Sorry, I assumed the Iraq Report was released today. I'm in the blissful dark at the moment.


(ARGH! It took a full 5 miniutes to edit this post using dial-up.)

The Report was issued yesterday, and I think it makes Baker and Hamilton look rather dumb that it took them 9 months to come up with that pablum.

You can gestate a frelling human being in that time, and the best they could do was "Iraq will be better when we start doing things better. We can take our sweet time about it, too."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16150563/

Ugh. You know what ticks me off the most? The dingus rabbi demanding a menorah be put up. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have no need to for Hanukkah to be turned into some sort of surrogate Jewmas. I don't need the Supreme Court declaring the Hanukkiah/Menorah to be a secular symbol just because the Christmas tree is. Blargh.

Yeah, my first thought was 'stupid rabbi.' Shut the fvck up. We don't want equal time with Xmas. Why don't you just put up a fvcking billboard that says We Killed Christ and His Christmas Trees, Too!

As of tonight they're putting the trees back. Once again, Seattle is proud to make the national wire.

I doubt anyone in their right minds would think anything other than what the poor guy probably intended and I kind of pity him the backlash here. I also pity Seattle; they're always trying to do the PC thing and nearly always getting knocked for it. Seattle is really a pretty cool town and people who live there just want to make sure no one gets slighted in any situation. Unfortunately, there are times when common sense just sort of flies off the tarmac......

Ohhh cool. Does this mean that I can finally get them to put up a giant black snake as a ode to Set?

Happy Jewmas everyone!! ;)

Oy, tannenbaum!

Ironic ponderance of the day: What if Senator Tim Johnson ends up on a feeding tube?

I'm not following this story in particular ... but what if he can't serve? Does the governor appoint someone, and is the governor of his state a Republican? Is there another election? What's the procedure.


Yeah, I'm too lazy to look it up. Sue me.

I've been wondering the some thing. Which is sleezier:

Taking advantage of a death or medical incapacitation to give the seat to the other party (even though this is pretty much standard practice), or:

Keeping a person in office that can't represent his constituents to prevent that switch.

The governor appoints a replacement for the remainder of the term (two years). It is a Republican governor so presumably he'd appoint a Republican.

This is pretty much standard practice. The last time this happened was in 2000 and the Democrat governor of Georgia appointed a Dem to replace a dead Republican.

However, so long as this guy is alive there is no mechanism in place to force his resignation. If he dies it is in the governor's hands but if he is alive and refuses (or his handlers refuse) to resign then he would technically be in office for the next two years but never participate. This too has been done before several times when senators have been medically incapacitated. I think the record is three years for time technically in office while performing no duties of office.

Iowa poll-
McCain 27
Giuliani 26
Romney 9
Gingrich 7
Rice 4

On the Dem side:

Edwards 22
Obama 22
Vilsack 12
Clinton 10
Gore 7

So- how are dems feeling about the choices out there. I know on the other side there is not a lot of excitment about some of the GOP choices.

How can anyone think Obama should run for anything (VP or POTUS) yet?

I could get excited by Gingrich(the only true fiscal conservative on either list) save for my nagging doubt that he is really serious about running....probably just trying to sell more books.

I don't think of political positions as a conveyor belt through which potential candidates must move in the approved order. I don't think you have to serve a sufficient time in position X before you're eligible for position Y. I think it generally works out that it takes time to build up sufficient name recognition to make running for the office of President or VP a reasonable option (and if I were feeling grumpier I might vent about that seeming to be the only qualification needed/wanted these days), but I don't think "time in service" should be a limiting factor. Heck, I thought many people wanted fewer career politicians. Perhaps less exposure to D.C. or state politics could be an advantage?

That being said, I know little to nothing about any of the candidates on either side. It's just too depressing to think about right now. Plus, I tend to get charmed by one particular candidate, only to see them get snowed in the primary. I'm trying to resist heartbreak by not getting involved until the primaries are over, but given the vast political spectrum covered by my immediate family that's not likely to happen.

Don't you think they should govern something before considering running?

Nope. I think they should have appropriate experience for the job, which can be obtained through other political service, but can also be obtained through other avenues. I don't think there's a magic formula. Should candidates have to be a senator first? How many terms? Should they have to have been a governor? What about a 20-year member of the House of Representatives? At the state level, we've seen candidates from the Land of Business who are lauded for their success in the business world AND their lack of "contamination" from conventional political roles.

Heck, I think that philosophy applies to any job. There's rarely only one way to acquire the necessary skills and connection. If 1/2-term senator A can name that tune in 3 notes and 2-term governor B needs 5 notes, then senator A wins my game of Name that Tune.

Chicken Hawk-In-Chief George W. seems to be doing the opposite - the longer he stays in office, the less he seems capable of doing.

Like, for instance, the Screen Actors' Guild.

If you're looking at executive experience, Gore is obviously the most qualified. You can say most Veeps don't have real power, but Gore was more involved in things than Bush Sr. (or George Bosh, as Reagan called him at the 1988 convention). Further, if kind of being around while the president makes decisions qualifies as experience, Hillary is the second most qualified. This is probably why voters feel comfortable voting for the wives of dead politicians (The Widows Bono, Carnahan, etc.) And let's not forget Edith Wilson, who really ran the show for a while.

Not sure how I would have felt about Reagan- was not old enough to vote for him.

He did have a slightly more substantial political office before running for president.

I don't think that extensive political office experience is vital but I think lacking it is a hurdle to be overcome, at least a small one. He's going to have to rely more on political machine makers, party officials, and career bureaucrats to get himself there. More so than someone who has been intricately involved in it for decades.

McCain, Edwards, Gore, Clinton, and Obama have history against them: Senators just don't win the oval office...not since 1960 anyway.

Governors, however, do have pretty good luck. Not too many governors up there but I suppose being Mayor of the largest city in the World could count;)

Of course, there are those pesky little facts that Giuliani is pro-choice, pro same sex unions, and pro gun control. How far do you think that will get him in the south? :)

I doubt the mayor of Bombay is constitutionally eligible.

Don't forget the unapologetic adultery.

Yeah, Giuliani does have a lot of baggage.....it would be very difficult for him to win the nomination. Although I would love to see him go up against Hillary just to see if Hillary could one up Gore by losing in two home States;)

:blush: ....ok I stand corrected.

But......

To save face I have to correct you too.

Mubai is now the name of the largest City in the World.:D :D :D

I guess you mean Mumbai. I had thought that Mumbai and Bombai was a "You say tomato . . ." kind of difference, but I guess one is the new name.

Still wouldn't want to live there.

I hate it when I correct someone and then end up misspelling the correction.

I think I am going to quit while I still have some dignity left.

I do have some left don't I?

;)

And I believe that technically Karachi has passed Mumbai, being the first to reach 13 million (though they do it with a huge footprint where Mumbai is really compact).

Simply too good to pass up- thanks, Jeff!;):D

One good turn.....:)


http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9258.htm

Ah, Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson - those were the days for this state. Rumor is we're approaching that level of influence again.

As a current Snohomish County resident, maybe I should reconsider my aversion to starting out in the prosecutor's office....

Yep, Senator and almost President....not too shabby.

Prudence, if you're at all interested Manuscripts in the basement of Suzzallo holds Magnuson's papers.

I spent a lot of time in them for thesis on Boeing's labor relations and found it really interesting.

Am I the only one who doesn't care if/when Saddam is executed?
And I the only one who is a wee bit concerned about the [probable] aftermath of said executation and a possible attack on US soil? No, I am not going to hide - but I am a bit concerned.

So which is it, do you care or not? Personally, I doubt there will be much backlash against Americans beyond troops getting caught in the crossfire. Most of the hate in that particular struggle is directed inward at each other.

I didn't express my thought well.

I don't care if/when he is (for all I care he could rot in jail; but I could see potential hostage situations of release Saddam or we kill everyone), but I am concerned about the aftermath and our troops being caught in it. The entire world doesn't see this as a legitimate trial by the Iraqi's. There is still a belief that America was pulling the puppet strings.

Donald Rumsfeld, you're on the clock.

Saddam Hussein has been executed.

The ENTIRE world huh? Every single person everywhere?

Wow- that's an impressive and completely impossible to back up exaggerated claim.

I personally think it is incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to dis on Iraq when they have worked so hard and come so far- every vote, election, decision made by them to get their country back deserves to be treated with decency and respect- to try to undermine and ignore their accomplishments by saying their trial of Hussein was nothing more than a puppet show by the US is- well-outrageous.

It's just more US bashing-:rolleyes:

A "legitimate trial" by the Iraqis would have been no trial at all.

Ah- here is part of the entire world-

Link

Of course I expect some people to simply dismiss it out of hand due to the source.....

I don't see it as US bashing - I see it as Iraqi bashing.

That aside, it is ridiculous to think that Shiites didn't want him dead. The US didn't need to apply pressure for him to be executed, or to be found guilty.

I guess I can see how you see it that way- I can see it as both. It insults the efforts of the Iraqis and insults their justice system. It insults us as well- as if we are just controlling it all-and it insults them as if they have no ability to govern themselves.

It is also blatantly convenient that many show respect and support for the national soverignty of other nations as long as they are doing something they agree with- but as soon as they do not- well then, they are just US puppets.

ah- here is some puppet work- a US attorney attempting to file on Saddams behalf in a US court- now there's respect for Iraqi soverignty.

Link

I'm anti-death penalty.
I would have liked to see him rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life not talking to a single soul ever again...

Ah, one less evil tyranical bloodthirsty dictator in the world. Feh.













now, what about the rest of them?




Let's go get 'em.

And when we catch 'em, let's burn them!



But first we'll stone them, then we'll burn them.


Then we'll hang them.





And then drown them.

Not arguing with you (I know better) -

The entire world doesn't. No, not every country (the entire world) sees this as a legitimate trial. Some countries do, some don't. Therefore, the entire world doesn't.

Please relax and take a breath before you jump down my throat in the future. Thank you.

I thought I was on ignore. Damn.

Ah, but that would amount to mental torture. So damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm not really a proponent of the death penalty, but if anybody deserves it then people like Saddam Hussein do. And regardless of the quality of the trial I don't really harbor any doubt as to his crimes.

It was faster than Pinochet and slower than Ceauşescu.

I would have preferred a more dignified proceeding but that would have required removing him and trying him internationally which wouldn't be great either.

I do think they should have stayed the execution and allowed him to be tried on more charges though. Not necessarily every possible one, but more of them.

I'm still miffed they didn't put it on pay per view :evil:

I don't feel anything different now that he's dead. Wasn't I supposed to feel different?

^No orgasms?

I mean, uh, don't you feel safer?

I don't agree that being removed from society because you have taken the lives of others is mental torture.

And while I'm not exactly shedding tears here, I can't say I feel good either. I don't see that anything was accomplished other than vengeance, and while that might feel good, I suspect the repercussions are going to sour that good feeling pretty quickly. Then we can catch those people and kill them and then others will kill more of ours and the cycle continues ad nausium. Meanwhile, the innocent people in the middle of this mess, keep dying every day. Woo-hoo.

We're going to get to the point eventually to where we've killed more innocent Iraqi's than Saddam. And yet, it is justified because we are trying to help them. Yeah, tell that to the victims families.

Well said, MBC.
:)

WE? Who is WE MBC?

While I admit that obviously we have had some crimes committed by our military- WE are not over there randomly and flagrantly killing innocent people.

Actually- I would say based on any sources more people are killed by terrorists and insurgents and this in-fighting among the factions there than any WE have killed.

Or maybe you missed that? Is it just easier to blame us?

Re-thought.

You introduced the words "randomly and flagrantly", not I. But don't fool yourself into thinking that tactics such as "Shock and Awe" only killed the bad people. No, it indiscriminately killed anyone who happened to be in the area. How many? We'll probably never know but I'll bet that number is larger than you imagine. Do you think that their families are ok with that because it was for a good cause? Perhaps that is why we have failed to be welcomed with open arms and flowers at our feet. And, we removed the country's infrastructure in the process. Something that we have yet to rebuild.

And by the way, how many terrorists and insurgents were blowing up Iraqis before we got there? Perhaps, if we really cared about the Iraqis, we would have taken measures from the get-go to ensure that an insurgency of this magnitude didn't materialize in the aftermath. Instead, our leaders were so convinced that this was going to be over in a few weeks that they never considered it might not go that way. And here were are.

So yes, there is plenty of blame to go around.

It's not proper message board ettiquette to post about who is on your ignore list. Let's have that be the last of it, please (both of you).

