Old News, But Still Funny

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-20-2010/bernie-goldberg-fires-back

Having problems embeddign the video, so click the link above.

Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix

There are some things that just don't make sense. Orly Taitz would be proud.

Ariz House: Check Obama's Citizenship - Phoenix News Story - KPHO Phoenix

Kudos to Mark Halperin

According to this Who Runs Gov post, Mark Halperin was on MSNBC's Morning Grind talking about the GOP talking point about Democrat Financial Reform creating a "permanent bailout."

The transcript, according to the link, reads:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Just this once, defend the Republican position.

MARK HALPERIN: I cannot defend what they’re doing.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Oh, please.

SCARBOROUGH: Look at you! Look at you!

[CROSSTALK]

HALPERIN: They are willfully misreading the bill or they are engaged in a cynical attempt to keep the president from achieving something.

Personally, I think it's good to see Halperin refuse to argue against himself on something blatantly false. Kudos to him.

There is video on the link.

It's the Law!

A few years ago, while I was still in law school, there was a case that went before the Supreme Court involving military recruiters. Various law schools, including my alma mater, did not want to allow recruiters on campus because of the schools' objections to "don't ask, don't tell." The Court determined, as my old friend Bookworm wrote at the time, "He who pays the Piper calls the tunes." Essentially, the schools didn't want to allow military recruiters, objecting on 1st Amendment grounds, yet still wanted to receive the federal funds that were tied to allowing the recruiters on campus. I disagreed with the decision at the time, however, I do believe that it is the correct decision.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held oral arguments on a case involving the Christian Legal Society at the Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. The gist of the case is that the Christian Legal Society (CLS) wants to be recognized as an official student organization, which allows the group to receive "a small subsidy, preferred use of campus facilities, use of all campus bulletin boards and e-mails and use of the school logo." In order to be recognized as an official organization, the school requires that a student organization accept all comers. In other words, the organization cannot discriminate on any grounds. The CLS had been recognized as an official organization until 2004, when it changed its bylaws to bar admission to homosexuals or those who participate in pre-marital sex. The school stripped the CLS of its official recognition at the time, and cut off its stipend.

At this point in time, the CLS had a couple options. They could: a.) change their bylaws and allow all comers to have full benefits of the society, or b.) accept the decision of the school and continue to discriminate as they see fit understanding that they would not receive funding from the school. What the CLS did, of course, was option c.) file a lawsuit and claim injury.

The CLS argued that this requirement violated the organization's rights, and that it didn't make sense for the CLS to be required to allow an atheist to lead a CLS meeting. Justices Scalia, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts seem to be wanting to participate in what would be called "Judicial Activism" if they were Liberal-appointed Justices with their questions during oral arguments, including Justice Alito opening asking if other organizations were allowed to discriminate on campus despite the CLS's stipulation that others did not, and Chief Justice Roberts trying to parse this case as different than Bob Jones University being denied federal funds for wanting to deny students who believed in interracial dating.

I fail to see a difference between the CLS case and the two Bob Jones University or the Military Recruiters case. I believe that as Bookworm would write, "who pays the piper, calls the tunes," but given the makeup of the Court and the fact that the complainant in this case is a Christian organization and not a Buddhist one, I would not be surprised to see the Court engage in some legal gymnastics to find the holding they want, namely to force the Hastings College of Law to fund an organization that openly wants to discriminate.

It's interesting to think that the organization's argument seems to stem around denying access to atheists as I believe Jesus taught that he wanted Christians to be Fishers of Men, and that would be a pool from which they sought to draw...

On the Surge

One of the great talking points during the runup to the 2008 U.S. Election was the question of whether or not the Surge worked. The politically convenient point to make, and the one made by so many politicians on both sides of the aisle was that the Surge was, in fact, successful as sectarian violence was down. I remember talking with family members and friends who provided this decline in violence as their proof that President Bush was tactically brilliant in making the determination to implement the Surge.

