Image
Demagoguery
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

Franklin D. Roosevelt


Candidates - Give 'Em $25







Regular Reads
Eschaton
Tapped
Daily Kos
The Liquid List
Matthew Yglesias
Talking Points Memo
Slacktivist
Michael Berube
Political Animal
How Appealing
MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Tbogg
TalkLeft
Rittenhouse Review
Neal Pollack
Suckful
Cursor
John Moltz
Southern Appeal
Nathan Newman
The Poor Man
NRO's "The Corner"
Pandagon
Wonkette
Whiskey Bar
Sugar, Mr. Poon?
Carpetbagger Report
Balkinization
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time w/ Norbizness


Contact Us
Eugene Oregon
Noam Alaska
Helena Montana
Frederick Maryland
Zoe Kentucky
Arnold P. California


Mutual Admiration Society
DCCC's The Stakeholder
Abolish the Death Penalty
Busy Busy Busy
Uggabugga
New American Empire
Staunch Moderate
The Moderate Voice
The Sneaky Rabbit
Acrentropy
The Blue Bus
American Monkey
Restless Mania
Your Right Hand Thief
Naked Furniture
Dimmy Karras
The Department of Louise
Torvus Futurus
HellaFaded
Live From the Nuke Free Zone
Proof Through the Night
No More Apples
Slapnose
PoliGeek
Irrational Bush Hatred
The Slugging Southpaw
I Voted for George
Nosey Online
Donna's Place
Schadenfreude
Resource.full
wordsimageslife
The Bully Pulpit
Lying Socialist Weasels
TJ Griffin
To The Barricades
Omni-Curious
Eat Your Vegetables
Stoutdem
Suddenly Routine
The Story So Far
Skimble
Marstonalia
The Lefty Directory
ZipSix
ReachM High Cowboy Network
John Hoke's Personal Asylum
Riba Rambles
The Bone
Fables of the Reconstruction
The Modulator
Planet Swank
Scoobie Davis Online
Single-Minded
World Phamous
The Good Life
Something's Got To Break
Upside-down Hippopotamus
Damfacrats 2004
The Fulcrum
BeatBushBlog
archy
Yankee From Mississippi
It's A Crock!
Red Wheelbarrow
Apropos of Nothing
Political Parrhesia
The Mahablog
Mousemusings
Restlessgeist
Galois
Muise in Gradland
American Leftist
Political Blog Directory
Boiled Meat
John Costello
Skydiver Salad
The Game & How We Played It
Soupie's BBQ and Daycare
Odd Hours
Nebraska Liberal
The American Street
Bluegrassroots
Approximately Perfect


If you have linked to us and don't see your name, please send us an e-mail and we'll add you.


Recommendations
















Archives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
Friday, June 27, 2003


Let's Hear It for Gaul

Earlier this year, a brief spike in stock prices on Wall Street helped spur optimism that the U.S. economy would improve. But auto sales and retail sales have been slow, and stock prices are once again reflecting an economy that remains sluggish. Data released this week by the Progressive Policy Institute may help explain why the U.S. economy is stuck in neutral.

Direct foreign investment in the U.S. has plummeted. In the year 2000, foreign businesses and other sources invested $314 billion in American states and communities. Two years later, that figure had plummeted by more than 90 percent to only $30 billion.

Interestingly, Great Britain may have pitched in to help with President Bush’s little war in Iraq, but the Brits have been less friendly when it comes to investing in the U.S. economy. In fact, British investment has fallen "most dramatically," PPI reports, from $82 billion to $14 billion in two years. From which major industrial countries has foreign investment in the U.S. remained fairly steady? France and Japan.

Much to the consternation of the Bush White House, the French have their own views of how to conduct foreign policy. Still, the administration and its yahoo-conservative friends should think twice before pursuing punitive actions toward the French.

If France were to start pulling its dollars out of the U.S. economy at the same rate as the British have, President Bush's anemic "recovery" might start resembling the Hoover years faster than you can say "Crepes Suzette."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:06 PM




Is Clarence Thomas a Paper Weight?

Of course not. Paper weights aren't wrapped in a black robe and they aren't on the payroll of the U.S. Supreme Court. But sometimes one wonders what Thomas actually does for a living. Commentators have long pointed to Justice Thomas' apparent lack of intellectual inquiry and noted that he is far less likely than other justices to question and probe attorneys' arguments with genuine depth.

These concerns are only reinforced by Justice Thomas' lame, 149-word dissent (not counting footnoted references) in Thursday's Texas sodomy law ruling. Nothing in Thomas' dissent added meaningful perspective or substance to Scalia’s lengthy diatribe. Indeed, after reading it, one wonders why Thomas even went to the trouble.

With these 149 words, Thomas manages to tell us little more than the fact that he believes the Texas sodomy law was "uncommonly silly." Yeah, I'm sure that John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner were positively giddy over having to spend a night in jail in Harris County, Tex., simply because they were making love in a private home.

In his dissent, Thomas also writes that punishing someone "for expressing his sexual preference … with another adult does not appear" … let's not go out on a limb or anything … "to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources." It's almost as if Thomas believes the most compelling case against sodomy laws is their impact on the economics of running a police force. What if technological advances made the placement of eavesdropping devices in every home more cost-effective because they lessened the need to hire actual police officers? Would that somehow trump the right to privacy, due process and the Equal Protection Clause?