Not to put words in MBC's mouth, I think one could make the case that We (AKA the US Government) is at least partially responsible for the the kind of anarchy and chaos that has allowed the increased killing of innocents.

Saddam may have been an evil dictator who killed innocent people, but I imagine at least there one had some sort rules one could live by to prevent yourself from being a victim (i.e. shut up and join the Bath party). Yeah that flys in the face of our democratic dream, but I think you yourself are willing to trade some of your civil liberties for security. I suspect some Iraqies might feel the same way and see democracy as a system by which innocents are more randomly killed than by the other system.

I'm clueless as to the actual numbers, and not really interested in finding them out, but that's how I understand MBC's argument.

I'm not fooled into thinking attacks only killed "bad people"- are you fooled into thinking WE (as in the US) are the ones entirely responsible for the deaths of innocents there now?

Do you ever bother to look past what is fed you by the media that thrives on BLOOD and DEATH and seen any of the good things? The positive things?

The people in the military who keep going back- voluntarily- because they believe in what thay are doing?
The schools, hospitals and other things being rebuilt?
The progress?

No- all ignored.

I think it's been pretty well documented that our government had little to no concept of the shape of the conflict they would be sparking off. They were completely unprepared for the level of sectarian violence (despite decades, if not centuries, of precedent that some bare minimum amount of research would have pointed to). They just started dropping bombs and expected things to just kinda settle out for the best. Are "we" "responsible" for the violence there now? No, the people committing it are. Were "we" "irresponsible" for not anticipating the chaos that was inevitable and failing to conduct the operation in a way to minimize it in the aftermath? I'd be hard pressed to say no.

Duly noted.

It is shocking to me that people cast some kind of backward blame on the US- and have no harsh words at all for the insurgent bastards who plant the IED's or the car bombs.

How about blame for the people who do the killing.

What a novel idea.

Again, you introduced the word "entirely", which was not part of my argument.

Where, may I ask, are you getting your information from about all of the positive that is occurring?

You mean, like the ones that are having their tours extended indefinitely?

Violence is escalating there every day. You might call that progress, I cannot. Halliburton is sure making a killing however.

Yep, that is pretty much my argument in a nutshell.

We bring democracy to a dictatorship while our country is slowly turning into one.

What a joke.

And having their discharge and retirement put on hold?

What about the schools in disrepair here in the US? What about the hospitals that are being closed due to lack of funding here in the US? What about our hungry and homeless?

Do you think that our citizens should be left to die in falling apart hospitals, struggle to put food in their mouths and our children have to sit in overcrowded classrooms using books that are 10 years to old? Should we not focus on rebuilding America? The money spent in Iraq could do a hell of a lot of good here.

Surely you aren't referring to me. I could swear I JUST posted this:

Why would you assume that we have no harsh words for those setting off car bombs? I haven't exactly read any quotes praising their actions. Of course, they are bastards. But, they weren't there before we decided to interfere.

How about blame for everyone that created this mess.

Now THERE is a novel idea.

What's shocking to me is people who seem to believe there's some sort of "either/or" situation here. Either it's the insurgent bastards fault or it's our fault. Sorry, the world ain't that clear cut. Actions have consequences. And to understand those consequences, an honest assessment of the situation is necessary. And the honest assessment was NOT done prior to invading, and here we are. There are some evil people doing evil things in an environment that was blindly created by our military decisions.

I don't suggest looking backward for the purpose of laying blame. I suggest looking backward for the purpose of getting the people who have made blind decisions in the past to open their eyes and make informed decisions going forward. That's why I find it so important to try to get Bush and company to admit that they made a mistake, because until they do that, I have zero confidence that they won't make the same mistake again. I have zero confidence that they are looking at the situation in Iraq objectively and honestly. And without that, I have zero confidence that they will make decisions that result in anything but continued violence between Iraqis and death of American troops.

Do I know that pulling our troops out is the best decision? No. I don't have the knowledge to be sure. What bothers me is that it seems like even if someone WITH the knowledge to make that call were to come to that conclusion, Bush would ignore them because it doesn't fit his short term agenda.

I completely agree, GD.

I didn't think so. I took that to mean that some think it necessary to state that "scumbags who kill innocents are evil" in every friggin post one makes, rather than understanding it's more or less a given.

I do, too. It's interesting that in preparation to decide on a new direction for Iraq, George is talking to all the same people who've been advising him (telling him what he wants to hear) for years.

Not to mention that, all along, we have heard from Bush that he will do what his commanders on the ground think is best...as long as they agree with him, of course.

You know, it'd be easier to respond to if you spelled out who "people" are in the context of your post. It seems to imply posters on this board, so I would expect that this is not the case of the general "people" of this board but if you are talking about specific people here, call them out and let them respond for themselves instead of miscellaneous other people like myself who wonder, "is she talking about me? Should I respond to this?"

In any event, I'll just ask you, are you talking about me? Are you looking for a response from me on this?

General You?

or General Ewe?

While we (the US) are not totally responsible for the killings, we (the US) bear at least SOME responsibility for what is going on and how it continues (including deaths) - at least as long as we are involved and probably for some time after that. Getting involved in the first place made it our (the US's) responsibility.

So I'm thinking...
What if Bush replaces Cheney with Rice? He could do it.
Could we see Hills versus Condi in '08?
That would be something to see.
:)

It would be interesting....

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_...ndi_HoDown.swf

Lol! I shouldn't, because God knows you men have ****ed things up long enough, but ......:D

Truly, I think an Obama/Rice run would be verrrry interesting.

Heh- coulda guessed this-

Link

I could be wrong (didn't follow any links), but I believe it is just for this week.

What is stupid, according to the Orlando local news last night, is the reason for taking today off: so that the congressmen from Florida and Ohio can watch the BCS title game tonight.

Can anybody say swing states?

Why do I get the feeling that for the next two years we're going to see endless posts reporting on trivial non-issues as someone desperately tries to find something to discredit the new congressional leadership with. Pathetic.

Because much of the last six years have gone similarly and both sides want to see what the view was like from the other perspective.

Can this congress prove itself truly useful and pass a bill officially recognizing that all interest in college football expires on January 2.

Also, since tonight's game took so long to arrive, rather than being the conclusion of the 2006 season it will actually count toward 2007 results. Therefore both teams have forgeited their final 2006 game and USC is the national champion.

If they can do this, I'll acknoledge that congress is capable of rational behavior.

Given the states involved and their ALLEGED roles in the last two elections, I expect that last night's WWE event had more competitive integrity than tonight's game will.

And how fair is it that a team that's had only 35 days rest has to play a team that's had 50 days rest?

The refs and commentators just ignored a pretty obvious hold on OSU's opening kickoff return for a touchdown. The steel chairs will be coming out shortly.

That's ok. Florida got a touchdown 2 feet early.

I should just go to bed. Other than being able to trashtalk a friend if OSU loses, I have zero interest in the outcome of this game.

As seems so often to be the case, the omnipotent conspirators seem to be sloppy.

Hmmmm.... Let's see....

Last Congress: Indictment and resignation, after indictment and resignation due to massive ethical violations – all on top of an unwillingness to perform their basic constitutional duty of oversight of the Executive.

This Congress: Forced to work 5 days a week (the horror), but gets a Monday off for football.

Gee… sounds about the same to me! :rolleyes:

I'm not saying there haven't been significant and serious topics of debate and concern over the last six years. I'm sure that'll continue to be the case in the next two years (and for the rest of all time most likely).

But for the last six years that has been a lot of "the president says 'nukular' and is therefore the most retarted president of all time" and "the Secretary of State was buying shoes the day after Katrina and therefore the president is the most retarded president of all time" and "the president said Paki showing that he is the most retarded president of all time" and on and on and on.

This will be true of the current congress as well. It is easier to pretend outrage over a soundbite than to actually suffer through substantive debate.

Granted, it could be PhotoShopped... It could.

Hey, Neph, you going?

$357,000,000,000 = cost of Iraq war so far. According to CNN.com...

Yeah, but it was worth every penny to be greeted as liberators.

...or 714 billion McDonald's apple pies.

When you put it that way, mousepod,.....I'm outraged!

McDonald's apple pies burn my face.

McDonald's coffee once burned my dad's balls. True story.


I was in the car with him when it happened. Hilarious! If I ever see a car come skidding to a stop for no apparent reason and the driver jumps out and starts hopping up and down like his pants are on fire, I'll think of my pops.

I had to much McDonalds on a trip up north that I threw up in all over the inside of the car. My family was trying to win the Monopoly Game, so every McD's from here to Santa Clara was patroned by us. Only so much McD's a 10 year old can take...

Well- the DNC chose Denver for the '08 Convention.


Oh squeee - good for the local economy.

Then you're eating them wrong.

Saw Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show last night. At least as far as setting a civil tone goes, I liked the cut of his jib.

Whatever that means.

CUT OF HIS JIB - "The cut of a jib, or foresail of a ship indicates her character to a sailor and 'jib' means 'face' in sailor's slang. Thus 'don't like the cut of his jib,' which probably dates to a century ago, translates as 'I'm suspicious of him; I don't like this expression on his face.'" From "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997).

ARRRRRR we be talking Pirate politics, we be.

Damn with that much you could buy everyone in the country an iPhone (the 8Gig version of course), plus an Apple-TV and still have money leftover to by moives.

It's also $13,000 per person in Iraq. At that rate I hope we never attack China. That could run to some real bucks.

When I was 12 my dad caught me with a box of cigarettes. He locked me in a closet until I'd smoked them all.



The next day I went out and bought a box of condoms.

Did you smoke those too?

Depends on who he's with....:evil:

What sort of revenge, exactly, did you have planned?

*sigh*

Perhaps CP can explain it to you.

ROTFLMAO :snap:

Everyone mark your calendars...

I think I need to get some rest. I clicked onto the article. Read it and then thought to myself. Interesting. I should post a link to that over on LoT.

:rolleyes:

LMAO- goodness, I can just come here for comic relief.

At least you only thought it.........and that's all I am saying:blush:

Imagine, if you will, Janet Reno sitting before a Senate hearing after Elian Gonzales was forcefully removed from his home in Miami to be returned to Cuba.

Senator Rick Santorum says "How can you be involved in this decision? You don't have children."

The firestorm of criticism would be immense.

Perhaps I'm missing the huge uproar, but I haven't seen one regarding Barbara Boxer asking Condoleeza Rice how she can be involved with Iraq policy decisions when she has no children.

Imagine, if you will, a new sweeping corporate tax policy reform that exempts a company in the state of the Republican author of the bill because it would be harmful to that particular business. The firestorm of criticism would be immense.

Now flash to reality....the minimum wage increase (federal law applies to territories of the United States) exempts American Samoa. Why, you ask? Well, the tuna industry is immense in American Samoa. It would damage the industry irreparably because of having to drastically increase the wages of the workers on the tuna ships. Now, I find it interesting that Starkist Tuna is headquartered in the district of....Nancy Pelosi. Now of course, the Pelosi spokemen deny that any lobbying has taken place. Sure. Would that be believed if this were the oil industry in Texas? I surely doubt it.

I would love it (and it won't happen) if Bush held a press conference and said that he couldn't in good conscience sign the bill until it applies to all, including the poor hard working folks in American Samoa, and was shocked that Pelosi would cave to special corporate interests.

Imagine, if you will, posting links to the stories you are going on about. ;)


ETA: Here is what Boxer actually said:

It sounds to me like the point she was making was that these decisions are affecting military families quite a bit more than they are affecting either Rice or Boxer personally, especially since Boxer included herself in the statement. I'm not seeing the need for outrage.

However, as good ol' lovable Rush put it; "Boxer tried to lynch Rice". Nope, nothing offensive about that at all.

Now, I intentionally did not post links to see if something like that would be posted. They are out there, but are not major news stories.

Well, I'm only commenting on the first story, which I believe I learned of from either the Washington Post or CNN, although I wasn't able to find a link to them today. Since I usually don't read blogs however, I must have heard it from one of those two sources, meaning that it did get coverage.

Perhaps the lack of outrage is over the fact that she didn't say anything outrageous. She gave her opinion, one that I think many would agree with. Where you see outrage, I see grasping at straws.

I don't know enough about the second story to comment on it.

I don't find anything objectionable in what Boxer said to Pelosi. I do find slightly more objectionable what you posit being said to Janet Reno, but that is not what was not what Boxer said.

As for the minimum wage thing, America Samoa and the Marshall Islands have always been excempt from the flat standard rate and putting America Samoa into the same classification would be a major change in the way that wages laws are handled there.

