48:00.000-08:002008-11-04T19:04:48.413-08:00Election Night IINew Mexico has been called for Obama, the first Western state to go blue so far. But it's been called red by the New York Times. Ahh, exit polls. Texas has gone red according to the BBC, and that's no surprise. <br /><br />Elizabeth Dole has lost her Senate seat after one term, and apparently John Sununu also lost. There seems to be a backlash against legacy Republicans.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-69173489590419236582008-11-04T16:05:00.000-08:002008-11-04T17:51:54.068-08:00Election NightThis election cycle has taught us a lot about John McCain and Barack Obama. We've learned more, I think, from the way they each campaign than from any of the late election smear campaigns. <br /><br />As of this point in the evening (7:30), Vermont has been called from Obama and Kentucky has been called for McCain. No real surprises there.<br /><br />I was forwarded an article from Rolling Stone that completely took McCain apart from his childhood on. It made the case, very well, that McCain was a selfish, womanizing hot dog for most of his adult life. It also contended that his success in life is the direct result of flagrant nepotism. It painted the man as saying or doing absolutely anything that would make him look good, as well as making erratic decisions with sometimes disastrous consequences. <br /> These contentions make a lot of sense in the context of McCain's political life, and his 2008 presidential campaign has provided a lot of evidence for their veracity. Sarah Palin is one such erratic decision, I feel. He seems to have spent very little time in considering her, and I believe that he only met her once or twice before declaring her his veep pick. Se was, of course, under investigation, and has very little experience on the national and world stages. Oh, and she's an idiot. Okay, that last jab was mine. Her politics are evangelical Christian conservative. If McCain was banking on the fact that she is a woman, thinking that this is the only thing that Hillary Clinton supporters care about, he seriously underestimated them. Hillary had women's issues at heart, after all, and Palin takes the opposite tack on all of them. The only think McCain could seriously hope to gain with Pain was the renewed respect of the religious right....and who would they vote for anyway? Not a Democrat. <br /><br /> OK,TN and SC have been called for McCain. ME,MA,CT,NJ,DE,MD and IL have been called for Obama. (8:26)<br /><br />So yeah, I once said that McCain would probably be better than Bush. I don't think I believe that anymore. His reactions are too reflexive, he has too hot of a temper, he's not enough of a diplomat to be a real head of state. <br /><br />Speaking of things that are ridiculous, accusations of "socialism" are really annoying echoes of Nixon's lambasting his opponents as "soft on Communism". Even if Obama was a true socialist, there is no way true socialist policy could be made with even a supermajority of Democrats in congress. There would be too much resistance. The biggest socialist steps we ever took came only after a decade of absolutely terrible economic performance. Not that our economy has really been that great during the Bush era. <br /><br />Waiting with 'bated breath.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-32973132903684709312008-10-16T12:26:00.000-07:002008-10-19T15:54:16.415-07:00Say goodnight to Gracie, Mike!<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SPu6PyEd3FI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/_nulz4WMZUc/s1600-h/BloombergGiulianilimits.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SPu6PyEd3FI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/_nulz4WMZUc/s320/BloombergGiulianilimits.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5259001770186497106" /></a><br /><br /> Apparently Gracie Mansion is so comfortable, posh, and well located that no one ever wants to leave it. Okay, fine, so Giuliani was forced to move out and Bloomberg has never lived there, but it made a fun metaphor. Bloomberg, like Giuliani before him, is trying to circumvent the rules that the people laid down for the Mayor of New York by extending his time in office.<br /> Giuliani, as you may recall, wanted a three-month extension of his mayorality so that he could "ease that transition" of power after the Sept. 11th attacks. He also suggested that the term limits imposed just a decade before be repealed. Fortunately, neither effort came to pass. <br /> Now Bloomberg is fighting to overturn the term limits (imposed in 1993 as section 50 of the city charter). His argument is that as a billionaire and Wall Street guru, he is exactly what the city needs to pull it out of the recent economic collapse. <br /> He had his eight years to make sure that the city was financially sound, why does he need more? Oh, and wasn't it big Wall Street financial gurus who got us into the economic mess we're in in the first place?<br /> Really, keep the term limits. They're good for democracy, and good for New York.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-7009280202201350102008-08-26T14:08:00.000-07:002008-08-26T16:50:05.223-07:00Which way Beijing?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SLSWkvWUPBI/AAAAAAAAALY/PXCDa77uQZE/s1600-h/whichwaybeijing.gif"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SLSWkvWUPBI/AAAAAAAAALY/PXCDa77uQZE/s320/whichwaybeijing.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5238977824468253714" /></a><br /><br />Lately I've not had time for many rowrz...I've had a bunch of things to rowr about, though. Here's one. Olympic medal counts.