Much of Thomas' dissent is largely made up of excerpts from previous court decisions, including one written by Justice Potter Stewart. But Thomas neglected to cite this quote by Stewart: "At the very core (of the 4th Amendment) stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."


posted by Frederick Maryland at 3:37 PM




Gephardt Backpedals

Like Frederick, I was annoyed by Gephardt's stupidity when he said he'd use executive orders to "overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." In his Tuesday post, Fred hoped the Democratic hopeful would "clarify his philosophy and erase any doubt that he would turn the executive branch into a court-of-last-resort that ignores the ultimate decisions of America’s highest court." I agree, and, for the record, Gephardt did just that according to this Fox News story from Wednesday.


posted by Helena Montana at 12:42 PM




Why Stop at Lawrence?

There's a bunch of crazy things being said over the Michigan decisions too. I respectfully submit Ward Connerly as Exhibit #1. He's been all over the news coverage since the Monday decisions were handed down. But yesterday, he might have outdone himself with a NRO piece titled "Murder at the Supreme Court."
Let it be said that when given a chance to complete the liberation of black Americans, on June 23, 2003 five justices consigned them to another generation — or, perhaps, a term of indefinite duration — of virtual enslavement to the past.
And like every snotty op-ed columnist in America (Richard Cohen, Wesley Pruden...I'm looking at you), Connerly feels the need to try to peer pressure Justice O'Connor into fearing that the cool kids won't invite her out anymore:
Adding insult to our national injury is the fact that the head of the death squad was a woman appointed by a president who believed in the principles of personal freedom, merit, and equal treatment as much as, if not more than, any other president in our nation's history. What a shame!
Death squads, murder, enslavement...I think that gives Sheldon's 9-11 quote a run for its money.

posted by Helena Montana at 12:06 PM




Harvey Fierstein Secretly Meets With bin Laden

You can't put one over on Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). Sheldon reveals his intellectual and investigatory prowess when he calls the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling "a 9/11, [a] major wake up call that the enemy is at our doortsteps." (See Zoe Kentucky's prior post for the actual source.) No one else but Sheldon has been clever enough to figure out that gay people are really just terrorists in bright pastels.

Sure, those two svelte guys roller-blading in sleeveless T-shirts may appear perfectly harmless, but they're really just al Qaeda trainees. Martina Navratilova may have lived in America for many, many years, but let's not forget that the lesbian tennis player was born in one of those Warsaw Pact countries. No telling what commie friends or contacts Martina may still have over there, right, Mr. Sheldon? Mark Bingham (the gay, 6-feet-5 soccer player from San Francisco) was on board the United Airlines flight that crashed in western Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. But how do we really know he wasn't one of them.

This is like finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; it may take a long, long time for Sheldon and his friends at TVC to figure it all out, but eventually they'll explain to all of us what makes Mark Bingham and the rest of gay Americans an "enemy."

You see, the problem for sick people like Sheldon is that it has been so many years since Matthew Shepherd was brutally beaten and left to die on a fence in rural Wyoming. That murder provided a twisted form of reaffirmation to guys like Sheldon, who were able to say to themselves: "Gee, there really are other people who fear or loathe gays as much as me. How 'bout that?" Sheldon is smart enough to know that hate crimes against gays and lesbians will slowly decline unless he and others can succeed in demonizing them on a whole new level. Calling them "homosexuals" just doesn't have the same impact that it once did. Most Americans wouldn't dream of verbally or physically assaulting a gay person, but a terrorist? Now, that's someone who's really easy to hate.

When the Constitution's not on your side, there's always the "terrorist" label. After all, why should John Ashcroft have all the fun?

posted by Frederick Maryland at 11:22 AM




Worst Quote of the Day

I challenge everyone to find a reaction that is nastier than this about the Lawrence decision.

"This is a major wake-up call. This is a 9/11, [a] major wake-up call that the enemy is at our doorsteps."

Thank goes out to Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, we can always count on you to represent the worst in people.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:14 AM


Thursday, June 26, 2003


Leahy on "Advise [sic] and Consent"

Senator Leahy took to the podium yesterday to argue that, when it comes time to make a Supreme Court nomination, "It Doesn't Have to be Armageddon."

In his speech, Leahy argued

The Constitution divides the appointment power between the President and the Senate and expects Senators to advise the President, not just rubber-stamp his choices.

The Senate’s role in the process is not secondary and is not confined simply to a vote. The Constitution expressly speaks of the Senate’s authority to “advise” as well as the power to “consent,” which includes the power to withhold such consent.


Leaving aside the surprisingly common mistake of placing "advise" in quote, as if directly citing Article II, Section II (it is "advice and consent," not "advise and consent"), I think Leahy is mistaken in his assertion that the Senate's role is "not secondary," at least when it comes to the "advice" part, as I've noted before.

In fact, Leahy essentially admits this, when he later says that "the choice of uniting or dividing the American people over a nominee is the President’s, and the President’s alone. " Leahy knows that Bush has the power to nominate anyone he chooses. The Senate does not have any constitutional mandate to participate in the nominating process, and any "advice" they may give during the process is in no way binding.