America Samoa has minimum wage regulations, just not the same ones as the most of the rest of the country. The Department of Labor has a special board that sets minimum wages within that territory by industry (see the very complex Minimum Wage workplace poster here).

Now, it is certainly open to debate whether America Samoa should get such individual treatment, but simply passing a blanket law that everybody in AS get $7.15 an hour would conflict with several other existing laws pertaining to America Samoa (and keep in mind that the citizens of AS do not have any direct representation in Congress).

So it makes sense to me that AS would be exempted from a blanket bill (as it always has been).

Visible Mojo for Alex.

That said, I've of mixed mind about minimum wage in the Pacific Islands.

First, if ever there is a compelling argument for fedreal intervention on wages it is in insular environments dominated by a single industry with few individual employers where there is minimal opportunity for competition to drive up wages.

That said, as Hawaii has learned with sugar and pineapples, it is very easy for such industries to bleed away to other Pacific Island nations without wage protections. A good argument could be made that the only reason SunKist and the other tuna processors are still in America Samoa with its relatively high wage protections (compared to other Pacific Island nations) is because America Samoa has special access to American markets (which is why sugar became a staple crop in Hawaii, once that wasn't a sufficient economic benefit it left Hawaii almost as fast as it entered).

I don't know what they right answer is, since I haven't looked into the specifics enough but I do suspect that $7.15 isn't the right answer.

In rephrasing my point, let's say that Santorum said to Reno "who pays the price for this decision - you have no family." That's what Boxer said. The implication is that she makes decisions in a callous fashion, unable to understand the price paid by families who lose loved ones. Perhaps others don't read it that way.

As far as the minimum wage, I hate the minimum wage in any fashion. But if a "living wage" should be paid, shouldn't a "living wage" be paid to all, including those in AS? It's a rhetorical position, certainly.

I don't read Boxer's statement the way you've interepreted it, Leo, but, eh, what do I know?

If it's rhetorical, then what is the avenue of discussion?

Whether AS should receive a minimum wage of $7.15 is not the issue you raised (though it is an issue I addressed in my last post), you raised the issue of whether it is unseemly that AS is exempted from the blanket minimum wage law. My response is no, it is not unseemly because the geographical, political, and economic circumstances of America Samoa place it well outside the mainstream of American conditions.

Wage protection laws do not currently exempt America Samoa from the idea that there is a minimum acceptable wage. What it does is say that the circumstances that determine what that minimum acceptable wage are sufficiently unique that a different approach is needed.

Now, I'm an opponent of a federal minimum wage (except maybe for federal employees) and think it should be addressed at the state level. But to me, there is no "outrage" in the fact that America Samoa is exempt from the increase the House passed, which is the is the issue you raised.

So, first, before considering being outraged that Pelosi got some special treatment for Sunkist Tuna, it would be nice if someone offered some evidence that such a thing happened when all that is currently visible is that the same examption that has existed since the end of WWII when America Samoa come under our protectorate has continued.

As for Boxer, it is a valid question: are those who have no personal familiar risk from war more callous in making war? It isn't offensive, though it is perfectly reasonable to response "no, I don't think so." Which is what Rice did. Disagreement is not offensive.

You say that if the parties had been reversed that there would be big cries of outrage. Maybe that's true and those people not outraged now are hypocrites. But I also suspect that if those cries went up those now calling for outrage would be arguing that these cases aren't really that big of a deal. Hypocrites as well? That is the kabuki of a change in party power: on the vast majority of issues the participants switch sides seamlessly and without apparent cognitive disconnect and call the other side a bunch of hypocrites for doing so.


ETA: Just realized I had a brain fart on some history. We got America Samoa as part of the Spanish-American War, not the post-WWII protectorate divvying. So America Samoa has likely been exempted from minimum wage laws since nearly the beginning of them under FDR.

What about what her actual message was- that so many people making policy are not going to feel the impact or bear the brunt of their decisions? It was very honest of her to say that it would not impact her family, and that Condi was not likely to have to worry about the toll on hers as well. Her point was valid- the people paying the price have little say, and since she is an elected representitive she has the right and responsibility to speak for them.


Now, what about that 'surge' of troops George is calling for? It'll be interesting to see how they get that many new troops to sign up voluntarily. The reserves have had the limit on tours taken away, and George's old ticket out of 'Nam, the Guard, has basically become a one-way trip to the Mideast for many thousands of personnel. Ironic, in a very sad way.

And now I see that for purposes of avoiding the appearance of impropriety Pelosi is calling for AS to be included over the objections of the territories non-voting representative in Congress.

So what is funny is that in the drive to create stupid controversy, Republicans may very well caused the enforcement of wage protection laws that they disagree with into territories where it is very likely they'll actually have the devastating impacts Republicans always (incorrectly, it turns out) claim will happen in the regular United States.

I'm pretty sure that Republicans would impose communisim if they could do it in such a way that it would be embarrassing to Democrats (and, vice versa, Democrats fascism). All the Republican House members know why AS is different but they'll pretend, because kabuki is fun, that they're outraged while failing to note that Del Monte gives all of its campaign contributions to Republicans.

I completely agree that this is played everywhere by everyone.

As far as the Boxer comment, there are people who make decisions for me every day in government that do not feel the effect of those decisions. We have a single female governor here in AZ. Would it be appropriate to tell her she really shouldn't participate in making educational decisions because she has no family and no children that will feel the effects of those decisions?

I will open my insight into what she must have been thinking (that is spoken quite sarcastically, for clarification - of course I cannot know), but I stand by what I think her motivation was.

Neither am I offended by those questions of qualification.

I disagree that appropriate empathy requires direct experience but a lot of people disagree with me on that ("how can George Bush effectively set policy when he doesn't know how much a gallong of milk costs" was, if I recall, a real world example) and to raise the issue is neither outrageous nor, in my view, particularly controversial.

Maybe Fox News really is fairest of them all...........

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

SACRILEGE! SACRILEGE, SLEEPY! How dare you! There must be something sinister about the person who conducted that!

I've posted that before. That's basically what was said, so I thought I'd post it first.

^^^How Republican of you conduting that pre-emptive strike;)

Where is anyone getting that there should be a politically "centered" bias in journalism? I thought the idea was to bring as much objectivity as humanly possible to investigations that go where facts lead?

I don't think we ought be shocked when there's an intelligence bias in the press. Journalists should be among the smart people if they are going to ferret out news and information. With all due respect to intelligent people on all sides of the political spectrum, it's hard for me not to equate "smart" with "progressive."

But that's just reporters. I think, by and large, they have a liberal bent. Their masters who control their output to the public, however, are staunchly conservative corporate interests. I would think it would balance out ... if not be outright tilted towards corporate interests.

But I'll admit to have zero personal knowledge of Fox News.

Depends on what you mean by sinister.

More about this flawed study here.

Now, there you go ruining all the cons fun again, MBC.

:D

Like I said, Sleepy....those libs are extraordinarily easy to predict. Don't like the results? Try to discredit those who did the study.

I agree with a lot of what ISM said (the primary exception being the equating of smart and progressive :) ). It is simply not possible for a "journalist" to keep their opinion out of what they are reporting on. Voice inflection, body language, choice of adjectives....it all comes into play no matter what their political slant is. I can live with that.

What I can't live with is the high and mighty condescension of the holier than thou journalists who claim to have no bias and are always objective in their reporting. Just admit you have a bias and get on with it, whatever that bias may be.

I think a study with so many glaring flaws deserves to be discredited.

This sums thing up quite nicely:

Scaeagles, does FauxNews claim to be "fair and balanced" bother you? Even the study you cite indicates they lean to the right, which is hardly balanced, unless you're drunk or something.;)

Lean to the right, yes, but closer to the center than the other stuff. Perhaps their slogan should be "more fair and more balanced than the other guys".

Any lean is hardly balance. Perhaps they should just come up with a better, more accurate slogan? Or maybe even live up to their current one?

When they ran Mark Foley's name with a (D) next to it for numerous days, was that an example of being "more fair" or "more balanced"? Seems CNN was able to get it right.

Well, when CNN "accidently" flashes red "X"s in front of Bush (more than once), this is an example of high standards and fairness?

We can all point to anecdotal evidence forever and never change the opinion of each other.

Unless I am completely forgetting the details it was twice in one episode of The O'Reilly Factor.

Nope, your memory is accurate. My mistake. For some reason, I recalled it was a few days before it was removed.

Actually, I couldn't find a cite of that ever happening. I did find something about Cheney and a black "X" though...It happened once. CNN swears it was a computer glitch but I suppose it could be more sinister.

Fox, by the way, refused to offer a public explanation for the (d) next to Foley's name.

Geez, your memory is as good as mine. ;)

Now, MBC, my memory is often lacking. I am wondering why you thought this, though? My guess is that you want to believe it and read sources that claimed this was the case.

Well, I think I would reverse the order. I read the information and obviously trusted the source, which turned out to be misinformed. Considering that there was proof that Fox had made the error the first time around, I assumed that whoever implied that it had happened more than once over a period of days was basing that on similar evidence. My assumption was wrong, but it was based upon Fox's prior history, not simply because "I wanted to believe it".

I would rather be well informed and try my best to do so. Just as, I'm sure, you would rather not go around saying that CNN put a red X over Bush's face when it never happened.

So, now that we've settled the specifics.

What do you to feel is the significance of:

1. Flashing X over the face of the vice president.
2. Text party misattribution (verbally he was correctly identified as a Republican by O'Reilly) for Mark Foley during one episode of The O'Reilly Report.

Do these instances specifically demonstrate slant by the networks involved? If one but not hte other, what distinguished them?

Well, as #2 occurred shortly before an election, I think the potential exists that someone might believe what they saw on the screen and vote republican, thinking that it was a democrat that was in trouble. I would like to believe that people are more informed than that but I have my doubts.

#1, on the other hand, didn't carry the same potential. I don't think that Cheney with an X across his face is going to sway anyone's opinion of the man.

Words are a great thing. Sources of incorrect information we like are "misinformed". Sources of incorrect information we don't like didn't do their homework.

But Alex is right. It matters not in either instance, really. Having that D next to Foley's name only meant it would be shouted from the mountain tops that he wasn't (which is fine), and the X over the VP (my source was misinformed) matters not in the grand scheme of things (though I have a hard time imaging it was a computer glitch).

Agreed, and this was probably the weakest example of conservative media bias I could have chosen from the ocean of examples. Here's a better look at the "more fair and balanced" Fox News.

Great link, MBC.

I know I'm probably one of two Howard Stern listeners here at the LoT, so I figured I'd share an interesting recording from last week's show. It's a 20 minute conversation between Howard and Scott, who is the director of HowardTV, his pay-per-view channel. Scott is a devoted listener of Rush Limbaugh, and a fan of Fox News.

Be aware that this if NOT SAFE FOR WORK.

Howard Clip

Various things....

Scientists who believe that global warming is not caused by man, but natural things such as cycles of sunspots, based on historical warming and cooling periods of the earth over the last several millenia, are being silenced and accused of misconduct. Sounds a lot like the treatment of those who thought the earth was round or not the center of the universe. In Oregon, or so I've read, a state climatologist could be fired simply for his view on it.

New York wants to pass a law banning talking on cell phones or listening to Ipods (or similar) while walking. Because a couple people weren't paying attention and got killed crossing the street. Over reaction is amazing.

The Snickers commercial was pulled because it promotes anti gay sentiment? What? I realize there is another thread on this, but it's ridiculous.

Hillary and Obama may not participate in the first democrat debates. Front runners have no guts. This goes for both parties, not just them.

I have more thoughts, but not the time. Perhaps later.

Wow ... that's very, um, selective of you ... during the week of Congressional hearings highlighting the 7 years of censorship by the current administation of scientists who attribute global warming to human activity.

Oh, I don't doubt your veracity .... but what's your point, exactly? Will you concede that scientific censorship is bad, no matter which views are censored?


Well, perhaps it's simply that the ad was NOT going to sell any snickers bars. And while I didn't think it "promoted" anti-gay sentiment (or snickers), I found it mildly insulting. Not that I'd boycott snickers or anything ... but :rolleyes:

Oh, I didn't realize Obama was a "front runner." Since when? imo, if this is true, he's gutless without the absurd rationale.

He is not a state climatologist.

The Republicans want to filibuster Iraq debate. Weren't they the ones saying that we should get rid of filibustering altogether?

Quite a few of them also wanted term limits- until their own terms were up.:rolleyes:

Which makes him completely impartial and unbiased…. :rolleyes:

They only want to get rid of it when they are in power.