<br /><br />So many news outlets here in the United States have chosen to print medal counts by total number of medals won, in which the United States came out on top pretty much since the games opened and ended up with 110 to China's 100. This may be just to make America feel better that China did, in fact, beat the pants off of us 51-36 in golds. Such negative feelings about any country bettering America at the Olympics is very much against the original ideas behind the games, and the Olympic creed itself: <br /><br />"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."<br /><br />It is, however, pretty telling about our...ahem...national personality. Yeah, it seems we have a thing about being #1 at everything. <br /><br />There is something else that Americans who feel this way might be able to take comfort in, though: there is a significant home court advantage for whatever country is hosting the games. There are a crowd of usual suspects that are nearly always in the top five, namely the United States, Russia (or the USSR), Italy, France, and Germany. Sweden, Hungary, and the United Kingdom have also traditionally had strong showings. The United States, has, in fact, been in the top five of every games that it has participated in. Russia has too. China has been winning a lot of medals in recent Games as well, and was #4 in 1992 and 1996, #3 in 2000 and #2 in 2004. It's only natural that this progress should continue, and compounded by the home court advantage led to an exceptional medal count. <br /><br />So yeah, the home court advantage. There are three countries (Belgium, Greece, and South Korea) who have only been in the top five in the years that they have hosted. In fact, the host country is nearly always in the top five, and with few exceptions in the top ten. These exceptions are Canada (#27 in Montreal), Mexico (#15 at Mexico City in 1968), the United Kingdom (#12 at London in 1948, definitely a counterargument)and Greece (#15 at Athens in 2004). The United States has won the most gold medals at every Olympics it has hosted so far. The U.K., Russia, and China have too. France won the most in the 1900 games, but came in third in 1924. Germany won the most in 1936, but didn't do as well in 1972 as a divided country.<br /><br />Of course, politics have to do with it as well. Especially with authoritarian regimes you get the need to prove that your country is better. See Germany in 1936, Russia in 1980, Mexico in 1968 (in 1964 they had been #35) and China this year. <br />During the Cold War the US and the USSR generally traded the top two places back and forth when they weren't boycotting each other. <br /><br />So yes, winning gold medals seems to be less about athletics and more about how much in the way of resources individual nations put in to their Olympic teams. Panama had only 3 athletes at the 2008 Olympics, and brought home a single medal. China had 639 athletes there. The U.S. had 596.<br /><br />Anyway, it's supposed to be friendly competition, don't put so much importance on medals. Celebrate the individual athletes.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-12406720715696104012008-07-07T22:18:00.001-07:002008-07-07T22:22:10.727-07:00WTFFacebook, take two<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SHL4x9bYpsI/AAAAAAAAAKE/61iuxxULAh4/s1600-h/wtffacebook2.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SHL4x9bYpsI/AAAAAAAAAKE/61iuxxULAh4/s400/wtffacebook2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5220508455262529218" /></a><br /><br />This is an ever graver error than the last. That is a cute and healthily toned tummy! Why would someone think that that is fat unless they kept being bombarded with advertising saying that this was fat?<br /><br />Oh, and facebook, please stop letting advertisers use data from my profile in their ads. I am a perfectly fine weight.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-20880855852104233602008-06-06T09:03:00.000-07:002008-06-06T09:09:32.547-07:00A letter to Jerrold Nadler<span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 204, 255);">Rep. Jerrold Nadler</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 204, 255);"> 2334 Rayburn House Office Building</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 204, 255);"> Washington, DC 20515</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 204, 255);"> June 6, 2008</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 204, 255);"> Rep. Nadler,</span><br /> <br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 204, 255);"> I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the service you continue to perform for your constituents in New York and all Americans. Your commitment to tough, incisive questioning of those brought before the House Judiciary Committee is deserving of the highest of praise. During the (unfortunately timed) inquiry into the Department of Justice's policies toward the Bush Administration, your questions put into sharp relief the Bush Administration's "L'etat, c'est moi" style of governance and made it clear that the Attorney General was not upholding his constitutional obligations. More recently, in the case of Maher Arar, your steady, solid, and revealing questions led Homeland Security officials to admit that the Administration had knowingly engaged in illegal extraordinary rendition. All of this is now in the public record, thanks to you. I also applaud your vocal support of gay and lesbian equality in a time when many states are amending their constitutions to prevent these citizens from having the right to marry whom they please. Your courage is exemplary. Thank you for all of your work to ensure liberty, equality, justice, and openness in government in these difficult times. I look forward to hearing of your work for many years into the future.