Nonetheless, Leahy does make several good points suggesting that Bush should seek Democratic advice prior to making a nomination. As he notes, it is not unprecedented and would be good for the country

So history shows that the Senate’s advice traditionally has been given before a nomination was made, not after. Consultation in advance of a Supreme Court nomination makes good governing sense, it makes good constitutional sense, and it makes good political sense. When there is bipartisan consultation in advance of a Supreme Court nomination, a Supreme Court battle can be avoided and a highly regarded, consensus nominee can usually be agreed upon. On the other hand, a phone call informing senators of a nomination just before Fox News breaks the story is not real consultation.

[edit]

In its report on the Supreme Court Appointment Process the Congressional Research Service has said it plainly, quote: "It is common practice for Presidents, as a matter of courtesy, to consult with Senate party leaders as well as with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee before choosing a nominee."

[edit]

All of this is why preserving and strengthening respect for the courts is especially important right now. This is not the time, and a vacancy on this Supreme Court is not the setting, in which to deepen the Nation’s political and ideological divisions.


I think this is all very reasonable and fair- I just don't think that it is required by the Constitution.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 4:18 PM




From Smiley Face to Blank Stare

On Tuesday, the White House offered us a smiley face by applauding an affirmative action ruling it had opposed in its brief.

Today, via Ari, the White House gives us a blank stare:

QUESTION: And on the Texas sodomy case, does the president believe that gay men have the legal right to have sexual relations in the privacy of their own home?

FLEISCHER: I think, on this decision, the administration did not file a brief in this case, unlike in the Michigan case, and this is now a state matter. QUESTION: So the administration has no position on this?

FLEISCHER: It's just as I indicated. The administration did not file a brief on this, as I think you know.


It's only a matter of time before Bush refers to Justice Scalia and "an inclusive man"

After all, in his minority opinion, Scalia wrote:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowersvalidation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.


Even masturbation, Nino? Sounds pretty all-inclusive to me.

posted by Noam Alaska at 3:36 PM




I so love Dahlia

Slate's professional law geek Dahlia Lithwick's summation of today's Wiggins ruling nearly made snarf water out of my nose.

What an astounding week!

As you noted earlier, today's holdings, plus Monday's, represent a shockingly progressive set of decisions from a supposedly conservative court...

Then we have Wiggins v. Smith, where, by a 7-2 vote, the same court that would ordinarily uphold any death penalty conviction—even if defense counsel had been hopped up on crack and dressed up as Cookie Monster—actually accepts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. This court, which has blindly sided with the prosecution in the last few ineffective assistance of counsel cases, seems to have figured out (finally!) how shockingly bad/young/inexperienced/overburdened some court-appointed defense counsel can really be.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 3:07 PM




Sex and the Savage Weiner

I've been very busy reveling in our newly-confirmed right to sexual privacy. (I figure it's safe until Ashcroft finds a way to link sex to terrorism, right?) Well, I just plumb forgot that it was the day for savaging Michael Savage-Weiner. Hooray!

But my measly little posting appropriating his name is nothing compared to Justice Kennedy waving his magic wand and making Bowers disappear. (Oh yeah, thanks again for that!) So my contribution to denigrate the Savagest Weenie of them all is to engage in a little visualization. Imagine, if you will, MSW with a red face, bulging veins at the temples as he hears the news of the day. A little scary? Then imagine him teleported onto a Pride float with Barney Frank, wearing a pink boa and a tiara. All the tension evaporates from his face. He is finally at peace and the exorcism is complete. He can now engage in all the sodomy he likes. Awwww, it's kind of touching.

If you want to find out what this is all about go here. For much more imaginative ways to make fun of MSW check out Neal Pollack and Suckful.

posted by Helena Montana at 3:00 PM




Iraq and the Sage Wannabe

Judging from the headline over an op-ed in today's Washington Post, you'd think the Iraqi insurgents who are looting supplies, cutting utility lines and killing Anglo-American soldiers are clumsier than Barney Fife. The headline reads: "The Baathists' Blundering Guerrilla War." The author of the op-ed is retired Marine Corps officer Gary Anderson. In a smug, "I told you so" tone, Anderson writes that he correctly predicted months ago that if Baath Party insurgents tried to resort to guerrilla activities in Iraq, "they would foul it up." But, beneath the bravado, Anderson isn’t the sage he presents himself to be.

Indeed, there is ample evidence that guerrilla tactics being used by Baath party loyalists and others are having considerable impact in Iraq. An Associated Press article from June 24 noted that Sunday’s bloody attack that killed six British soldiers "fueled concerns that Iraq is descending into a guerrilla war despite U.S. insistence that resistance is local, not centrally organized."

Perhaps the most compelling evidence that repudiates Anderson's view comes from the very same newspaper in which the op-ed appears -- today's Post. This article, written by the Knight Ridder news service, provided a sober picture of how guerrilla tactics are undermining efforts to rebuild and restore order. The article explained that most of Baghdad had been without water and electricity for a few days because a power line was damaged by saboteurs. The top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, attributed the power line’s destruction to "rogue Baathist elements" in the country.