I went on record at the time President Bush announced the Surge while refusing to accept responsibility for creating a situation where a Surge would be necessary ("Mistakes were made"). I said that I had "hopeful pessimism." The reason I was pessimistic was that I distrusted President Bush's ability to assess the situation and create a situation out of the mess his policies had made where his stated purpose of the surge, namely "to give the Iraqi leaders breathing room to work out a [political] settlement" (quote from latter link).

After the various U.S. Politicians and Talking Heads started racing to embrace the popular story of the day (i.e. the Surge Worked), I was asked whether I agreed. My answer then was that there was no way to know in 2008 whether or not the surge worked, because we didn't know whether there was a stable working government in Iraq, which was the ultimate goal of the Surge. Recently, there is evidence that this goal, and perhaps other Surge goals have not been reached. Violence is increasing as American presence is decreasing, which is not a good thing.

While it might be a fun game to point the blame to President Obama for this, remember that removing our forces from Iraq was one of his stated goals on the campaign trail. Further, according to all the big names, including former Presidential Candidate John McCain, the Surge was successful. Republicans were in a great rush to declare the war in Iraq "won" right around the time Obama took office (as it turns out, a resolution declaring victory in Iraq came about right about 6 weeks after Obama was sworn in). The point of the resolution, of course, was not to celebrate actual victory, but to divorce the invasion from the withdrawal, to be able to pin any subsequent increases in violence or collapses of Iraqi government not on the President responsible for an ill-advised (but legal) invasion creating a tenuous, unstable environment in a country with a history of sectarian discord, but rather on the President who had to follow up one of the most incompetent invasions/occupations in world history.

I said before that I was hopeful that the Surge would work, but I was skeptical. I would say that as of this minute, President Bush's last Great Attempt to secure his legacy merely added to the scale of its failure. This is not a failure of the U.S. forces, nor is it a failure of a nation that wasn't ready for western style democracy. This failure belongs to the President who was absolutely incapable of ever owning responsibility for any of his actions.

Quick Question

While I suspect it's the overly liberally-slanted media, I can't state that definitively, but, with a Health Care reform bill that is paid for on paper that will cover an additional 30 Million working poor, an economy that is working again despite 8 years of painful damage caused by increased spending, decreased revenue through taxes and decreased/no regulation of major financial sectors, inheriting 2 wars and unbelievable debt, saving the auto industry, and protecting several million jobs that otherwise would have been lost had the stimulus not been enacted, all while the Republicans in Congress and the Senate sat there with their thumbs up their collective asses complaining all along about "not being included" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary including televised sit downs with Republicans, including $300BB in tax cuts to said stimulus, etc., WHY are the Democrats expected to lose seats this fall?

A Hunting We Will Go

I'm off to an interview tomorrow. I'm not exactly looking forward to it. This is a panel interview, and I'm never comfortable with these interviews. Actually, I'm not terribly comfortable with many interviews.

I keep hoping that the dream job is going to pop up. I've sent out more resumes than I can count, and it's getting rather frustrating to hear either "no" or just hear nothing in return. I've followed more leads than I thought I'd have, and they've led nowhere.

Sigh.

More McConnell

Whodathunkit? McConnell lied about the Financial Reform Bill? And there are printed talking points encouraging the misinformation? Glad we live in a confederacy of grown-ups.

Sen. Dodd accuses Republican leader of lying about his bill | McClatchy

Why have integrity when you can just lie?

Breitbart peddles misleading video, again

I'm sure most people aren't going to be surprised that the guy who lied about the ACORN videos presented a video of Congressman John Lewis leaving the Capital on the day of the incident as "proof" that John Lewis lied about being called an inflammatory term by tea partiers on his way INTO the Capital, one hour earlier.

Posted using ShareThis

Just Curious

But I wonder what the ratio is of teapartiers who believe Barack Obama is intent on turning this country into a Socialist Mecca is to teapartiers who believe that Jesus is coming back to earth in their lifetime and coming to the United States for the Rapture...

I Get Confused

(Cross posted at Vim and Vinegar)

I understand that the Republican Party's current platform is essentially "whatever is the polar opposite of what President Obama supports," but how is it possible to, in the course of a week, take both sides of the financial reform debate? That seems to be what Senator Mitch McConnell has done.