GC: No they weren't.


SCA:

It also sounds a lot like the treatment of those who, despite massive evidence to the contrary continue to believe that the world is flat and the earth is the center of the universe.

I would hope that a state paleontologist who believes that dinosaur bones are a joke played by god to trick us would be fired (and would find it difficult to get a job). I would hope that a doctor who literally (and always) believes that laughter is the best medicine would find tenure difficult to acquire. A USDA agricultural biologist proposing Lamarckian genetics shouldn't be allowed within a mile of a corn field (see Lysenko, Trofim).

Like it or not, a view that the earth is not warming is way outside the mainstream. And while less so, disputing its anthrogenic nature is still pretty far outside the mainstream and in a very small minority.

Academic freedom is important in a university setting when it comes to direct state employees, the state should have people squarely in the mainstream.

I say that with absolutely no knowledge of the specific case in question.

ETA: It is also worth noting just for future examples that really no educated person has been persecuted for believing the world is round. Considering this was known to be true since ancient times it has never really been questioned except by the uneducated peons in little position to persecute anybody. The only significant debate was in how big a sphere we're on.

Frist 12/13/2004
Article

It sounds pretty clear to me that they wanted filibustering of all Bush's nominees to end.

Which is the same as getting "rid of the filibuster altogether" how?

Even if implemented, the rules change that some Republicans were after in relation to presidential nominations would not have prevented the filibuster of a non-binding position statement.

As for the square dance that happens whenever power changes sides, I heartily recommend the final story of last weekend's This American Life (available as a podcast). It was a very amusing look at how both sides do it, both sides then bitch about the other side doing it, and both sides pretend that it is somehow worse this time around.

I think you totally know what I mean when I posted what I posted. I know you're not obtuse. I'm not about to be your audience while you lecture this board yet again about semantics and then ask for an explanation of each and every one of my words.

I asked for no explanation, I simply disagreed with what you said. You then lectured me on how I was wrong and in so doing highlighted the error of your original statement.

I don't have a secret decoder ring to let me know that when GC says "altogether" he means "not altogether but rather in a certain limited situation." If you could provide me with a table of such things it would help avoid these periodic flare-ups where you get annoyed that I assume you mean what you say.

And I honestly have no idea what you meant to say since the alternative (since Republicans opposed X they are hypocritical to support Y) doesn't even make sense. So color me obtuse.

Re-read post #2173.

So here we have a guy, who is doing the job of the "State Clilatologist", has been reffered to as the "State Climatologist" by journalists and State Officials and even gets his salary from a "State" supported Institution.

...and because of the title thing our governor, who loves to complain that we don't have enough money so he can't cut taxes or even let us keep our kickers, want to pay another person to do this job.

Two full time teachers probably could be hired for the money he is going to waste on this attempt to silence a dissenting voice.

Gavin Newsom cheated on his wife with another woman?
Awww, there goes my hopes for being First Lady of San Francisco.
:D

Gavin Newsom divorced his wife a couple of years ago. He shtooped the wife of his campaign manager. Newsom remains single, so anything's possible.

Absolutly!

Ok, I have. I stand by post #2174.

Or, when you said #2174 did you mean something else and I'm just supposed to know what you meant to say?

I think you know why you and I have trouble conversing, but I really don't know how to fix it. The way it seems to me is that you write things and you think the fundamentally important thing about it is the feeling that went into it and not so much what it actually says.

Whereas I have no idea what feelings went into it so I rely on what it actually says. I still have (and this gods honest truth, not some attempt to get you to say something I can further pounce on) no idea what you meant to say other than what you actually said.

I really wish he hadn't followed up a pretty straight admission of guilty (with almost no use of passive voice) with the now obligatory "I need help with substance abuse."

Frankly, I don't really care about affairs. Those are, for the most part, a different kind of misconduct than official misconduct. Yes, it calls into question his general judgment but overall I don't think it that big of a deal.

However, while "I behaved stupidly because I'm overly fond of the booty call" doesn't call into question his judgment on affordable housing issues, "I behaved stupidly because I'm a drunk" does.

And, since in San Francisco, Newsom is generally attacked as not being progressive enough, it'll be interesting to see all of the people who didn't care about Clinton and Monica suddenly consider this a major issue and the people who cared about nothing more than Clinton and Monica call it a private matter.

Oh yeah, that's right. He did leave her, didn't he. But it still remains that he's a straight. Oh well.
:D

My recollection was that they left each other due to the conflicting pull of their increasing celebrity. Still, to read the tea leaves, she was somewhat mannish and gaudy. And he will be running for reelection with his support for gay marriage a major plank in his platform. After recent events, his base might need extra shoring up.

I remember very clearly the HateRadio calls for the end to filibustering. Robert Bork was on one of them and the host made that very suggestion to him, probably expecting Bork to agree. Instead, Bork made a very reasoned and vehement statement against such a move, and spelled out the many ways it would harm the Republicans in the long run. I'll have to try and find the transcript if I can.

I need to amend the previous post- it seems Borks position was in response to criticism regarding some asanine comments he made on Hannity's tv show, so I guess backpedaling can't be taken too seriously. Still, the fact remains that the Republicans were quite serious about ending the ability to filibuster judicial noms and it is very well documented.

Which Alex didn't argue. All Alex said was that they were not out to remove the filibuster entirely as a tool in other debates, such as the non-binding Iraq resolution.

I just wish filibusters were true filibusters, where the minority would actually have to maintain control of the floor, not leaving to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, whatever. Both parties have made the process too easy. If you're going to filibuster, it should be because you believe it in strongly enough to experience some discomfort.

Change the rules back.

Yes, by all means change the rules back. Dial them back to Non-Arcane, please.

McCain is giving a speech under the umbrella of the Discovery Institute.

Unless his plan is to rip them a new one, that pretty much crosses him off my list.

Not particularly political but it has me baning my head on my desk anyway to learn within minutes of each other that

Rhode Island University granted a PhD in geosciences to someone who believes the earth to only be several thousand years old (and therefore, he presented research he did not believe to be true).

A New Jersey public school history teacher tells his class that there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark and that those who don't accept Christ as their savior are going to hell gets transferred to teach the same class to a different group of students.

There is a new bit of claptrap in the vein of What the &#%*& Do We Know? (called The Secret) sweeping the nation which means another couple thousand people who will think that quantum mechanics tells us things it doesn't.

At least the Kansas School Board of Governors pulled their heads out of their asses for one election cycle.

Three in a row from me. In something more overtly political I'm the only person less likely to be elected president than a homosexual.

I wonder how well a twice divorded female black gay atheist (but ethnically Jewish) born in 1935 would poll. I think I'd vote for that person sight unseen.

Hot topics on Yahoo News:

Full Coverage

India
- 23 minutes ago
Iraq
- 23 minutes ago
Afghanistan
- 23 minutes ago
Middle East Conflict
- 23 minutes ago
Britney Spears
- 23 minutes ago

huh?

Libby guilty of 4 of 5 counts.

Oh wow. Reports from yesterday about the jury asking for clarification of the definition of "beyond reasonable doubt" kinda made it sound like they were leaning towards not guilty. I guess not.

I was surprised as well. I wasn't sure how this whole issue was going to turn out. So confusing.

Damn liberal media. Libby was found not guilty of one count. That's 20%!

LOL!!! :snap:

And in the end just as unimportant and irrelevant as most of the minor convictions achieved during the Clinton years.

He lied about something that it turns out wasn't illegal. It's like a jaywalking ticket. Yes, technically a law was broken but it sure feels like a waste of time.

Could you imagine going to prison with a nickname like "Scooter"? Oy vey!
"Come here, Scooter. Give Big Papa Pops a kiss."
:D

Um, he's not going to prison. The appeal will run until Bush's term ends, at which time "Scooter" likely tops the list of last-minute presidential pardons.


And I don't know where in the world Alex is getting that Libby lied about something not illegal. He lied about the outting of a CIA operative, clearly an illegal act.

No, there is no agreement that outing Plame was illegal.

However, there is general agreement that Libby's actions were not illegal. He lied about conversations that were not illegal (this is why he is only charged with lying about them).

Whose agreement do you need, Alex? Libby's conversations with reporters wherein he identified Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative are illegal, and no one's agreement is necessary.

I have no idea why he wasn't charged with that ... except that when there's contradictory evidence, it's probably easier for a jury to find deception than to find which side is telling the truth.


In one sense, it's lousy that the cover-up is what's charged and convicted on, rather than the underlying crime. In another sense, however, government cover-ups are criminal acts in and of themselves that society has an interest in curbing via criminal prosecution. And though there seems to be no particular deterrent factor in the take-down always being for the cover-up rather than the crime, less cover-ups would be a good thing.

If only to leave nothing but the underlying crime for feckless prosecutors to go after.

Then why hasn't he been charged with a crime for holding those conversations? Fitzgerald went out of his way to explicitly say that he had made no determination as to whether revealing Plame's name was in itself illegal.

So first I'd like his agreement. ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, PBS and 28 other news organizations filed amicus briefs saying that in their legal opinion leaking Plame's name was not itself a crime. While not legally important, considering how much time they spent covering, it is interesting that they do not think there was an underlying crime. And remember that when Bob Novak called the CIA to verify that Plame worked there that they did in fact confirm it (meaning that if it was a crime then the CIA just committed it too).

No branch of the criminal justice system has determined that an underlying crime was committed. That is what Fitzgerald was drafted to do and he hasn't done that. The CIA said they thought it was a crime, they referred it to DoJ which punted for conflict reasons to a special presecutor.

Since Fitzgerald knows who first leaked the information (Dick Armitrage) to a reporter, it seems like there is an obvious candidate for an indictment if Fitzgerald could support the argument that simply saying her name was a crime.

There may very well have been an underlying criminal act and there certainly was an underlying despicable act (which is not the same thing) but as to the former there is not general agreement. Except among those who have already decided that there was. If a crime was committed then I hope those guilty get charged.

By I stand by my original point. If this is all that is going to come out of the whole affair (and it looks like that will be the case) then it was a whole lot of hassle for not much benefit other than nailing someone on technicalities.

You mean like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion? Was that just a pussy move they shouldn't have taken if they couldn't jail him for murder? Or was it an acceptable "technicality" to prevent further murders committed by Capone?

I'm not equating the Plame namedropping with murder ... just positing the effacacy of going for a "technicality" conviction when none other is plausible.


But I agree it's all for nothing ... Libby will undoubtedly be pardoned.

I'll agree with that as soon as someone with authority to do so says that a crime (other than Libby lying about an otherwise legal conversation; this is why Armitrage hasn't been charged for doing the same thing as Libby, he didn't lie about doing it) I'll agree with that.

This made me laugh:

20%

I'm sure that's about all that will make it into the Conservipedia.

It's true, Scooter was found not guilty of being innocent on 80% of the charges.




(and I love that the screenshot says suspended Boston Globe columnist Ron Borges has found a mate)

Thinking about that more, is there a video of that bit? I can easily imagine that the crawl said "Scooter Libby found guilty of perjury and obstruction...Scooter Libby found not guilty of lying to FBI investigators"

And then just showing a screenshot of the latter part looks damning and silly.

In case you were wondering why Newt Gingrich can cheat on his wife and still consider himself a viable candidate for president after telling Clinton he's not fit to be president for cheating on Hillary, the answer is the bible Clinton put his right hand on.

Link

Not rendering judgement on another human being?!?

Where was the line in your mind that wondered why a fellow adulterer should have to testify under oath for doing what you did, ya fvckhead?

Gingrich's marital history is simply consistent with conservative support for term limits and a fresh approach.

Remember Sac, things like adultery, perjury, and fraud aren't wrong when Republicans do them - because they are the party of morality! That makes it ok.

Bush is wowing over South America, isn't he?

Oh ... he's loved all over the world, that wascally Bush.

He's also exhibiting Family Values. Likes them so much he's had several!

To hell with your subpoenas, Congress, the White House interns serve at the pleasure of the President.



That's what a real man would have said.

I suppose we shouldn't expect anything less from an administration so connected to Enron, but here's a story that's kinda flown under the radar. In violation of federal law, as well as being blatantly stupid in the wake of countless corporate scandals that have focused around email retention and the lack-thereof, the Whitehouse seems to have lost several million emails. These were sent on laptops and email accounts provided to staff by the RNC. They say that they may be able to recover many of the emails since 2004...but (and I'm looking for confirmation on this detail) I heard that the recovered data is unlikely to include Karl Rove's emails.

link

If they're supposed to keep them then I suppose it is stupid they didn't. But I think it is stupid they're supposed to keep them.