I’d provide the link to the Knight Ridder article, but the Post's Web edition doesn't include it. In fact, the article could have been easily missed by most readers since the Post decided to place it at the bottom of page A14. Not exactly high profile.

The Knight Ridder article goes on to observe, "There is no bigger subject these days than the lack of electricity in Baghdad, where temperatures flirt around the 120-degree mark." Strange, isn't it, that the Post decides that the biggest subject in Iraq should be relegated to page A14, beside a cellular telephone ad that promotes the new Charlie's Angels movie: "Color looks good on you, Angels."

If these Baath insurgents have their way, the "in" color for fall in Iraq will be blood red. In the end, these guerrillas' efforts may well fail, but Anderson and others should think twice before they cavalierly dismiss these insurgents' ability to foment anger among the masses.

Forcing millions of people to endure temperatures as high as 120 degrees with neither water nor electricity would send tempers rising in any U.S. city. Imagine what it could do in a volatile city like Baghdad. Vietnam may be a distant memory to some in the Pentagon and to this White House, but there was a time when we arrogantly wrote off those guerrillas' chances too.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:41 PM




Lawrence v. Texas

The Supreme Court's ruling (pdf format) is eloquently summed-up in these concluding paragraphs

Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


Kudos to Anthony Kennedy

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:11 PM




It's Good Luck ... in Haiti

After Clinton sent troops to Haiti in 1994 to restore elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power after a coup, everybody sort of stopped paying attention. Not surprisingly, things are not going so well after almost a decade inattention.



posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:28 AM




Hooray for sodomy!

A 6-3 decision!

Ohmigawd! Bowers v. Hardwick has been struck down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:22 AM




Creepy Creeps Being Extra Creepy

Right-wing Cybercast News Service (formerly Conservative News Service) points to this lovely tidbit of history as part of their defense of anti-sodomy laws:

The first recorded execution for sodomy in the New World happened in Virginia in 1624. Richard Cornish, a ship's captain, was hanged for demanding sex from his indentured servant, William Cowse.


Instead of ranting and raving or giving this factoid a context, that is all they write. Funny thing, though, they cited PlanetOut as their source.


posted by Zoe Kentucky at 10:21 AM




That Other Supreme Court Decision

Lost in the inevitable brouhaha over the Michigan case was Monday's 6-3 decision on the consitutionality of CIPA, a law requiring Internet filters at public libraries. I'm not saying that I was suprised that the court decided it was OK. They have a more restrictive view of the First Amendment than I would like, so I just shook my head and went about my business. Fortune's tech writer Peter Lewis summed up the problems with filters quite neatly:
Software filters are flawed and often reflect the tastes and morals of the people who create them. They are faulty, and they can be abused. The filters will prevent the dissemination of some forms of legal, constitutionally protected information to adults. Government lawyers did not dispute the fallibility of software filters, but argued that the blocking of the occasional legitimate Web site - for sake of argument, let's say the one for Planned Parenthood - was a small price to pay for keeping kids from using library computers to search for porn. The Supreme Court agreed. The Bush administration was pleased.

The best system for preventing kids from using the Internet to gain access to objectionable material is for parents to spend time talking with their children. Any kid old enough to Google the net for "pink nipples" is old enough to have a talk with his parents about values.
Lewis also hit the nail on the head with this observation:
Another issue: Whose filter will the libraries use? The software has to be compiled by someone whose value judgments are trustworthy.

Say, here's an interesting idea: How about filters endorsed by Roman Catholic priests? Or, maybe librarians in Kansas will choose filters created by the same school advisory board that required science teachers to give as much class time to Christian creationism as to Darwinism. How about a filter created by the government itself, which cuts off funding to agencies that seek to disseminate information about birth control, and spends $8,000 to drape the naked right boob of the statue Spirit of Justice in the Justice Department?
These battles will now filter down to the local level, where a small number of committed prudes will manipulate the process to pick the worst of bad filters. Sigh.


posted by Helena Montana at 10:08 AM




WMD FOUND!!!

Coming soon to a press conference near you...

Ari: We have an announcement to make. We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Reporter: But, sir, they're from a nuclear weapons program that shut down 12 years ago.

Ari: That does not matter, we told you they had them, we found 'em, end of story. This subject is closed. Let's talk about Iran, shall we?

Reporter: But what about the investigation that, thus far, has found that the administration ignored doubts about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability?

Ari: Who let you in here? [to audience] This man should be tried for treason. Anyone else have any more questions?

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 9:56 AM


Wednesday, June 25, 2003


The Blame Game

Thanks to our friend NC for pointing out an AP story that notes that the Bush administration may have missed opportunities to take out Osama bin Laden in the months leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Here's an excerpt:


Prowling the skies over Afghanistan in the months before President Bush took office, unmanned and unarmed Predator drones proved to be one of America's major successes in its frustrating hunt for Osama bin Laden.

But the promising aircraft remained grounded under the new administration until after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, say current and former U.S. officials who describe a paralyzing internal debate over finances, arming the drones with deadly missiles and concern over who would take the blame if something went wrong.