On the one hand, is April 8, where, according to this article from Washington Monthly, Senators McConnell and John Cornyn went to New York City "to explain what it means for Wall Street, and how financial executives might help prevent some of [the financial reform bill's] lease market-friendly aspects from becoming law by electing more Republicans." Steve Benen, who wrote the article adds clarity: "Democrats, the GOP leaders said, are going to try to punish the irresponsible industry that caused the crash, and prevent similar crises from happening again. McConnell and Cornyn want to stop these efforts, and need the industry's help -- if Wall Street will work with Republicans and elect a whole bunch of GOP candidates, the industry will be better off without all of those pesky regulations imposing oversight and accountability.

Clearly they were arguing for small government and corporate/fiscal responsibility. in a nutshell, "we know you screwed up and nearly towed the entire nation into complete financial collapse that was staved off by the government's bailouts that have shown in early returns to have been prudent decisions in the long run. But we trust you won't do that again; after all, Wall Street has never had problems before, so it must be a one-time problem and now you know to police yourselves. So vote for us. We need your money."

Now, Senator McConnell went on the record on Tuesday (today, via CNN.com) to argue that the American People don't want oversight or regulations on Wall Street. Because putting in place minimum standards of regulation and oversight to help save the country from potential future financial ruin by the greed and obfuscation of the people in charge of our nation's financial pulse isn't in our best interests: "If there is one thing Americans agree on when it comes to financial reform, it's absolutely sure they agree on this. Never again should tax payers be expected to bail out Wall Street from its own mistakes. We cannot allow endless tax payer-funded bailouts for big wall street banks."

The article linked above goes on to note that the proposed legislation would create a sped-up version of bankruptcy with a $50BB resolution fund taxing the biggest firms (not the American people, so the funding would come from the financial institutions - consider it a form of insurance, maybe).

So on the one hand, Senator McConnell is looking out for Wall Street and trying to protect them from Government Intrusion, yet less than a week later, hes looking out for the American People when he urges Republicans to oppose Financial Reform because it doesn't do enough to punish Wall Street for their excesses, without mentioning that it was in part the lack of oversight or regulations, the tax cuts, increased spending and inability to account for the overreaching during the previous administration that led to the collapse...

Interesting that he can point fingers to everyone except those who in theory were in charge of the country or who were in charge of the industry that (nearly) collapsed...

TelePublicans

I have now received three separate e-mails from the campaign supporting Debra Lehrmann for the Republican Runoff for the Supreme Court. This is a de facto placement to the Supreme Court here in Texas as ALL Texas Supreme Court Justices are Republicans. In the time I've been practicing law here in Texas, and the time I was in law school, I have not seen any Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, Whigs, etc. on the Supreme Court, thanks to the electoral process in the state. Though there are 9 Justices and at least 1/3 of the state would qualify as "liberal" or "Democrat," the majority is Republican and in statewide votes where majority rules, the result is a non-representative Supreme Court makeup.

While that is frustrating in and of itself, the issue that I have with this particular e-mail is that I have, after EACH e-mail I have received from this campaign, responded with a request to remove my name from the contact list and have received electronic notification that my e-mail account will no longer receive any more e-mails. This is just like telemarketers and spam e-mail accounts. I'm no more likely to vote for a Judicial candidate whose campaign has such little respect for the people who would be subject to her holdings than I would be to buy whatever crap is being spewed out in spam (I can't even think of examples because they go straight to my bulk e-mail box and get deleted without viewing).

I still have no idea how I ended up on a Republican mailing list, as I've never signed up for anything that advertised I would be subscribing to receive campaign e-mails from Republican candidates, but the utter disrespect on the part of Judge Debra Lehrmann's campaign with respect to bulk e-mails is enough to cause me to declare that in terms of the primary campaign, I will support Rick Green in the Primary. At this point it's no longer about judicial records, it's about respect for the citizenry.

Rick Green for the Republican Supreme Court nomination.

Random Quote

"You hypocrite, you fraud! The atheist who believes in God" - E.K. Hornbeck (played to perfection by Gene Kelly), Inherit the Wind

Man Needing to be Fished.