Having just lost six months of email I have no doubt that it is easy to do unless you're immediately copying everything from the central server to an optical storage medium.

Why do you think that's stupid?

For an individual, it is certainly easy to loose everything. Even for a company it is. But when federal law specifically says that all Whitehouse communication must be kept, when people have been going to jail (or dying on the way there) for losing emails, and when the loss is discovered because an investigation that relies on just such communication retention is underway, you're in deep crap. Further complicated by the seeming unrecoverability of Rove's emails specifically. It could be complete coincidence, but that'll be a hard one to explain away.

Aren't these emails that were through the RNC, not the White House?

Like I said, if it is the law then it is stupid they didn't. But I also think the law is stupid.

They were using RNC laptops and email addressed, but it included official White House content, definitely covered under the retention laws. At first they were saying, "Oh, it's just a handful of non-essential stuff done by staffers on these non-government-issue accounts." Further prodding produced the fact that it was far more serious than that.

People thought it was stupid of Nixon not to get rid of recorded and written messages, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone thinking it was stupid to require document retention.

Coincidence is this administration's only excuse in a long list of problems. God knows they are never at fault.

I think we've gone overboard on the work product we expect government to retain and maintain.

I think the official decisioning documents need to be available but not everything that goes into that decision.

For example, here in San Francisco some group successfully sued to get the original Word document rather than the distributed PDF version so that they could see the entire change history for the document. So not only do we have the right to the final document but the very first draft, every typo, every reconsideration of phrasing. To me this is stupid.

This overload prodcues so much detail that, in my opinion, the context gets lost.

To require that every electronic utterance be retained is, in my opinion, stupid. We might as well also require every government worker to wear personal tape recorders while on the job so that we can also listen in on every conversation. And stupid rules lead to stupid violations, whether intentional or not. And stupid violations lead to criminalization of the process (everybody eventually breaks a law).

If they were intentionally circumventing the law, no matter how stupid, they should be punished for it. But that doesn't make the underlying law any less stupid.

If we've gone overboard, I think that's due to the government's adeptness at hiding **** from us. They work for us, Alex- much as they'd like to forget that. I think the decision making process plays a considerable part in the outcome (government contracts, anyone?) and needs to be documented. Moot point, though, if they 'lose' said documentation.

You make valid points, but look at this US attorney mess. So far, the only defense the highest officials (Gonzalez and his direct staff) have been giving has been, "We didn't know what was going on." And if you just look at the final product of the action, you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise. But a few emails here and there and it's starting to look like that defense is an outright lie, that Gonzales, his staff, Rove knew very well what was going on. So where do you draw the line to ensure accountability?

I don't disagree with that. I just don't think that subjecting every bit of minutae to second guessing, re-evaluation, and misinterpretation is productive either.

Ultimately I don't see these laws having any impact on the fundamental corruptness of our government, just on oppositions ability to create issues over which to pretend outrage. Which is all the attorney general thing is, trumped up pretend outrage. Covering up that which was not wrong in the first place is not a crime, it is just petty.

GD, that is like, in my view, the common "what about the woman who protects herself from rape" defense of easily available handguns. You can find individual good results for any policy.

But overall, I don't see a net positive in it.

Soon, we'll have our Certified Records Manager on line and, I'm sure he'd be happy to comment. ;)

I agree with Alex. Expecting all email be retained is stupid. The Hatch Act in the electronic era is also stupid and contributed to this mess.

The amount of email is becoming humanly impossible to read. We should require our officials to read their delivered mail (i.e. SPAM removed by software not humans) and make a judgement as to it's importance and whether or not in need be retained.

The RNC was stupid to lose the emails in such an arbitrary fashion (or so it has been characterized to me) the should have a regular process of purging and retaining and stick to it. To the extent they didn't they'll take a well deserved hit for that that ill make them look suspicious regardless if any smoking gun were to be found.

Oh, hard to do? Tough.


Rove and his cohorts purposely do all their business over laptop email systems so their dirty work won't be uncovered. Government attracts crooks, and I believe drastic measures must be taken to thwart them.

Let them meet in dark alleys if they want to cheat the American people who pay their salaries, and subvert the Constitution they or their bosses are sworn to uphold. Tap their email, their cellphones, and equip them all with internal monitoring devices that record every frelling word they say as long as they are in office or work for an elected official.

Fvck their liberties. Their kind have abused power for generations, for centuries. As we attain the technology to reign them in and/or make their deceptions as difficult as possible, I say we use it to the full extent.

I don't want to take away their liberties, because I ant to retain mine. The various internet and email policies at my work place made me implement my own RNC solution. I don't want to have to be fired because someone sent me an off-color joke, or mention something that someone else could construe as immoral or offensive.

I can understand a "**** the government" point of view. I don't really understand it in conjunction with the progressive role for government you've previously expressed a preference for.

Government may attract crooks but so does treating everybody like a crook because the sane people aren't going to go anywhere near it.

Well, as the Government has no problem snooping into my business (we're in a war, dammit!) and goes to great lengths to circumvent and ignore existing privacy laws, I really have no problem whatsoever with inconveniencing them with regards to documents. I do have to say I was wrong about this administration: previously, I'd thought they hadn't learned a thing from history, but the events of Watergate seem to have taught them a thing or two.

Here's the really stupid thing: there was absolutely nothing wrong with the firings.

They should have just said (more diplomatically) "these people work for me. They're political appointments. I can fire them anytime I want for pretty much any reason I want. So bugger off. If you want to change things so they aren't political appointments any longer then get to work but remember that the last time -- In 1975 -- it was Republicans that tried to do that and the Democrats who thought it vital that they remain political offices."

But oftentimes, when it comes to the government, I just like posting mad.


Sorry if it wasn't obvious I was angry. Perhaps we need a Rant smiley?

Ok, so when you're posting mad you're not expressing your true opinions?

It was clear you're angry, I just don't see how that impacts the apparent disconnect.

I believe there is a certain protocol that was not followed, not to mention that the firings were so ****ing blatantly political that even the Repubs are embarrassed. Come on, devil's advocacy aside- do you really believe they went about this the proper way? This administration has pulled off more boners like this than any in recorded history, mostly because they wrongly believed to have a public mandate, or religious one if you really want to get right down to it, and now they are scrambling to extract themselves and do damage control. If they didn't do anything wrong, what's the big deal?

Went about what in the proper way? Firing the lawyers?

Yes, I have no problem with how it was done. I have no probably with how each administration has house cleaned these positions for political reasons. As is so commonly said in administrations of either party: they serve at the discretion of the president. They are political positions. Removal does not have to be "fair."

It wasn't a big deal. It isn't like these firing just happened. They happened a while ago. It didn't become a big deal until somebody could be accused of lying about it. Lying is the charge being pursued, not inappropriate firing. As I said above it is a stupid coverup since there was nothing particularly wrong about the underlying action.

In a political environment that has thrived for the last 14 years on finding excuses for manufacturing outrage "where there's smoke there's fire" being taken as coda is not a good idea.

See, for example, the so-called Paul Wolfowitz scandal. Which is 100% manufactured outrage to win political points.

(Stepping in for perhaps, the first time)

Politics, both sides, has been manufactured pretty much since the beginning; pandering, scandals, heroes, you name it. While there will always be the questions and wanting to know the truth, I hold no illusion of ever knowing, nor do I really think there's a truth out there. After all, it is subjective. One man's truth is another man's lie.

Which is pretty much why I stopped bothering years ago, and will live out my political days in silence and contemplation.

(Stepping out, because my shoes are covered in muck.)

How do you guys do it? ;)

So, a lot of people are upset by the Supreme Court's partial birth abortion ruling yesterday.

Since I think the point where we sanctify life is pretty much an arbitrary decision I don't really have a strong opionion either way and we're in splitting hairs territory. Two inches farther and it is a human being with full rights, two inches farther back and you're within your right so get a dwarf to stick a hand up there just to punch on it for a while.

But there are a special subgroup of people complaining about the ruling, that feel the law should have been struck down as unconstitutional. And those would be certain Congressman who voted for the law in the first place (such as Harry Reid).

Since no new information has come forward on the constitutional merits of this law I can only assume that Mr. Reid voted for a bill he believed unconstitutional for political expediency and with the unstated assumption that a court would strike it down.

In a just world, would not voting for a law you believe unconstitutional be something bordering on treason?

(On a different issue I expect to find a lot of Congressman in the same boat on the suspension of habeus corpus.)

Yes, treason. Absolutely.


I have no idea what the Supremes voted on yesterday, so I'm not talking about this specific case ... but in the abstract, though it could never be proven, legislators should be strung up if they vote for a law they know to be unconstitutional. They could buck their responsibility all the way to the gallows for all I care. And this will not be a problem once their internal thought-monitoring devices are installed in the cerebral cortex, beginning with the 2037 session of Congress.

Voice-box monitors will be found sufficient for all congressional and white house staffers until the 2059 session.

And had they done that, there wouldn't be hearings this week. But when the DOJ says things like they fired Carol Lam over her performance, specifically her performance regarding immigration, and then we learn that she received a letter of commendation in 2007 for this specific work, something doesn't add up.

From the transcript:
If she was fired for actual poor performance, or even just because she serves at the pleasure of the President, that is one thing. If she was fired because she was seeking a search warrant on someone they didn't want her to investigate, I find that far more troubling.

The first part of this is not strictly true. In passing the law without a health exception, Congress made a "finding" that no health exception was necessary because the procedure could never be justified to prevent damage to the pregnant woman's health. When the law was challenged at the district court, there was testimony on both sides of the issue. Because the testimony conflicted, the Supreme Court said that the law survived a facial challenge. The Court also said that the Congressional finding was hooey, but that other "findings" provided a rational basis for the law. None of this is to suggest that Reid and others actually put their faith in the legislative "findings."

Somewhat less dramatically, the strongest grounds for suggesting the law is unconstitutional is that Congress arguably lacked the power to enact it under the Commerce Clause. Justice Thomas mentions this in his concurrence. Whether he did this out of a genuine limited federal government impulse or out of the desire to push the issue towards whether a fetus is a person under the Due Process clause--which would provide an alternative ground for Congressional action--will have to wait further developments.

For those who like a little light--and disingenuous--reading, here's the opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

I'm not sure what part you are saying isn't correct?

That there was no new information since voting for the law that would have change Reid's mind on the issue? I'll agree that there was new testimony, but would argue that there was no new information.

Or was it another part?

I'm not sure what information actually was before Congress when it pulled its legislative findings out of its collective ass. However, I would assume a politician like Reid probably would say that the district court proceedings contained new information so that he can stand at podiums and disagree with the court with the appearance of good conscience.

Ah. Yes, I'm sure that everybody who voted for it but hoped the SC would knock it down can find some level of plausible deniability (though in the habeus debate I believe several actually said "I'm voting for this though I believe it will not pass constitutional review").

It's still craven wankery.

Anyone else following the internet radio royalty issue? I love my internet radio. If this causes my favorite Live365 channels to go away, I will be one unhappy camper.

I've never listened to internet radio and it sounds like the fees being setup are stupid, but if that is what they want to charge, more power to them.

Internet radio won't go away, it'll just move conglomerate, off shore, or underground.

KCRW is talking about it a lot. Heard today that a bill was just proposed to counteract it.

That would be Inslee-Manzullo Internet Radio Equality Act, H.R. 2060. The Inslee being my own congressperson, Jay Inslee.

Did you know that today is Loyalty Day?

Translation: Fly a flag today and show your loyalty to the current president and the war in Iraq.

Well, our flag is out. Of course, it's been out since the Fourth of July. One of these days we'll remember to bring it in. Nothing worse than slovenly patriotism.

I hate that the flag has come to represent, "I support what our leaders are doing," rather than, "I support the ideals of this country."

Oh, I wasn't aware of that transition.


The last time I had my flag out were the days following 9/11.



I'm not a flag-putting-out type of guy, so my failure to put out my flag since then does not reflect the distaste I have for ... hmmm, lemme see, every single one of our government's policies and laws and illegal actions since that date.

Nor mine, but there is a pervasive mentality growing in this country (as evidenced by the linked proclamation) that NOT displaying the flag is only one small step below treason. I don't let it affect my habits, but it's an attitude that bugs the snot out of me.

Get one of those annoyingly cutesy "garden" flags, preferably one with mushrooms on it ;)

I don't ever fly a flag because I believe in neither religious nor political idolatry.