As late as a week before the suicide attacks against New York and Washington, senior administration officials meeting at the White House had not yet resolved questions about plans to equip each Predator with as many as two Hellfire missiles to kill bin Laden, these officials told The Associated Press....

[T]he Predators remained grounded until Sept. 11. Officials at the White House meeting the week earlier put off recommending flying armed Predators to hunt bin Laden. Instead, they finalized a series of other measures to rout al-Qaida from its base in Afghanistan, including rearming the rebel Northern Alliance.

Those recommendations were being forwarded from Rice to Bush when the Sept. 11 hijackers struck, officials said.


It's tempting to point fingers at the Bush administration here. But, the truth is, we really don't have enough information to do so. Still, it is fair to say that one of the reasons we don't have the answer on this point is because of foot-dragging by the administration on investigating 9/11. (Salon has a great story about this, by the way.)

It's also reasonable to argue that the way in which Bush, Rove, et al., have capitalized on the terrorist attacks is, to say the least, unseemly. That they plan on hosting the 2004 GOP convention in New York on the anniversary of the attacks is only one example of their efforts to cash in on this tragedy. Perhaps the AP story will encourage them to tone down the "protector of America" rhetoric a bit, but I wouldn't count on it.

Then there are all the folks on the right who were so eager to pin 9/11 on Bill Clinton. Mere days after the attacks, BOND president Jesse Lee Peterson argued that "It is clear that Bill Clinton not only failed in the war against terrorism, it can certainly be argued that his administration aided and abetted them." Peterson didn't wait for the evidence to come in before passing judgement. Hell, NewsMax hacks Chris Ruddy and Carl Limbacher wrote an entire book on "Clinton's role in America's worst disaster." Oliver North, defender of the Constitution, claimed that the "Clinton-Gore Team failed in their principle responsibility - protecting America's citizens. They ought to be ashamed." Other finger pointers include Dick Morris, Andrew Sullivan, Gary Aldrich, Rush Limbaugh, and Jonah Goldberg. [For a more comprehensive list, see this winger conspiracy journal: The Culpability of William Jefferson Clinton.]

Can we expect equally harsh indictments of George W. Bush by these critics? [It's safe to say that this is a rhetorical question.]


posted by Noam Alaska at 5:33 PM




I don't know why I read this crap...

OK, today actually I sought out vile anti-gay stuff to ready myself for tomorrow's guaranteed onslaught of inane anti-gay crap flying in all directions.

But since the Culture and Family Institute asked the question, I have to answer their ever-so thoughtful inquiry-- Why Did It Take 5,000 Years to Invent Homosexual Adoptions?

If they're going to start using a painfully myopic view of history as a defense against the supposed evils of modernity, I can't help but respond.

The whole premise of their argument is that since gay parenting is a "modern" concept and since our ancestors would be offended and outraged at the mere suggestion of such a thing, then how is it possible that anyone thinks it is an acceptable idea now? Hmmm…what else does history teach us about the evolution of ideas? Less than a century ago the very same argument could be used against the very modern concept that men and women are equal.

Sometimes they are so dumb that it actually hurts. After tomorrow, we will all surely be made less intelligent for being exposed to their blatant (ab)use of religion as both a weapon and shield.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 5:29 PM




What?

Haaretz claims to have acquired the minutes from one of last week's cease-fire negotiations between Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts.

Here are the final paragraphs of this article

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."


Link via Maxspeak

posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:58 PM




Elsewhere in Africa

Thank God no Americans were hurt. Numerous Liberians? Sure.

Explosives landed in a U.S. diplomatic complex in Liberia's besieged capital Wednesday, causing injuries among thousands of people seeking refuge from a civil war engulfing Monrovia, a U.S. official said. There was no immediate report of any injuries to Americans.




posted by Eugene Oregon at 2:41 PM




No Voting Records, But Check Out the Great Pop-Up Ads

The Web sites that are operated by U.S. House and Senate members are effectively funded by American taxpayers. Given this fact, you'd think that the least these elected officials could do would be to post their voting records online. But fewer than four out of 10 House members post their votes on their taxpayer-funded Web sites. The percentage in the Senate is even worse.

So what are House and Senate members posting on their Web sites? The blog at TomPaine.com offers a look at some of the items that members of Congress felt their constituents were dying to see.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 2:35 PM




Lord's Resistance Army Strikes Again

From MSNBC

Rebels, fighting to install rule in Uganda according to the Biblical 10 commandments, abducted 30 schoolgirls in a raid in the east of the country on Monday night, an army spokesman said on Wednesday.


I've written about the LRA before, if you are interested.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 12:03 PM


Tuesday, June 24, 2003


Gephardt's Disturbing Promise

Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, a leading Democratic presidential hopeful, may have wanted to play to his pro-affirmative action audience on Sunday. Or perhaps he was simply trying to underscore his support for affirmative action. But the words that Gephardt delivered that day echoed those uttered in the 1950s and ‘60s by Southern politicians who vowed to defy federal court orders to desegregate schools and other public accommodations.

On the day before the nation’s highest court handed down its decision in the University of Michigan affirmative action case, this is what Gephardt said at a presidential forum sponsored by Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition: "When I’m president, we'll have executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day." (CNN)

This kind of talk would all too lightly cast aside the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. It is troubling when a serious candidate for president talks openly of defying the Supreme Court and effectively ignoring its decisions.