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">Oh, he's probably done bad things too, but he has a progressive record and how are our legislators ever going to learn if they're not given little nudges now and then? </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 204, 255);"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-52284627370145142162008-05-05T08:35:00.000-07:002008-05-05T21:07:44.099-07:00American political liabilities of the pastWith all the contention in recent years over candidates and their various political liabilities, things that would not truly affect a presidency but for some reason or another cast aspersions on the character of the person in question, I am curious about some of the United States' past officeholders and the issues they may have dealt with that would make then unelectable today. In other words, I'm trying to figure out if our media-run political process has, as it has become more and more relevant, made the candidates for public office water themselves down into blandness by attempting to dispose of those little kinks that make them individuals. I'll forego the obvious and politically relevant things in judging whether someone might be electable today, such as hawkishness or doveishness, but focus on the little things that the media also likes to scrutinize so heavily these days (I mean really, what the hell does Hillary Clinton's choice of wardrobe have to do with anything?).<br /><br />The first few prezzies are too easy game. Washington had no teeth. Jefferson owned slaves. Adams...well...people hated Adams. So we'll begin with one of the less obvious of our early executives.<br /><br />Martin Van Buren was the eighth President of the United States, serving from 1837-1841. A one-termer. He had been Secretary of State and then Vice President under Andrew Jackson (which would have carried severe political baggage nowadays, what with the Native American vote), so he was long entrenched in Washington politics. He opposed universal suffrage, wishing to keep the property ownership required for someone to vote, while helping to draft the New York state constitution. These might be problematic today, but the biggest political liability he would have in the current election is simple: English was not his first language. He spoke Dutch when he was a child and in his early schooling. Pundits today would call him a foreigner and accuse him of wanting to destroy America.<br /><br />James Buchanan was the fifteenth President of the United States. He had been Secretary of State under Polk, and Minister (Ambassador) to the Court of St. James (Britain) under Franklin Peirce. He supported annexing Cuba and spreading slavery there. He liked to refuse nominations to higher office, as he did with an appointment to the Supreme Court under Polk. One of his big issues was that he didn't want to be President. He reluctantly accepted the nomination. The only way he got there was the fact that in the odd election of 1856 none of the candidates for president actually campaigned. They left it to their parties. These might all seem like political liabilities today, but the big one was this: He never married. He was a bachelor all his life. This would raise eyebrows today, and the talk shows would bellow about him being gay and the candidate of the "homosexual agenda".<br /><br />Chester A. Arthur might be mostly lost to history, but he served as the twenty-first President of the United States. He was Vice President under James Garfield, but had a fairly contentious relationship with his new patron. They were from differing factions of the Republican party. Nevertheless, when Garfield was shot in the back by a political assassin and Arthur ascended to the Presidency, he denounced the politics behind the assassination and resolved to be above factional rivalries during his term. Because of this he is regarded as a good president by many historians. He did not run for re-election, so his only campaign was for Veep. He had a secret that stopped him from running for his own term as President: He was terminally ill. He had Bright's disease, which could cause kidney failure and death at any moment. Once this was leaked to the press by opposition party burglars and researchers, there would be no way he could win an election. However, he had an even bigger political liability than impending sudden demise to modern pundits: He might have been born in Canada! His parents had moved from Quebec only shortly before he was born, if indeed they had moved before his birth at all. Paperwork was lacking back then. This didn't matter, of course, because he was a citizen by right of his parents being citizens, but you can imagine what Fox News would have done with that notion (oh, right, he was a Republican. They'd have ignored it after the primary).<br /><br />Arthur's successor, Democrat Grover Cleveland, served at the twenty-second President. He was also the twenty-fourth. He won the popular vote three times. He was a fellow who was greatly admired in many circles for his honesty and courage. He was also fiscally responsible, which gained him many political enemies. These enemies tried all they could to sully Arthur's reputation, uncovering a possible illegitimate child in the process. If they had the instincts of today's scandal-diggers, though, they would know that his bigger liability was the fact that he paid a Polish immigrant $150 to take his place when he was conscripted to serve in the Union Army during the Civil War. Dodger! Unpatriotic enemy-hugger! He was also a bachelor when elected. Worse and worse!