But Loyalty Day is an anti-communist holiday (that's why it has been on May 1 since 1921). Just wanted to mention that in case anybody things this is a new thing Bush thought of.

Thanks for clearing that up. I figured it might have been, considering the timing, but nothing in that linked document gave any indication whether it was new or old.

It alludes to being an older law, as it talks about "this loyalty day" (as opposed to prior loyalty days). I'm merely amused, in a cynical way, by the not-so-subtle connection in this particular proclamation of loyalty, patriotism, and support for military actions.

Maybe this explains why I've had Deutschland über Alles going trough my head all day....

It was originally called Americanization Day. If the celebrants are already Americans in America, I'm not sure what was supposed to be accomplished. But I imagine that that name also exposes some anti-immigrant (or at least non-integrating immigrant) feeling while the date selection was anti-communist.

So, on a procedural vote yesterday to move forward in the Senate with the immigration compromise bill the vote was 69-23. That is 8 abstentions.

7 were Democrats, and one was a Republican.

I'm sure they were just busy and, after all, it was just a procedural motion. There is an interesting common thread among most of the abstentions:

Joseph Biden
Hillary Clinton
Christopher Dodd
John Kerry
Barak Obama
John McCain

That's six of the eight. Number 7 is Tim Johnson of South Dakota who is still recovering from a brain hemorrhage last year, so he probably actually was otherwise occupied. The eighth it Bill Nelson from Miami-Dade and I would guess he honestly doesn't know what to do since his Cuban constituents can't, almost by definition, be illegal immigrants.

So, six of the seven real abstentions just happen to be people heavily involved in the run for the White House (or, in Kerry's case, flying in those circles on some kind of political inertia). I could be wrong, but when everybody running for president suddenly develops prior obligations preventing them from getting to the floor for a vote I would have to argue that the issue isn't a popular one.

I would agree, Alex- and the make-up of that list is not at all surprising.

I am really hating politics of late. Is there no one out there who has conviction and the courage to stand for....something?

I would say that, no, there isn't. I've yet to see one candidate that I would feel comfortable voting for, on either side of the fence. Republicans suffer a lack of integrity and Democrats, lack of any noticeable spine. Neither side has one idea that is remotely progressive or even hints at having an imagination. All of it sickens me,

Of course, if the press actually did their job any more, rather than letting both sides get away with their crap all the time, we might have a better chance of seeing things change.

And yet, popular or not - - frankly, I'm glad to see the Legislature proceed with a compromise that pleases no-one. I think it's the essense of represenative government - i.e., no winner takes all, but a compromise that addresses concerns of either side, but - of necessity - none addressed fully.


Nothing's perfect. But I prefer flawed action to no action, compromise to gridlock.

And if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.

Does it hold true that any compromise is inherently better than inaction?

To me it doesn't. For even if the compromise itself it not inherently bad it will leach momentum away from efforts to achieve the ideal. "Let's just get this bit done and then we'll work on the rest" has a very bad habit of morphing into "well, we did that bit, so lets just move on."

He hasn't exactly gone out of his way to take any bold stands, but so far I'm respecting Obama simply because more often than not I've heard him saying, "I'm the right candidate because..." rather than, "The other candidates [on either side of the aisle] suck because..." I appreciate that. I'm sure people will be happy to find counter examples, I'm just saying I've heard it less from him than anyone. I hope he continues in that vein.

That, and while it may hurt his electibility, I consider his relative lack of political experience a huge bonus to his qualifications.

Bill Richardson is running and Newt is thinking about it:)

Isn't this the best way of assuring that nothing works well?

I'm a too many cooks spoil the broth kind of guy.

There is a movement in AZ (and I doubt it will go anywhere) to get McCain to resign. It isn't because of his position on this bill per se (thought I'm sure that comes into play), but because in this session of Congress he has missed 50% of the votes.

I don't care if you're running for President....fulfill the responsibility of the office you hold. His argument is that the votes he has missed hasn't mattered because they were one sided anyway. I say they matter because he can successfully take himself off the record on 50% of recent votes.

To change the subject a bit, here's another reason I am hating all politicians at the moment....

House votes to sue OPEC

What the hell? These people have no concept. What gets me is the vote tally.

We can't drill for our own oil. We can't increase our refinery capacity. But by golly, we can sue OPEC for cutting their production. Doing this not only accomplishes nothing, but it will most likely have the opposite effect with China and India importing more and more oil to feed their growing economies.

At least those tough legislators can tell their constitutents they stood up to OPEC for lower gas prices. A$$holes.

Interesting, since we're the primary controllers of the oil production in one of the OPEC member countries (Iraq). (Just for the record, I know that Iraq oil is excluded from the OPEC production quotas and therefore has nothing to do with the effects of OPEC manipulating production.)

I'm not clear where exactly we'd be suing them? In American courts? And then seizing assets?

This would lead me to believe that it will be in American courts (should it ever happen) -

If it is going to change our antitrust laws, that must mean it would apply to our courts, correct?

In comparison, how much time was spent on Paris Hilton?

Exactly.
The shuttle launch managed to bump Paris off the CNN.com top story for about 5 minutes and then she was back up again.
Sad.

Tony Snow is a big fat liar.

This is news?

That link redirects to the site's front page and I am not finding and obvious way to it. There is no mention of Tony Snow in the body of that page.

Strange I was seeing video of one of those late night guys but my sound has disappeared on my computer so I have no idea what he's saying.

Oops, wanted to link directly to the vid, guess they're smart enough to protect it. Here's the page with the vid.

Summary:
The Daily Show shows two clips. One of Tony Snow saying, when the Alberto Gonzalez thing first broke, that the firings were based on performance. The second, Tony Snow, this week, saying that he never said that the firings were based on performance.

I love it when they put clips like that back to back! It shows it in a truer light, huh. He does a lot of ones like that with Bush too.
My husband has been watching that show lately, sorry I thought it was late night tv.

You know, I love being in school, I love learning so much... and while it's good to have doses of reality, it's a bit painful to realize that Bush was an even bigger douche than I could have imagined. Most politicians are tools, but man... without having anyone trying to convince me of any opinion, it's amazing to see how many of us (Americans, that is) have had the wool pulled over our eyes about so much of it.

Man, I gotta stop reading the Constitution n' sh*t... it's f*cking with my mind.

Hmmm...
Hillary just posted a video on her website parodying the series finale of The Sopranos. Hills is portraying Tony in the clip. Although it was worth a chuckle or two, I think it was a poor choice for 2 reasons. 1. Tony is a horrible character. A mafioso who killed a ton of people or had them whacked. 2. Popular belief is that Tony was whacked in the finale. She doesn't need to give people ideas.

Actually, that is not the "popular" idea of what happened. With no offense meant to anyone for their views, a study reported in the L.A. Times this week concluded opinion was pretty evenly split about whether cut-to-black meant Tony whack.


And I don't think Hillary was equating herself with the likes of Tony Soprano by the parody; merely spoofing something in the popular culture that had prominence in the news for a little while.

I still think it's awkward. The number of news stories on GoogleNews that surfaced that surmised that Tony was whacked was in the hundreds so I figured it was the theory of a lot of people.

But this could be fodder for nicknaming Hills, too. Hillary Soprano, The Godmother...

Some random thoughts....

I typically do not like governance by polls. However, when such a vast majority of Americans want true border enforcement prior to any discussion of what to do with the existing 12 million illegals, I do not understnd why there is such a push on the stupid amnesty bill once again.

If it were not for Jimmy Carter, I would now have to agree that GWB is the worst President of my lifetime, no doubt, and perhaps one of the worst in history. If it weren't for his tax cuts (and maybe a couple of other things as well), I'd have no love for the man at all.

Two recent articles provide some of the reasons I do not subscribe to man made global warming....
This one....
And this one...
I hate non smoking laws. Private property is private property. Even though I hate being around smoke.

Trent Lott is an a$$. Now that talk radio isn't supporting something he wants (immigration reform bill), we must "do something" about how talk radio is "running the country". He seems to forget who came to his defense during the whole Strom Thurmond uproad. Putz.

It brings me great joy to see support for McCain falling. I don't know anything about Fred Thompson. I so desperately want someone in the image of Reagan....could he be the man? No one else in the field is, but I don't know about him.

That is all I can find to rant about at present.

George Will on Fred Thompson.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140623...wsweek/page/2/

I almost didn't notice since Page 2 starts in an ok spot, but here is the link that starts at the beginning of his column.

Whoops.

I believe polls indicate a vast majority of Americans want the U.S. military out of Iraq.





Thoughts, Mr. scaeagles?

Not that I'd go to Warren Buffet for advice on Constitutional law anyway, but perhaps he should read the whole thing, including, say, the 12th amendment.

Read the last paragraph

Meanwhile, the quip qoted in this post might indicate that Bloomberg himself stopped short of the 12th. Geniuses.

Never mind the Constitution...I'd like to see these gentleman enrolled into a logic 101 class as per this statement: "I know he(Arnold) can't be President but...he can be Vice-President"

:rolleyes:

Actually, until the 12th Amendment, that would have been a true statement.

I'm not sure about that since before the Twelfth Amendment, the guy who came in second in the race for president became vice president. I would think that if a controversy arose, the votes of any non-native type would have been invalidated rather than counted to see if he came in second.

Ah yes true. Rather I should have said, "If not for the last paragraph of the 12th amendment."

Not because of Arnold, but it is time to dump the natural born citizen requirement for qualification.

From an NBC?WSJ poll on 6/8-11 of 2007
"More specifically, do you think that we should have an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, or not?"

Should Should Not Depends Unsure
37 58 2 3

That doesn't seem like a vast majority. It seems like a good sized minority. I will fully agree that the war is being mishandled, and would be one of those in the 70% that says that.

The polling numbers are a bit vague on the specifics of the immigration bill, however, I did find this link which gives a wide breakdown of what the US public seems to want.

Polling report on immigration

Again, I don't believe in governing by polls. I am just shocked that the politicians are puching so hard for this particular brand of immigration reform when the populace is so much against amnesty in general and want real border enforcement.

Hillary's Voice
 

Now that I'm driving and listening to NPR, I'm starting to hear more of the candidates. As a result I've come to realize that Hillary's voice really bothers me. I'm not sure what it is, but there's this strident monotone that sounds like she's trying project, or emote, or something - but it just drives me crazy. Not that hearing George Bush is all that great, and she still is way better than Nancy Polosie (sp?). But shoulldn't these candidates be more media-genic? Don't they have voice coaches? Since most of my news these days comes over the radio, I wish the candidates just sounded better when the spoke. More News anchors should run for President.

If you read either link in GD's post, the statement "It states that the President must be native born, but it's silent on the Vice President." was NOT a Buffett quote.

Why should the veep have to be a native born citizen? It's not as if the office of the Vice President is even part of the executive branch.



/Dick "Yes, my nuts are that big" Cheney

Fvck impeachment: I wanna know why some of these guys (Cheney amongst 'em) aren't charged with treason.






and then, ya know, hung by the neck until dead

Stephanie Miller (who I listen to religiously every morning on my way to work) likens her voice to the Martians in Mars Attacks!.... "Ack, ack, ack"

It cracks me up every time.

Conversationally her voice doesn't bother me but something about her tone and diction when giving speeches does.

Another point for Obama (and, if it comes to it, Thompson): I can actually enjoy just listening to them talk.

I just don't like it when Obama talks during movies. :p

Wait, you think that's cajones?

How about this.

The office of the President isn't part of the executive branch either.

I, for one, do NOT welcome our Texan overlord. :mad:

More reasons I do not buy into the whole man made global warming stuff.

Interesting info refuting many claims from Gore made in an inconvenient truth from a wide variety of sources.

Reasons that I'm skeptical of the op-ed piece that scaeagles linked to:

Some interesting information about the institute that the author of the piece works for, from a wide variety of sources.

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Regardless of who the messanger is, isn't he citing sources that are reputable by most standards? He cites the UN, Nature magazine, the Journal of Glaciology....are you suggesting the studies he cites are bogus?

I think anyone who seriously believes that there is no negative impact by mankind on the Earth and it's environment is in a place beyond denial. I believe that persons such as the one in your link, Scaeagles, are motivated by profit, or they are too stupid to live. I suppose it's all a moot point- we'll probably destroy ourselves in other creative ways long before the Earth ceases to be a habitable place for us, but it still irritates the hell out of me.