I was disappointed at the court's ruling on Monday in the case over mandatory internet filtering. And I will be disappointed even more if the high court upholds the Texas sodomy statute. But it is disturbing to suggest that presidents should pick and choose which Supreme Court decisions they will accept.

Permitting a president to decide which decisions are "good" opens a Pandora's Box and could just as easily have been used -- or be used in the future -- by GOP presidents. What if Nixon had decided to circumvent the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?

Gephardt should clarify his philosophy and erase any doubt that he would turn the executive branch into a court-of-last-resort that ignores the ultimate decisions of America’s highest court. Campaign promises aren't easy to keep, but this is one he never should have made.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 6:10 PM




A Question That Needs an Answer

In Tuesday's New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman thoughtfully reviews the case that President Bush and his top advisers deceived the American people about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Krugman writes that "some commentators have suggested that Mr. Bush should be let off the hook as long as there is some interpretation of his prewar statements that is technically true. Really? We're not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we're talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make."

Krugman openly acknowledges why even Democrats have shied away from challenging the president's distortions. After all, he writes, they fear the political consequences of raising such an issue "in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. Yet if we can't find people willing to take the risk -- to face the truth and act on it -- what will happen to our democracy?"

It's a question worth answering, and a column worth reading.




posted by Frederick Maryland at 5:31 PM




It's not just Faux News and MSNBC

MediaTransparency's Rob Levine has an in-depth report on the right-wing money trail behind the PBS show Think Tank. Check it out.

posted by Helena Montana at 3:18 PM




Two Rights Don't Make a Right

One of the most annoying inventions of 24 hour cable news is the partisan debate show. You know what I mean: "On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Bob Novak and Tucker Carlson." At their best, as on CNN's Crossfire, the hosts of such programs rambunctiously parrot Democratic and GOP talking points.

Meanwhile, on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, the left-right debate is little more than a pretext for trumpeting that network's right-wing ideology. Alan Colmes, who has all of the aggressiveness of a neutered basset hound, serves as little more than a leftist strawman for Sean Hannity to knock down each evening.

Tonight MSNBC, the "we want to be even more reactionary than Fox News" network, devolves the left-right battlebot concept even further. Normally, their Buchanan & Press program follows the Crossfire formula. (Bill Press, their "lefty", is an alumnus--or more accurately a refugee--of the CNN show.) However, tonight, Press is off and Terence Jeffrey, the editor of the rabidly right-wing Human Events magazine, is filling in for him. A Human Events press release on the event pretty accurately describes what we can expect: "With Terry and Pat paired up, liberals don't stand a chance." What is the point of having a debate program that features one person "from the right" and a second "from the even-further-right"?

posted by Noam Alaska at 2:27 PM




And So It Begins

From the Washington Post

A Senate committee with all its Democratic members absent voted to limit filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees Tuesday, a move Republicans hope will usher future federal judges through the Senate faster, even if Democrats want to stop them.

Democrats oppose changing Senate filibuster rules for judicial nominees, but Republicans have a one-vote majority on the Senate Rules Committee and expected to win Tuesday's committee vote in any case. Democrats are expected to fight the measure on the Senate floor.

The Rules Committee officially voted 10-0 for the measure, which would reduce the number of senators needed to force a vote on a judicial nominee with each successive vote until only a 51-member majority is needed.


For those unfamiliar with this little showdown, it all stems from a GOP attempt to force cloture on the Estrada and Owen "debate" and end the filibusters. Normally, changing Senate rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senate (67 votes). As the Republicans can't even manage to get the 60 votes necessary to end the filibusters on Owen and Estrada, they really have no chance of getting the Senate to change the rule.

Thus, the so-called "nuclear option" whereby the Republicans seek a ruling from the presiding officer of the Senate, probably Dick Cheney, that the cloture rule (Rule XXII) does not apply to judicial nominations. When Cheney rules in their favor, the rule would be effectively changed as it would require 51 senators to override Cheney's ruling. And so, despite the Senate’s own explicit requirement that changing the rules can only be done with the support of two-thirds of the Senate, the GOP will have changed the rules and assured President Bush that, no matter how crazy any of his nominees might be, the Republican majority in the Senate can now guarantee that they will all end up on the federal bench.

If the Republicans follow through on this, it will be clear that there really is no line they will not cross in pursuit of their agenda. And be afraid, because Trent Lott, Chairman of the Rules Committee, has openly declared "I'm for the nuclear option, absolutely… I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem."

posted by Eugene Oregon at 1:58 PM




Overreacting? Maybe just a bit?

Predictably, many in the "affirmative action equals reverse racism" camp are a little upset about yesterday's ruling.

But even for them, the language was a little strong-- "disgusting", "sickening", "absurd", and "schizophrenic".

I can't wait to see what they say on Thursday.