<br /><br />A man well set up to be president, who had much in the way of political experience and was the chosen heir of a popular president, was William Howard Taft. He had been Governor of the Phillipines, and negotiated with foreign powers on behalf of the United States, and had a strong legal background. Everything that the populace generally wants in a president. There were some issues that might derail him today, though. Firstly, he was a Unitarian. He even stated on the record once (after his election) that he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or many other tenets of Christian scripture. Wooo! Rush would have a field day. But the bigger problem for his image in today's thinness-obsessed America would definitely be his weight. Taft was fat. Quite obese. Just under six feet tall and 320 pounds at one point during his presidency. He seemed to have a good sense of humor about it, though. To illustrate, here is an excerpt from the memoirs of Senator James Watson: <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(51, 204, 255);">"One day I was in the President's private room ... when [Senator] Chauncey Depew came in. ... After we had talked serious matters for a few minutes and were about to depart, Mr. Depew stepped up to Taft and, taking liberties that I never would have thought of taking with a president, said to him, putting his hand on Mr. Taft's big frontal development: 'What are you going to call it when it comes, Mr. President?' It was just about that time when Mr. Taft was beginning to have some difficulty with Roosevelt, and he quickly responded: 'Well, if it's a boy, I'll call it William; if it's a girl, I'll call it Theodora; but if it turns out to be just wind, I'll call it Chauncey.'" </span><br /><br />In Taft's successor, Woodrow Wilson, the United States has a president that has yet to be equaled and likely never will. He was terribly racist. When he was President of Princeton, he actively discouraged blacks from applying. His presidential administration veritably purged those of African heritage from governmental offices in Washington. When a delegation of blacks protested these moves, he reportedly said "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." Al Sharpton would have his head for breakfast. Oddly, this may not be the biggest thing preventing him from winning high office today. What makes him less electable is likely the fact that he had a Ph.D in history and political science. That makes him an intellectual. An intellectual Democrat. Not happening these days. There hasn't been a president with a Ph.D since.<br /><br />Succeeding Wilson was Warren G. Harding, whose administration was dogged with scandal from day one. He also was pretty inept with the English language, despite having a gift for public speaking. Apparently this is considered charming. At any rate, he suffered from one major drawback (aside from the rampant corruption): He had a mistress. Best of all, he had a mistress who had lived in Germany, and during the lead up to World War I she returned to the United States and threatened to go public if he voted for war. Fortunately, he was able to call her bluff. In 1920, when Harding was the Republican nominee, the party sent her to Japan and paid her $50,000 in extortion money. Surely if that news had broken, along with his rumored other affairs, he would have been dead in the water.<br /><br />Skip a few, and we come to Franklin Roosevelt, arguably one of the greatest presidents this country has known. Amazingly and unprecedentedly elected to four terms, three of which he served fully. His administration pulled the country out of the Great Depression and won the second world war. He created the Securities and Exchange Commission, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Social Security. Eh, you likely know all that. As a candidate for public office, though, he had several issues that would cause him great harm today. For instance, he married his cousin. Oh, Elenor was far enough away for it to be legal, but you can bet that today's ravenous press would grab on to that. He was also a notorious adulterer, and was in fact with his mistress (who had been Elenor's assistant) when he died. He also had about him a patrician air, with his long cigarette holders and monocle, that likely would not fly today. The biggest thing that would have held him back today, however, was the fact that he was paralyzed from the waist down. There would be no hiding that from the current media scavengers, especially with the nearly 'round-the-clock media coverage candidates get these days.<br /><br />I don't think I need to go into the personal foibles of presidents since Roosevelt. Most of their legacies are still in doubt anyway.<br /><br />A few of those politicians I talked bout truly helped the country in difficult situations and handled things very well. Would someone who had no foibles or flaws that alienated a chunk of the electorate have done as well in their place? Does the heavy media scrutiny of this election have merit? Maybe. It's not like our last few have been squeaky clean, after all. Even there, I'm still seriously uninterested in Obama's ability to bowl, where Clinton sits down to talk to voters, and McCain's...erm...everything.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-35139791265392036172008-05-05T07:16:00.001-07:002008-05-05T08:03:28.237-07:00WTFacebookI was puttering around Facebook one afternoon, like I do on the slow days at work, and was ambushed out of nowhere by the following advertisement:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SB8XMrcdUyI/AAAAAAAAAIc/p3yFHW6RGfQ/s1600-h/facebookad.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/SB8XMrcdUyI/AAAAAAAAAIc/p3yFHW6RGfQ/s400/facebookad.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5196898001596797730" border="0" /></a><br /><br /> Oh where do I begin with this one? The cruelty? The reinforcement of unrealistic stereotypes?