Since when do you consider the UN to be a credible source of anything, btw?;)

It isn't that I hold the UN in such high esteem (obviously), it is that I don't understand how anyone who cites a UN report should be considered someone who just recites right wing mantra...is mantra the plural of mantra, or it is mantras? I learned the other day that the singular of confetti is confetto. Not that it matters at all, I just found it odd that there was a singular of confetti. Anyway.....

I don't think anyone claims there is not some negative impact on the earth by mankind, I just don't think that man is responsible for global warming.

Absolutely not. I know that both sides of the global warming argument use hyperbole and shortcuts, so I'm sure that there are nits to pick in Gore's powerpoint presentation. By the same token, I'm also fairly certain that the articles that Taylor cites are not saying exactly what he says they say.

I'm a skeptic. Part of being a good skeptic is to examine the motivation behind any pedagogue. The Heartland Institute? I question their motives.

I'm also not defending Al Gore, by the way, so I'm not disturbed by the conservative "attack the messenger" moves that call him a hypocrite.

You have the right to doubt global warming, scaeagles, but I certainly have the right to question Exxon's Heartland's unbiased opinion too.

This is a good thing. The major thing that scares me is that there seems to be little tolerance of skeptics on the issue of man caused global warming.

It would seem as if he would consider anyone who disagrees with his science as someone who distorts.

Some say it's a religon:eek:

There are accusations on both sides of the fence regarding distortions. I think skepticism is healthy, but a distrust of big business is healthier. I work from a distrusting viewpoint, and I have less reason to distrust Gore than I do persons such as the author of the article cited by Scaeagles. This is not to say I completely trust Gore, but I have less reason to question his motivation than some mouthpiece for the energy companies.

Well, well- what a surprise: Bush commutes Libby's sentence.

I guess this would be an example of compassionate conservatism. Just think- Paris Hilton served more time than Scooter.:rolleyes:

Yeah, Tony Snow is definitely a work of art. Or, a lying sack of ...

It's been asked before, but do none of these individuals realize that records are kept of what they've said earlier?

Won't matter.....as soon as an Administration ends the next one is not allowed to use recoreds of the previous one in defense of its' actions or proposing action it wishes to take.

So I've been told anyway;)

Random political thought.

When a person running for public office stands and says "any questions?" then goes on to sidestep the question asked of him, everyone who is witness to such an action should be horrified to their core. This person is supposed to want to represent the public. He needs to be perfectly clear in his intentions. He needs to speak squarely with the people he wants to represent. If he changes the subject, the whole press conference should come to a standstill until he does address the question, and if he refuses to do so, he needs to be booed off stage and never heard from again. How can people do something so obviously detrimental to the process of elections and governance itself and still be taken seriously?

I saw a clip of such action recently and I became extremely embarrassed of our political system and the fact that our society allows it to exist. It is intolerable.

To take a page out of another thread - I am seriously sick of this sht.

The business law class that I'll be wrapping up next week has forced me to take a different look into laws, government, Constitution, etc. While at one turn, it's almost painful to do - on the other side, particularly from a business perspective - we've got a sea change happening right now, one that will last for at least a couple of decades before we see much different. Just take a look at our fairly young 5/4 split Supreme Court.

Now is not the time IMO to be testing certain rights, lest we want precedence to be set by what this set of judges says. Sure, things can be overturned, but... I'd just rather wait. When "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," off campus, non-school event isn't even protected as political speech - well... frankly, that's frightening. Not to mention the many other decisions in recent history that point... well. Screw it.

All in all, Bush wasn't kidding when he said he wasn't going to be a footnote in America's history. He was going to write a chapter. And that, my friends, he has done.

But hey, I'm a business student. I'm not out to change the world or fix any problems. I'm just here to try and see what's happening and make the best decisions based on what the present and future look like.

What if he was displaying "Give your life to Jesus" in the same spot? Would his openly religious statement, when being fought by the ACLU, be a problem? There was also a case where a student was either suspended or expelled because a security guard spotted a large knife in his car. The knife fell out of a box while he was helping his grandmother move and he didn't know it was there. Zero tolerance takes over.

There are many reasons we have our kids in private school.

It is a scary thing, indeed, when rights are restricted by government. The entire campaign finance crap that Bush signed into law (good Lord I don't know why I didn't jump ship at that point in time, but that's hindsight, I suppose) tells people they can't say anything negative on the airwaves about an incumbant within...30 days? 60 days? I forget off the top of my head....of an election.

I will say I don't see how "Bong hits 4 Jesus" is political speech, but that's beside the point I guess.

Or, better yet (well, not better, but a better scenario) - how about a sign that said "Eat pork 4 Muhammed" or "If your Islamic, hug a Jew" or "God hates homosexuality"? If those signs were hung by someone in the same spot as the sign in question, should they be taken down because they are considered to be offensive or "hate speech"?

I believe that most everyone has a point at which they believe free speech ends. There are exceptions, of course, but I would figure a huge majority of the citizenry has a beaking point where something crosses their imaginary line and should not be allowed to be displayed in public.

Either it is political speech, in which John Roberts was right on its intent but still wrong (IMO) on what could be done about it or it isn't political speech in which case the majority was not only wrong in whether the school has the authority to proscribe such speech but about whether such speech even happened.

Now, my only complaint about the defendant side in that case is that the kid didn't have the balls to say "Yes, it was a pro-pot message. So what."

No, I can't think of a single written phrase that is not a specific threat of violence, that when displayed on public property would justify punishment by government authority (which includes, in my view, public schools).

And according to the opinion written, the examples you gave scaeagles, would almost certainly have been protected by the court because they are purely political in nature. The quibble the majority got to hind behind is that the Bong Hits 4 Jesus sign was supposedly an encouragement to illegal activity.

So, interestingly, apparently a sign saying "Everybody do smack" is punishable but a sign saying "Legalize smack so everybody can do it" is
not.

I think the problem here is that we're so scared of letting natural consequences take hold. If you want to hold up the sign, fine by me, but I just might help beat your ass up. Instead, our society wants to stop people from dealing directly with each other on things like this, and wants the government to either do their own version of beating up the sign holder, or punish anyone who beats them up because saying things that piss people off is protected.

IMHO, people just don't understand that freedom is a two way street. You should be free to say stupid things, I should be free to react. When any authority gets involved, it destroys natural human interaction.

Well, if you beat someone up because of something a sign says then I hope you enjoy the time in jail.

That's what I'm trying to say - if something like that went to court and you said "look, the guy was saying that God hates me because I'm gay, so I kicked his ass", the court should, in my obviously out of favor opinion, rule that "hey, that guy was being an asshole and had it coming to him."

You seriously think that inflicting bodily injury on someone else shouldn't be punished?

Interesting view. Who gets to decide which expressed points of view are worth an ass kicking?

Let's leave it to the capricious whim of the Supreme Kourt.

Methinks that with this court most of us would not be pleased with their tilt in deciding which viewpoints are sufficiently egregious to justify violence.

Though that is the idea, to some degree, behind hate speech regulations. That some thoughts are so horrible that the violent can't be held responsible for their behavior so the onus is on the speaker to be silent. The bad thing is that once such an idea exists, the contest it to get any speech you don't like put in that category.

I gather you'd take most sex offenses off the books.

Oh, the USSC is hardly capricious these days, IMO - especially when you've got (what I'm going to start calling) the Roberts 5, 'cuz that's how they roll.

Regarding the Bong Hits 4 Jesus, if school was open, if he was on campus, if this was a school event, I could see the school's jurisdiction over the student. But it was not. I hardly think students consent to losing their rights off-campus. Though I think what he said was nonsensical and at best was a message to lighten up on the War on Drugs - it hardly matter what he says. (And seriously, a statement like that isn't going to convince anyone that wasn't already into smoking weed to just light up... leave that to peer pressure, not big stupid banners).

In previous eras, this wouldn't have gone this far, IMO. You could have stronger statements, and they would be protected, now - we can't even hold up ridiculous signs about bongs.

And as for the other possible slogans... sure, I've seen similar. They have their rights, too. If I want mine, I must protect theirs.

So forgive me for not having read the ruling, but did it declare that any student of public schools has lost their free speech rights so long as they remain a public school student?

Well said. And it reminds me very much of classifying any behavior you don't like as being "terrorist".

No it essentially said that the school has a compelling interest in limiting speech when students are advocating illegal behavior.

This requires:

1. The interpretation that Bong Hits 4 Jesus is an exhortation to do drugs
2. That since the school gave permission for kids to leave the school to attend this event that the school somehow maintains that interest.

At least, that's my interpretation of it. Tinker (the 1969 case that allowed anti-war speech) isn't explicitly overruled. Not only was it 5-4 but the 5 had some splits.

Thomas felt that Tinker should have been overrruled. Alito and Kennedy limited their finding to the very narrow instance of advocating drug use but said that they still view political and social speech as protected.

Breyer, assented but disagreed with the grounds. He simply viewed the principal as having official immunity and therefore the other issues were moot.

So, nothing other than this specific case was really settled and a very similar case with slightly different wording could have a different result ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus if the Government Legalizes That")

Cites can be taken out of context... just look at Michael Moore's body of work ;)

Yeah, yeah, took my opinion to an nth degree. Yeah, we shouldn't have free reign to kick the sht out of each other for things said. But I still feel that there's something to the idea of personal responsibility, and personal consequences. I think Alex said it better:

I'm all for personal responsibility for the things you say. And I certainly agree that there are things that if said in certain places or ways you should not be surprised if someone kicks your ass.

But that doesn't mean the ass kicker is off the hook for their actions either. And in that exchange only one of the two people has committed a crime.

I'm can't quite tell if you think I'm endorsing the idea behind hate speech regulations, so I want to be clear that I don't.

Obviously society in general has decided that there are certain things that shouldn't be allowed. If there are to be restrictions (and I'm certain there always will be), who else should decide?

I don't mean the rhetorically in the least. Assuming there will always be limitations, who should decide? It's so vastly complex I don't know if there is an answer.

Here's a juicy tidbit of Capitol Hill gossip/news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675580/

Is it just me or does this guy sound just a wee bit desperate?

Here's to hoping we make Binnie a "Happy Man" :cheers:

I hope so.

It is interesting, though, the conflicting information out there. Some reports say the surge in Iraq is working, some say al Qaeda is at pre 9/11 strength, so it's very tough to tell. It does seem like it is a call to his followers to die for their cause, though.

I envision the half Romulan child of Tasha Yar assisting Ursa and Betor (spelling?) in the Klingon civil war. Once caught red handed, they had to cease their assistance. I think Iran has been caught a few times now and may be forced to stop their support of those fighting in Iraq because of their own nuclear ambitions. The last thing Iran wants is an attack against their facilities because of their assistance to al Qaeda related groups in Iraq.

It also seems like it's old video recompiled or clipped from pre-9/11 recordings.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I have no doubt that you will) but the only people I have heard say that the surge is working are from this administration or their pundits, and even then, they had to move the goalposts to show any progress whatsoever.

I do find it interesting that Iraq's Prime Minister is telling us that we can leave anytime we want. Didn't Bush say that we would stand down when they were ready to stand up?

If we are really just there to help the Iraqis and they say they don't need it anymore, I see no reason to continue to keep our troops in harm's way.

That's exactly what I thought when I read the Iraqi PM's comments yesterday.

Geek.

Wouldn't that mean that the surge has done something positive, considering her hasn't said anything like that before?

I'm sure it has had an entirely positive effect, so much so that they now want us to leave. I wonder if we will do so before or after the planned aerial bombing surge? Maybe we can blow up their police headquarters so we don't get attacked by uniformed insurgents again.

I believe most of the recent progress is due to the Sunnis getting fed up with al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia (a terrorist group completely unaffiliated with al-Qaeda that our illustrious president feels free to lie about, owing to their confusing name choice).

In any event, the Sunnis have taken a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach in now cooperating with U.S. troops against a-QofM. It's got little to do with any "surge" and everything to do with the ghastly deeds of al-QofM having worn out their welcome.


I will grant that, whatever the cause, "progress" has been made. Of course, none of the Iraqi government benchmarks have been met. Clearly, not enough progress has been made by the administration's definition of progress for October. It is only by now re-definining what October progress means that the president will be able to claim progress come October.


This continues to be a frelling sham.

I will say that the surge was supposed to be given until September to work. That was the original plan, and why a report is due then.

I would say the problem from the outset was that we wanted to fight a "humane" war, and war isn't humane. We should have had the "surge" the whole time, and in this way I completely agree that the war has been wholely mishandled.