I think it's time to start looking for another church.

I have said for some time that I favor separation of church and state. What I mean by that is that I don't want politics getting involved in my religion and I don't want religion getting involved in my politics.

I really don't care what political persuasion my pastor subscribes to, so long as he keeps it off the pulpit. But when you go on record about your feelings on Glenn Beck during your sermon, then you've made it clear where your politics are, which creates a wedge. I am uncomfortable knowing that somehow my pastor's political beliefs are strong enough to allow them to encroach into his preaching, and that is genuine cause for concern.

On Government Spending

I have had this discussion with family members over the past - who is responsible for the crippling national debt? Most of my family members fall into the well rehearsed mantra of Democrats increase spending and Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. It's easy for them to say this because that's the message the Republicans have been spouting for 30 someodd years, and nobody in a position of message control (i.e. MSM) has the nerve to call them on it.

I came across the following link to the Fourth Branch today in my blog searches and found someone who actually went to the trouble to point out just how much Republicans and Democrats respectively are responsible for our debt. Key phrase: "Republicans tolerated spending under Republican presidents for 30 years, accounting for 59% of our total national debt, all the while benefiting from federal spending at the expense of their counterparts in blue states, only to then go bananas when a Democratic president and Congress spend money to rescue a floundering economy." Think about that as you read the article and see the charts.

There is a party of Fiscal responsibility. It's just not the ones the message handlers would have you believe.

Just a Reminder

Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachman, et al. are interested in only 3 things: Power, Controlling the Message, and Attention.

And they will do or say anything to get it without regard to the truthfulness of the matter.

Rosetta Stoned

I purchased a copy of Rosetta stone to help repair my atrophied Korean skills. It's been some 6 years since I spoke the language with any regularity.

I can say that the first few lessons helped quite a bit - I realize how much is dormant and not exactly "dead." Still, I'm going to have to get through a lot of this before I'm comfortable listing myself as fluent in Korean on my resume again...

Random Comment

What's up with Ryan Seacrest on American Idol this year? I can't be the only one who sees how incredibly discourteous he's been with Simon this season. He needs to grow up.

More "Bad" News

(Cross posted at Vim and Vinegar) I remember the hubbub last year when President Obama determined it necessary to bail out the nation's auto industry, which included the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler. My father in law among others was particularly nonplussed about the idea of "Government Motors."

It turns out GM has made it not only a priority to increase quality and payback the loans, but GM now reports that they plan to pay off their loans by June of this year, 5 years ahead of the 2015 payback date.

So President Obama prevented a dramatic loss of jobs by preventing the collapse of two of the nation's three automakers, keeping people employed and money flowing while allowing the automakers precious time to reformulate their strategy (i.e. "modernize"). As a result, American cars are better, sales are increasing, and the damage to the economy was greatly diminished.

President Obama has his failings (namely most of the wartime policies he carried over from the Bush administration and the subsequent broom and carpet policy with regard to past violations of the law by the same). However, it would seem that with regard to his economic decisions, he's been doing all right. This information is right up there with the news about the Government's profit margin in its Citibank stocks.

Tuesday Update

Well, I had an interview of sorts last week. It was an interesting situation where the job isn't immediately open, but they anticipate it will be available in the next 30-60 days. The attorneys I met were both genial and professional, which is a good combination to have. In addition, they both were very knowledgeable, which provides a good resource from which to garner information.

I broke down and got Rosetta Stone for Korean last Friday, as well. This will help my transition into an IP or immigration position as my language skills are not what they were back in the late 90s. We'll have to see what happens.

Hope all is well out there in blogland.

History is Written by the Petulant

I remember a point in the Bush Administration wherein the former president accused Democrats of "rewriting history" with regard to the workup to the War in Iraq. It turned out, of course, that the majority of what was pressed as the justifications for invading Iraq were, in fact, false, but the accusation stood.

This is an interesting concept, because there appears to have been a strong push on the part of Conservatives throughout this country to attempt to rewrite history, including McCarthyism and others. For a good example, I refer my reader(s) to this McClatchy article that does a good job debunking several of the attempts at rewriting...