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 1:40 PM




"In the Best Interests of Our National Security"

Today, we get this story

A Qatar man alleged to have been paving the way for al-Qaida operatives to settle in the United States was designated Monday as an enemy combatant by President Bush and could ultimately face trial by a military tribunal, government officials said.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, 37, has been in custody since late 2001, first as a material witness and later on criminal charges of lying to the FBI and on a charge of credit card fraud. This new designation puts him under the control of the Defense Department, without most rights afforded defendants in the civilian U.S. criminal justice system.

[edit]

Al-Marri's designation as an enemy combatant came after prosecutors Monday dropped the criminal charges against him. Alice Fisher, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's criminal division, said the decision was made not because that case was weak but because it was the best way to deter future terrorist attacks.

"We are confident we would have prevailed on the criminal charges," Fisher said. "However, setting the criminal charges aside is in the best interests of our national security."

Bush approved the designation of al-Marri as an enemy combatant Monday morning, she said.

Designation as an enemy combatant means that al-Marri has no right to representation by an attorney - a situation that has drawn court challenges - and that he could be held by the military indefinitely, possibly to face eventual trial by a military tribunal where fewer U.S. criminal justice rules apply.


This same story, from the New York Times, notes

The administration said national security interests drove the decision to turn over Mr. Marri to military custody. They would not elaborate.

[edit]

Elisa C. Massimino, director of the Washington office of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the Bush administration had made it difficult for the public to tell why someone like Mr. Marri was declared an enemy combatant while the administration used the criminal system to convict someone like Iyman Faris, a truck driver from Ohio who admitted last week that he was involved in a conspiracy by Al Qaeda to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

"It really looks like a situation where they make the rules up as they go along," Ms. Massimino said.


I'll say it again: Designating people as "enemy combatants" before they ever go to trial stands our entire system of due process on its head. Allowing the government to simply assert that certain individuals are "enemy combatants," and therefore exempt from basic legal rights, safeguards and protections, is to essentially declare them guilty of the charges the government is otherwise obligated to prove.

It is Kafkaesque.





posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:10 AM




Liar or Moron?

Slate's Timothy Noah asks "Can Bush Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?"

His answer? "Yes. There's no reason for Bush-bashers to choose between the two."

Read it.

posted by Eugene Oregon at 9:22 AM


Monday, June 23, 2003


Spot the (Statistical) Lie

Via Calpundit, I find this excellent piece by Mark Kleiman, poking holes in the notion that Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries has a great sucess rate with it's repent to reduce recidivism schtick. If the name sounds familiar, it's probably because PFM is one of the show dogs that's trotted out every time the Bushies want to push government-funded religion. (And yes, there's the little matter of Colson's Wategate-laced past that sticks in the mind.) Well, Kleiman has this to say about the big UPenn study that found shockingly good results from PFM's program:
Here's the way the study worked. The researchers took a group of 171 prisoners who entered the InnerChange program, and found then selected the records of a group of other inmates that met the selection criteria but didn't enter. The comparison group was selected to match the program entrants on race, age, offense type, and something called the "salient factor score," (SFS), a standard measure of recidivism risk. Then the post-release criminal behavior of the non-entering comparison group was compared with the graduates of the InnerChange program.

Veeeeeeerrrrrrrrryyyyyyy zzzzzzzientific, nicht war?

But completely bogus. Not only were the entrants to the program a self-selected group, which means that in some important ways (such as a desire to change their lives) they weren't actually matched to the comparison group, but it was only the graduates -- 75 of the 177 entrants -- who showed better behavior than the pseudo-control group. Comparing all of the entrants (including those who dropped out, were kicked out, or got early parole) to all of the comparison group, the difference in recidivism reverses: the InnerChange group was slightly more likely to be rearrested (36.2% versus 35%) and noticeably more likely to actually go back to prison (24.3% versus 20.3%).

In other words, those who succeed, succeed, while those who fail are likely to fail. Whodathunkit?
Kleiman points out that PFM is not the only group playing the cherry-picking game. But despite the trickiness of constructing a reliable measure of public policy programs
there's no excuse for cherry-picking by comparing those who make it througha program with a group matched to all of those entering the program. That's just cheating. The only legitimate way to analyze the data is to keep everyone selected for the program in the study, regardless of how long they stay. (This is called "intention-to-treat" analysis, a carry-over from its roots in medical-outcomes research.)

Nor is there any excuse for reporters regurgitating this pap without checking with the people who know better. (Finding someone who hates the program on ideological grounds to describe the findings as "junk science," as the religion News Service did, doesn't count.)
Can I get an Amen?

posted by Helena Montana at 4:43 PM




Technical Problems, Human Lives

Top military brass were practically high-fiving each other in the early days of the Iraqi invasion, admiring their high-tech waging of war. Remember all of the talk by leading Pentagon officials who bragged about the development of "precision-guided" missiles? Last October, retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak sounded very reassuring as he assessed the military's ability to lessen civilian casualties. "The technical problem of hitting a fixed location is solved," McPeak was quoted in an Associated Press story back then.

Apparently, at least a few "technical" problems remain. What McPeak and other military officials neglected to mention was that the U.S. military would soon be using outdated, defective cluster weapons in Iraq. The result? According to a new AP story, hundreds and possibly thousands of Iraqi civilians have been needlessly killed or maimed by U.S. cluster weapons.