And look at the quote -
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki shrugged off U.S. doubts of his government's military and political progress Saturday, saying Iraqi forces are capable and American troops can leave "anytime they want."

This is a man trying to express confidence in his troops and forces. What the hell is supposed to say? "We're completely inept and my men are nothing without US guidance and assistance"????? That would have the effect of completely demoralizing the men trying to do their job as Iraqi soldiers.

Oh, I agree that al-Maliki's statements are balderdash. I even agree that, since we were occupying the country, we should have brought the military resources to bear to quell all violence and chaos in Iraq.

I'm not sure such resources are available to the U.S. or ever were. At what point do we determine we do not have those resources and, yes, end our occupation of that country? Is it September?

If not, when? 2008? 2012? 2030? When exactly??

When will we leave South Korea? Germany? Wherever the heck else we are?

I realize that Iraq is, of course, a different situation, but we will probably always have a presence there, and I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing, just as it isn't a bad thing to have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia or Japan.

I believe we certainly had all the resources necessary to to quell all violence and chos in Iraq, but (as I mentioned before) we didn't have the juevos to do it. War is ugly and to expect it not to be so is unrealistic, which was the main faltering of the war.

Are we occupying those countries? We maintain a presence, but it's (mostly) one of mutual consent, and I believe it's been some time since we've bombed either of them.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tPrL-SsB8U

Steve knows....

WB, you certainly need your AC fixed. Read my post again - "I realize that Iraq is, of course, a different situation....".

Mutual consent? Are you saying that the current government of Iraq doesn't want us there? Because they do. There are plenty of Japanese that don't want our bases there. Same with South Korea. We talked about pulling bases out of Germany and they threw a little hissy fit and so did many of the same Americans that want want us out of Iraq. Yeah, you said "mostly" mutual consent.

I would like to point out that I voted for Forbes in the 2000 AZ primary.

Didn't the Iraqi President (or was it the Prime Minister? I forget) just tell us we can leave now?

I believe they don't want us there. Why would they? To keep them safe?

While I do need to get that damned AC fixed, your "I realize" wasn't enough to cover your comment, much as my "mostly" comment didn't seem to work for you.:p

I also believe that if we were doing to our NATO allies what we are doing to Iraq, they'd probably be interested in seeing us move on.

Me too....I even threw him a few bucks.

I believe I offered an explanation earlier - what is he supposed to say to such a question? My guys suck and we need the US to stay forever, or should he express confidence in those Iraqis willing to place their lives on the line?

Ah yes, the Bush mold of leadership. "Acknowledging reality is tantamount to admitting defeat. Never acknowledge that anything is going wrong. Lie until everyone forgets the question."

If they make the request official and not just a response to a reporter's question then I hope we leave with all appropriate haste.

Why did Saddam act like he had WMD's when he didn't? Why didn't he just open up the doors and say "look all you want, I've nothing to hide"?

Why did he choose the path that led to his son's being killed and himself being captured and executed??? When he had NOTHING to hide?

Before when I've asked this question I got the "he didn't want to look weak and lose his power"............

The current Iraqi President lives in the same culture as did Saddam. He can't be seen begging the US to stay....especially if it looks like we might leave soon.

I was going to post this in the Sicko thread, but it’s got a broader reach so in here it goes.

Generally speaking, an organism that doesn’t adapt to changing conditions will die out. This is true whether you’re a large scaly reptile, a Fortune 500 corporation, or a superpower state. You can’t keep acting the way you always have when the conditions are no longer the way they were and expect to stay ahead. But the bigger, more established you are, the harder that change is.

Change is difficult because organizations – whether economic or political - that are accustomed to being successful begin to make the “best” the enemy of the “good”. There is no such thing as “better”. After all, why make a change if there will still be problems after the change?

And that is where we find ourselves all too often in politics now. Our systems may be held together with chewing gum and baling wire, but we can pretend that everything’s fine. If a proposed change has any defects, it’s shot down, dismissed, and nothing happens.

And any change will have some drawbacks. There is no perfect solution that will do only what we want and nothing that we don’t. (And that’s assuming we can even agree on what we want.) If we make it easier to send people to jail, fewer criminals might go free, but more innocent people might be imprisoned. If we make it harder to qualify for welfare, perhaps fewer people will defraud the government, but perhaps more people who just need a temporary assist will land in permanent poverty. If we keep healthcare private, we may be able to stave off tax increases and benefit from the innovation that comes with competition, but there may be a significant number of people for whom healthcare remains unattainable.

There is no magic solution. But we, as a nation, don’t bother seriously evaluating whether the flaws in the suggested change are better or worse than the flaws in the status quo. We gobble up sound bites suggesting that our sewers will be clogged with the dead bodies of starving orphans with skin cancer and asbestos poisoning, or that we’ll be taxed so heavily that we’ll all have to work 37 hours a day just to afford a cardboard box to sleep in.

And what happens to political candidates who suggest a change? There sure aren’t many who suggest any actual change that consists of details, not just a string of empty superlatives. And who can blame them? As soon as news breaks that Candidate Smith has proposed such-and-such a change, the airwaves are full of people denouncing that change as the worst idea ever in the history of all mankind, and what a stupid cow Candidate Smith must be for even suggesting it, and why would anyone vote for Stupid Cow Smith and his Worst Idea Ever?

Because if there’s anything at all wrong with the suggested change, it is bad and should be thrown away. Not pondered. Not compared honestly to the status quo to evaluate whether the overall effect would be a better outcome with fewer drawbacks. Not analyzed to see whether there are alterations that could be made to the suggested change to make it better. Not considered, but rebutted by a difference suggested change with perhaps fewer drawbacks.

None of this happens. If there are any flaws, the whole plan is bad, the person who thought it up is bad, the university they went to is bad, the part of the country they’re from is full of complete morons, and we wrap some more baling wire around the status quo.

So here we sit. Waiting for the perfect, the best solution. Who knows how many good ideas have washed by while we sit here waiting for the “best”?

There's my random thought of the day - worth every penny you paid for it, I'm sure.

Yeah, that just about sums it up. Great post.

I agree. In the last 20 years over 1 million Americans have been killed in automobile accidents(that's more than have been killed in all the Wars we have fought in the last 230 years). Nearly all of these deaths could have been prevented had our leaders been bold enoough to make going over the speed of 20mph illegal...and enforce it.

But instead we go around making laws against drunk driving(a good start, but not good enough), seat belt laws, helmet laws, cell phone laws, and bouncing back and forth between good gas milage and bigger safer cars.......

....all so we can get there 3 times as fast. :(

Prudence for President!!!

Do you know how many people I'd kill if the speed limit was 20mph, sleepy? Road rage cubed.

Well... Since my evening commute is effectively that speed anyway, I don’t see a problem..... :rolleyes:

:D

Isn't "insanity" defined as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time? I don't believe there has been an administration in my lifetime that hasn't been insane, and I myself am guilty of it, because whenever I go to the ballot box, I think, "Oh, maybe things'll be different this time".
Can I have some Moderate-ation, pliz? :argghh:
Pru has a good point, we let our >elected< officials toss pretty good ideas out, just because they weren't A-1 solid fixes. I'd accept something that's 85% there, as long as it was viable and could be improved on.

My thought of the day, take it as you may.

Another problem is the "comprehensive" approach. I think any bill with that has the title "comprehensive" in it is bad news.

It is difficult enough for small things to be agreed upon. So instead of focusing on a small aspect of something, some arrogant politician (or group of them) decides they have the complete answer and package it all together. Well, this then goes through committees and pork gets added and there is legit disagreement and the position can be spun in a miriad of ways.

The recent immigration reform bill is a perfect example. Why not break it apart a bit? How about voting on an actual bill to control the borders by building a high tech fence? The merits of said fence can be debated alone without having to couple it with what to do about 12 million illegals in the country at ppresent. It's like discussing the surgical procedure ad infinitum while the wound continues to gush blood.

And yet, simple and small changes are often rejected as well and, as Prudence wrote so well, rejected as stupid or dangerous or some other such word. Social Security reform is a great example of that. No one dare to touch it, and the very mention of a younger contributers being allowed to invest a very small percentage of said contribution is portrayed as the desire for widowed grandmothers to be sleeping on the streets.

So what to do? Ther are passionate points of view from polar opposites that passionately will defend what they think is best - or perhaps what gives them the most power. Those polar opposites will portray the other side as anything and everything in order to make their side seem like the better solution.

I don't know if the discourse is headed downhill as much as the coverage of the discourse. It was over 40 years ago that a political campaign portrayed Goldwater with the infamous commercial of "In your heart you know he might" as someone likely to drop nukes on Russia. Pretty harsh. The examples are endless.

When passionate people compete for things they are possionate about, it is tough to come to some sort of viable alternative.

...hung by the neck until dead.


watch

You know, I have never been so unconnected to the news and politics as I am right now. I honestly couldn't give a flying fart about any politician or political figure right now.

And you know what? I'm okay with that.
:)

Welcome to my world. I turned off the news shortly after we started bombing Iraq - however long ago that was. It is nice.

Don't worry. Your friends will tell you if something important happens.

Totally.
Besides, I don't want to worry right now about some election that's happening in November 2008. Sheesh!
:D

If it happens....

Ugh, I can't stand it. I need to look into the independent parties right now to see who I'm going to vote for which means more internet than any news channel.

OK, that seriously rocks. I am probably going to buy one.

Those shirts do rock, in a hard core kind of way. I love the Goldwater best.

I want to say that the very sight of Edwards (speaking of the dem running for President) makes me ill.

I have to say I was quite amused that he has been demading Hillary return around 200,000 from Murdoch and his interests, while he has taken some 800,000K in same. I do not begrudge the man his wealth - he has earned every penny of it (though I can't stand the way he's done it), but I don't understand how he considers himself to be the authority on poverty. I don't really know much about him, and admit I just don't like him.

I think Obama is looking like an inexperienced fool in foreign policy at present. The unfortunate part is he's making Hillary look good in that area because he gives her the chance to say he's an idiot. I think he's proving he's just too inexperienced for the office.

See, whenever I start worrying about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, I just put him next to Dubya and suddenly I feel a lot better about it. I cannot see how he could possibly screw things up any more than they are now.

My cat could do better.

Yeah - Obama just wants to invade a country with an unstable government that's trying to help in the war on terror and they already have nukes. Makes sense.

He also said he wouldn't ever use nukes. That's a great way to have a nuclear deterence against states that might sponsor terrorists by giving them a nuke.

Makes great sense. I'm sure if Bush said those things you'd be right with him (well, maybe on the nukes, but not on the invasion of Pakistan).

Oh dear, yes, we wouldn't want to jeopardize our relationship with a country that's preventing us from going after the enemy that actually attacked us. Much more important to invade countries that have nothing to do with the only tangible threat we've faced in the last 40 years or so.

Ditto what he said. Oh, and I'm for invading the area-undeservedly-known-as-Pakistan right now.

I find it amusing that one argument against the invasion of Iraq was that the power vacuum would create a breeding ground for terrorists and most likely an Islam state with Islamic law.

What do you suppose just might happen there if the US invaded? Much more likely there than in Iraq, IMO.

If we're going to go after terrorists where they are, I suppose we should invade Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria. Isn't that what he's saying? Go where they are? At least Pakistan is attempting to work with us, unlike the other countries I've listed, two of which clearly sponsor terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.

Let me know when you're in support of the invasion of those two countries as well.

Doesn't Bush want to arm the Saudis?

Just to add a bit...at one point in time they Pakistan had around 90 thousand troops in those mountains fighting terrorists village to village.

What they came under criticism for is adopting a different strategy of reducing troop levels and trying to work with the villagers. Umm....isn't that what some want us to do in Iraq? Reduce troop levels immensely and go with a more diplomatic strategy?

Personally, I don't think this strategy is good. But they are sovereign and are working against terrorism. So if I don't like the way their doing it, I should invade them????

Did Obama say he would overthrown the Pakistani government? Nope.

I appreciate your zeal, but your argument is a bit much, don't ya think?

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Musharraf has to refuse to help us first, right? He hasn't done that.

I don't appreciate Obama's words either. I think it was a foolish statement.

But I'd come closer to agreeing to attack a country actually harboring our enemy than one who wasn't.

Isn't the hypothetical Obama answered for being willing to to go into Pakistan exactly the same reason we went into Afghanistan?

Who's ready for the new Attorney General?

Who do you think it might be?

Response from Obama's campaign. I find this to be an excellent response and spot on target. Too bad no one wants to hear it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...03/303197.aspx

This is surprising...