Judge: Bush wire-tapping illegal

This probably shouldn't suprise anyone who's followed my blog, but I am happy to hear the smackdown of the Bush Administration's intentional circumvention of FISA and the 4th Amendment.

Judge: Bush wire-tapping illegal

Posted using ShareThis

Maybe I'm Just a Cynic

But I have a hard time believing that Sarah Palin and/or Fox News didn't intentionally advertise her new interview show with a screen shot of L.L. Cool J knowing that she never interviewed him just so that they could get the free mileage out of the subsequent "story" that the denial/controversy created. It managed to get me talking about it...

Say what you will about Sarah Palin (and I have), but she and Fox both have a knack for garnering attention.

Wednesday

It's a long day. Still, managed to get a couple things done. Kids will be home soon - I'm sure they're going to be happy about Chicken and Dumplins for dinner tonight.

Interesting Comparison

I'm watching a show on the History Channel right now about Nazis in America. They have discussed a book called the Turner Diaries, which was a fictional telling of the overthrow of America (in favor of Nazi/Aryans). Apparently this book, along with messages of hatred for races other than Protestant Caucasians, was part of what led to violence like Timothy McVeigh, among others...

The author of the book stated that he wasn't advocating violence, however, and thought that the violence came out by itself.

Another speaker - former White Supremacist, noted that the propagandists/leaders' modus operandi is to recruit young/impressionable people, fill their minds with messages of hate and rhetoric, and then, when these people go out and take matters into their own hands, the propagandists can sit back and disclaim any ownership of the actions - "we didn't tell them to do this stuff."

It's sort of like the soil and the seed. The leaders plant the seed - the thought of violent action in furtherance of their agenda and the necessity of it being carried out - into the fertile soil of the young person's mind...

For some reason, as I heard this, I thought about Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the like...

Stella!

I repeatedly hear complaints about the Health Care Reform that it didn't include anything touching on Tort Reform, with regard to Medical Malpractice. The generic complaint I hear is that frivolous lawsuits are driving up malpractice claims which in turn drives up the cost of medical care. The (Cliff's notes version) proposal, as was passed here in Texas, is that by capping damages for medical malpractice claims, fewer claims will be filed and thus health care will cost less.

This sounds logical on paper, however, it doesn't really address the problems. The first problem is that a case that goes to recovery, either by settlement or judgment by definition is not "frivolous," there was an actual injury that resulted in actual damages. The second thing that this does is, by limiting damages, you deny appropriate recovery for severely injured individuals - the man who goes in for a gall bladder removal who ends up losing both legs (happened to an A1C in California last year - but the airman couldn't sue, because he received the surgery by a military surgeon while on active duty) is unable to receive sufficient compensation to make up for the act that makes him or her an amputee.

When pressed for details on what qualifies as "frivolous," on more than one occasion I've been given the "McDonald's coffee case" as evidence of what the complainer means. The case is actually the case of Stella Liebeck, and there was really little frivolous about it (source - Lectlaw). While not going into to great a detail on this site, the gist of the story is that McDonald's had been sued 700 times over the 10 year period and the coffee was served well over the industry standard. Stella was not driving - she was a passenger and the car was standing on the shoulder while she attempted to pour in creamer. She suffered 3rd degree burns to at least 6% of her body and required skin grafts. She asked for $20K to help pay for the recovery due to the burn that McDonald's was aware their coffee was liable to cause, and was instead offered $800. Her damages the jury awarded were $200,000, which was lowered by the jury to $160,000 as they found her comparatively liable for 20% of the injury. The punitive damages are what people get upset about - that's the $2.7 Million that immediately causes people to yell "frivolous," but those are punitive damages - awarded to punish McDonald's for continuing with a practice that it knew could cause injuries such as what happened to Stella. This punitive damage was ultimately lowered to $480K, and finally was tossed out as McDonald's and Liebeck came to a confidential settlement between them.

Status Update

I've been out of work for about 6 weeks now. I didn't expect the job search to be this frustrating, but I've had precious few solid leads.