"U.S. cluster weapons fired during the war in March and April dispersed thousands of small grenades on battlefields and in civilian neighborhoods," the AP noted, "to destroy Iraqi troops and weapons systems. But some types of the grenades fail to explode on impact as much as 16 percent of the time, according to official military figures. Battlefield commanders have reported failure rates as high as 40 percent."

The so-called "dud rate" for cluster grenades can be reduced to less than 1 percent if secondary fuses are installed. These secondary fuses detonate or neutralize grenades that fail to explode on impact. The British military, which participated in the Iraqi invasion, used cluster bombs with these secondary fuses installed.

Surely, America can afford the relatively meager cost of replacing its outdated arsenal of cluster bombs with new ones that contain secondary fuses. For a country that spends more than twice as much on the military as Russia, China, Britain, France and Israel combined, do we really have an excuse?

On March 28, as the Iraqi war raged, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated that he was confident that Americans who were watching events unfold on TV "can absorb and balance what they see and hear." But it was far easier to "absorb" images of an injured Iraqi child when you believed that the Pentagon had taken every reasonable effort to limit civilian casualties. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld and company were too busy patting themselves on the back for their high-tech war to do what the British have done -- take a few simple steps to save innocent lives.

posted by Frederick Maryland at 4:19 PM




Progress?

The Mad Prophet makes an interesting comparison

The Ford Model T, the granpappy of the modern Ford, got 25 miles per gallon of gasoline. Today's Fords average 22.6 miles per gallon. The Ford Explorer slugs along on a gallon every 16 miles.

Anyone not think we need better regulations governing gas mileage?



posted by Eugene Oregon at 11:26 AM




In the Interest of National Security

This piece from yesterday's Washington Post is worth reading, most notably for its conclusion

This petition is a vivid reminder that government officials can use the veil of "national security" to shield themselves from criminal prosecution for misconduct, civil legal liability or embarrassing revelations. The only way to minimize those kinds of abuses is to treat legal claims of national security with a healthy dose of skepticism.


posted by Eugene Oregon at 10:39 AM




Spot the Lie

Who is lying here:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman--Ms. Lewinsky." -- Bill Clinton

"This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes." -- George W. Bush


Okay, it's a trick question. Obviously, they are both lying. Well, it's obvious to me anyhow. Apparently, the New York Times doesn't see it that way. Here's an excerpt from yesterday's "Week in Review":


The hunt for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq has been fruitless. The tax cut turns out to give no break whatsoever to millions of low-income taxpayers. In the view of some Democrats, President Bush has been lying about these and other matters, the way Lyndon B. Johnson lied about Vietnam, Richard M. Nixon about Watergate and Bill Clinton about his sex life....

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group, said of Mr. Bush's statement that all income tax payers would benefit from his tax cut, "Such claims are not accurate."

In fact, a review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied on either subject [emphasis Demagogue's].


The jury may still be out on the WMD question, but there can be no doubt that Bush lied regarding taxes. He said that every person who paid income taxes would benefit, when in fact, as the Times notes, the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute found that "8.1 million people who owe taxes would have received no tax cut from the Bush proposal and will get no break from the legislation that was enacted last month."

If Bill Clinton had made such an erroneous claim, there would be two Congressional hearings and an independent council investigation in place by now. Al Gore? He couldn't even get away with wearing earth tones without being called a liar. And yet the Times and other news outlets (even ones that supposedly have a liberal bias) are squeamish about telling it like it is with this president. Bush ran promising to bring honor and dignity back to the White House. His surrogates did all that they could to tar Al Gore as a liar with their tall tales about inventing the internet, etc. Now that Bush has been caught red-handed twisting the truth regarding his central domestic policy initiative, we should call him what he is--a liar.


posted by Noam Alaska at 10:36 AM




The Coalition of the Billing

Last week, the Pentagon trumpeted with pride the news that several additional countries were joining peacekeeping activities in post-war Iraq. The news was clearly designed to reinforce the Bush administration's spin that its efforts abroad are receiving widespread support. For the Bush administration, you might call it the best support money could buy. Indeed, money is largely responsible for this support -- more specifically, U.S. taxpayer dollars.

According to a Sunday article in the Los Angeles Times, the Bush administration "has agreed to help underwrite the participation of such countries as Poland, Ukraine, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and the Dominican Republic ... These deals, which by one estimate could cost $250 million over the next year, will enable the United States to relieve some of its overworked troops and give more of an international face to the American-led undertaking."

The Times noted that the use of U.S. tax dollars significantly lessens the nature of the commitment being made by these other nations and, therefore, raises questions "that the U.S. partners in the reshaping of Iraq are those whose support can be bought — the 'coalition of the billing,' as some wags have put it."

posted by Frederick Maryland at 10:05 AM




More Bush/GOP Weaknesses Exposed

A new poll shows that 60% of American families are not planning on going on vacation this summer because of the ailing economy.

While it has been stated here that most polls are completely meaningless, methinks that polls like this one may actually reflect public attitudes and behavior.

So Dems need to ask voters this year-- where did you go on vacation this year? Oh, you didn't? Please come up here and tell everyone why...

posted by Zoe Kentucky at 9:59 AM



Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com