<br /><br /> The person in the photo is not disgusting by any means that I can see. Her stores of fatty tissue seem to me to be perfectly normal, and even healthy. Nowhere near the outer bounds of weightiness, she is not obese in any sense of the word except maybe the sense believed by worshipers in the stick-thin cult. It is good to have some fat about one's person, after all. Really, when a person with cute love handles is attacked for being "OMG Disgusting!", the culture needs to do some serious self-examination. Bodies generally have a natural weight and shape that they will generally hover around, given that the person is active and the diet isn't insane. Nothing disgusting about it. There is no merit in being extremely skinny, nor is there any shame if one comes by it naturally. I personally think that some flesh on the bones is a very good thing - breasts are made of fat, after all - and I think I may be in the majority. The real majority, that is, not the manufactured majority produced by the odd fluctuations of our cultural ideals. Hell, we're all used to being bombarded with the unhealthy diet ads and the pressures to look like Twiggy, but I was a bit blindsided by the fact that it was Facebook. I hadn't noticed Facebook's ads being blatantly discriminatory, offensive, and maddening before this. I'll look harder. And send emails.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-43667344137281762602008-04-04T11:58:00.000-07:002008-04-04T12:34:38.673-07:00Liberal GuiltThere was a political cartoon in the Tampa Tribue the other day that suggested that the only thing keeping Obama afloat was "White Liberal Guilt".<br /><br />As a person who voted for Obama in our primary (even though it didn't count), I find this to be utter crap. I don't have any guilt associated with my being a white person. I was born that way. And I'm certainly not voting for Obama because he's (half) black. There are a bunch of people who have attempted to run for president who were black that I wouldn't vote for at all, among them Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton (scary!), and Alan Keyes. I need no excuses for being irritated by those people. They're irritating. Another mark against two of the three in my book is that I would never vote for an ordained priest of any religion. Call it a church/state issue. Alan Keyes is far too far to the right for me, being anti-gay and pro-life.<br /><br />So yes, Obama is afloat because he's a charismatic leader, and not an annoying idiot.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-10632375255480206752008-02-13T20:44:00.000-08:002008-02-13T21:35:13.729-08:00The first (insert distinction here) President!Any way you slice it, assuming that Huckabee (heavens forbid) dosn't have a sudden surge of popularity leading to victory in November, the next President will be a first.<br /><br />The most obvious firsts being Hillary Clinton as the first woman president and Barack Obama as the first biracial president. Only slightly less obvious is McCain as the oldest President at time of assuming office.<br /><br />Did you know, though, that McCain would also be the first President born in a U.S. territory, not a state? Obama would be the first from Hawaii, and Clinton would be the first former First Lady president. All three are sitting senators, of which only two others have been elected to the presidency: John F. Kennedy and Warren G. Harding.<br /><br />I'm sure there are a slew of other firsts that the color commentary researchers will make notes of on Inauguration Day.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-3079187858657772702008-02-11T21:08:00.000-08:002008-02-11T22:47:41.824-08:00L'Etat, c'est moi.Louis XIV said it first, or at least most recorded and most ostentatiously in written history. But that was before the American and French revolutions, and they were supposed to fix that whole monarchy thing and replace it with a government answerable to the people. Right?<br /><br />Right?<br /><br />Apparently not.<br /><br />Attorney General Michael Mukasey, during an unfortunately timed House Juiciary Committee hearing on the seventh, explained that the President could legally do anything as long as the Justice Department (Under the control of the executive branch, as we know) says it's legal.<br /><br />That's right. Here's the video of the questioning by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):<br /><br /><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Qa_ozpOGt8&rel=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4Qa_ozpOGt8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></embed></object><br /><br />Nadler should generally be commended on this line of questioning. It has revealed that the Department of Justice will refuse to investigate the executive branch for criminal violations (as anything the President does is signed off on by the Orrice of Legal Council within the Justice Department) and refuse to take up civil actions against the president under the "state secrets" privelege. This puts the Department of Justice, by default, in the position of creating law that is supposed to be held by Congress. Dince the Justice Department is part of the executive branch and will not investigate istelf, this effectively puts the President above the law.<br /><br />There are no words for how worrisome this is, how terrifying it could be. Congress needs to sharply re-assert itself now, before it is too late...hopefully it is not yet too late...to return powers to the legislative and judicial branches of government.<br /><br />Here is a transcript of the questioning by Nadler, if you wonder years from now where it all went so wrong:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);font-family:arial;" >NADLER: Mr. Attorney General, I was interested to hear you say a moment ago that if the president ordered someone to do something against the clear intent of Congress, that's outside the law. </span></span><p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">The FISA act said a person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally, one, engages in electronic surveillance under the color of law, except as authorized by statute.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Now, the president admitted that he did that. Every 45 days he signed an authorization to direct the surveillance of people in the United States without a warrant as required by the FISA act.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Now, I had previously asked your predecessor, Attorney General Gonzales, given this apparent prima facie case that the president and people under him, including the prior attorney general, engaged in felonious conduct by doing so, that he appoint a special counsel to investigate the warrantless surveillance of Americans.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">And I recently reiterated that request to you.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Now in your testimony before the Senate last week, you responded to Senator Leahy's questions on whether the president violated the law by authorizing wireless surveillance by stating that you, quote, "don't know whether the president acted in violation of statutes," unquote, including FISA.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">I believe we need to know the answer: Did the president, with, as has been reported, the advice of the Justice Department, break the law?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">I believe the answer is clear that he did.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Given the extraordinary circumstances involved, allegations of criminal conduct by the president and other high-ranking officials and the possibility of conflict at the Justice Department, will you now agree to appoint outside special counsel so that we finally will get an answer to this question?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: The direct answer to your question is no, I will not.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: Because?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: Beg pardon?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: Because?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: Because -- because there is one detail that was omitted, and it may very well have been my fault in saying I didn't know when I'd forgotten or overlooked.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">There was in place an order -- I'm sorry, an opinion of the Justice Department describing the legal basis for the program to which you refer. That included the authorization of the use of military force, as a congressional statute on which it was relied that that behavior was legal.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">I understand that there are views on both sides of that -- strong ones.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: Well, there are views -- let's put it this way: The Supreme Court in the Hamdan case, in a case just about directly on point, ruled that -- for reasons I'm not going to get into now, we don't have time in five minutes -- that the use of the two excuses by the Justice Department, namely the president's inherent powers under Article II and the authorization for the use of military force as justification, was not, in fact, justification. The president is still bound by the law. The law was not repealed by implication by the AUMF and that that's not sufficient.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Now, the Justice Department, in a letter to congressman -- to congressman, excuse me -- to Senator Schumer recited these letters as a refutation by a host of constitutional scholars against that.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">My second question, then, when this is -- on behalf of the Justice Department, in effect representing the president, although a step removed, you say that this is justified, that it's not illegal, for the reasons stated.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: Lots of other people say it's clearly illegal.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Normally, we would have that settled in a court. A court would decided whether something's legal or not when there's a dispute.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">But when you attempt to get this into court -- you can't get it into court by prosecution, because you're not going to prosecute or appoint the special counsel. But when you attempt to get it into court by victims or alleged victims, plaintiffs suing in civil court, then the government comes out and says, "Oh, you can't get into court alleging violation of your rights through violation of FISA because of the state secrets privilege."</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">So now you've set up a situation where the president and the attorney general assert the president's right to do something which seems to a lot of people to a lot of people to be a violation of law and there is no way of checking that.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">In other words, there's no way of getting -- well, let me ask you a different question. Under this, is there any way -- and would you agree that the state secrets privilege has to yield because otherwise there is no way for Congress or the courts or anybody to have any check on the president's claimed power?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: The state secrets privilege -- just to answer the last question first -- the state secrets privilege is invoked by the government and backup is provided for its invocation.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">To my knowledge, that backup has been sustained...</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(CROSSTALK)</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: Well, the state secrets privilege has often been used where there's no backup provided, simply an affidavit.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Would you agree that where the state asserts state privilege -- state secrets, that the court ought to be provided with information in order to rule on the validity of the state secrets privilege?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: The court can be provided with and is provided with information relating to the invocation of the state secrets privilege and an explanation of the basis for it, and to rule on that basis.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: But the court often rules with -- simply on an affidavit without seeing the documents to judge for itself whether they deserve -- whether they would threaten national security were they revealed.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Would you agree that the court ought to see that and make that decision?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: I believe that courts see affidavits in some cases, affidavits and documents in others, and have what they consider to be an ample basis because they rule on that basis for a ruling.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: Sometimes things are quite clear.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: And sometimes they're not.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: And sometimes they're not.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: And, lastly, we have heard hearings in this committee on rendition -- on so-called extraordinary rendition. On the Maher Arar case we're going to hold further hearings.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Would you -- and we've been told that we got assurances from Syria that Mr. Arar would not be tortured when he was sent there, which of course proved not to be true.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Would you commit or agree that upon request, which will be forthcoming, that you will send someone from the department for a hearing here to answer the questions, "Who obtained these assurances? From whom were they obtained? What assurances were given?" so that we can get to the -- begin to get to the bottom of this rather horrendous case?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: It's my understanding that some of this has been the subject of classified briefings to various members of this committee and other committees.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">It's also my understanding -- and this is based on an exchange of notes between us and Canada that became public, not because of anything that anybody wanted to do voluntarily -- that Mr. Arar is still on the no-fly list.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: Yes, he is; improperly so, in my opinion.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">MUKASEY: Beg pardon?</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: I've seen...</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">CONYERS: The gentleman's time may have expired.</span></p> <p style="color: rgb(153, 153, 255);font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">NADLER: Let me just say, I've seen the confidential documents. He shouldn't be on the no-fly list. But we have not heard about the assurances from Syria, even on a classified basis. We need to know that.</span></p><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1453823075413874221.post-78920119907560826902008-02-08T10:34:00.000-08:002008-02-08T11:56:09.833-08:00ClintonVania<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/R6yu_W0of8I/AAAAAAAAAHc/HHWOiRDYHow/s1600-h/hillary-joe.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/R6yu_W0of8I/AAAAAAAAAHc/HHWOiRDYHow/s320/hillary-joe.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5164695276168445890" border="0" /></a>I recalled recently one of the things that I seriously dislike about Hillary Clinton. On the issue of freedom of speech, I believe that all art forms should be free of government controls or interference. Censorship is, in my opinion, not only wrong but damaging to the social development of our society. Voluntary censorship to reach the widest crowds possible, as in the movie industry, is acceptable as long as there are no governmental civil or criminal consequences when one wishes not to self-censor. A system of ratings is fine for the quick reference of parents who wish to control what their children are exposed to (good luck with that), but ultimately the responsibility should be on the consumer/viewer/player (or their guardian) for choosing what they consume.<br /><br />Violent video games have been blamed for violent kids in the last decade or so mainly because they have arisen as a predominant medium, much in the same way that comic books, movies, heavy metal, and television have each in their time been accused of making kids violent. As if children were pacifists before. It really depends upon the temperament of the individual child, which is a case of parentage (in one sense) and parentage (in another sense).<br /><br />Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill, <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2126">S. 2126 [109th]: the "Family Entertainment Protection Act"</a>, which provides stiff fines and mandatory community service for anyone caught selling a game that has been rated "Mature","Adults Only" or "Rating Pending" to anyone under 17 years of age. As I said, this would be a government-mandated punishment for violating the dictates of a censor. This is a far stiffer control than that applied (voluntarily) to the movie industry or (also voluntarily) to the comic book industry.<br /><br />That rubs me the wrong way. Fortunately, the bill died the death. Unfortunately, if Clinton became president, she would likely find a way to resurrect it. Not Unlike Dracula.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/R6yxjm0of-I/AAAAAAAAAHs/W60l6ptkjvU/s1600-h/C2SQnight.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_mecwQ6s5eJ0/R6yxjm0of-I/AAAAAAAAAHs/W60l6ptkjvU/s320/C2SQnight.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5164698097961959394" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0