I've got a couple positions that have some promise to them, but they're not as strong as I'd like them to be. One of these positions would be a title review type position that sounds right up my alley, but the firm is just starting up and the guy wasn't sure that there'd be anything for another 30-60 days. The second one is an immigration firm that sounds somewhat frustrating in nature, as I'd be defending removals, with a high failure rate as the nature of the beast.

It's not the best way to go, but it would pay the bills.

I'm still sending out 15-20 resumes/contacts per week, but I've noticed that for everything I send out, I get little in return.

Keeping the faith, but getting frustrated.

Habeas What?

I remember hearing pundit after pundit and talking head after talking head and Republican lawmaker after Republican lawmaker rail about the (accused) terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay. I remember hearing claims that these "terrorists" are the "worst of the worst" and they don't deserve habeas corpus, they aren't entitled to see the evidence against them, they are not being "tortured," rather they are subject to "enhanced interrogation techniques" that result in waterboarding as many as 183 times. Stress positions, sleep deprivation, induced hypothermia? Slamming heads against walls? Force-feeding? Tricking individuals into believing that they bore witness to murders in an effort to coax confessions? All this was completely kosher and indeed was part of the "arsenal" needed to protect America from the scourge of Terror." And besides, these evildoers aren't even being held in America, and they're not POWs, so American law doesn't apply!

Now that the Joint Terrorism task force has arrested 9 individuals from an American group charged with planning attacks against the United States, including attempted use of WMD, in theory, shouldn't these same politicians, pundits, and talking heads be demanding that this same treatment be applied to Caucasian American Citizens? What are the odds that they will?

An Interesting Link

I've not discovered the blog "Slacktivist" before today. I don't know too much about the authors of the blog or any similar details. What I can say, however, is that I find this particular post rather interesting. Check it out, and if you feel likewise, stick around and check out a few other posts.

The Fox News Party

On one hand, I am not terribly surprised that the Republican Chair would send a letter to members of the RNC recommending a book written by a Fox News Channel commentator advising on how to "take back" America from the Democratically-elected President, particularly because Fox news is so clearly partisan in favor of the Republican Party that a quid pro quo seems logical.

On the other hand, it seems to completely drop all pretext that the Fox News is "fair and balanced," or that there's any separation between the RNC's and Fox News's agendas.

I like David Frum's quote that is included in the linked article: "Republicans originally thought that Fox [News] worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox."

A Confederacy of Grown-ups, ctd.

I remember a huge deal being made of filibustering during the Bush Administration when Republicans held both houses of Congress. I remember talk of "Mandates," and threats to do away with the filibuster legislatively. The phrase "up or down vote" was thrown around constantly to let us know that nominees like Harriet Miers and John Bolton could get into office despite concerns about their qualifications. That Democrats could even contemplate ignoring the mandate of the people by trying to block the nominations of the sitting president was laughable, at the very least.

I don't disagree that the concept of filibustering and other processes to hold up progress in Congress are frustrating, and I generally dislike seeing them. I do see a purpose for the process, though, as there are times where there might be legitimate issues that need to be figured out, or more facts that need to come through (see Miers, Harriet. By contrast, I still don't understand the point of holding up the Bolton vote). However, much like I feel about labor unions, I believe it is something that should only be used rarely, when necessity dictates.

That is why I find it deplorable that President Obama felt it necessary to make 15 recess appointments to office. I disagree with the concept of recess appointments as a general principle, but I do think that given the unprecedented scale of obstructionism the Republican Party has embraced during the Obama administration (in part because of "fear" of the "Tyranny of Majority" that mysteriously didn't exist during the Bush years). To wit:

This opposition got so out of hand at one point that one senator put a blanket hold on all of the President’s nominees in an attempt to win concessions on two projects that would benefit his state. And another nominee’s confirmation was delayed by one senator for more than eight months because of a disagreement over a proposed federal building in his home state. When that nominee was finally given the vote she deserved, she was confirmed 96 to 0. When you attempt to prevent the government from working effectively because you didn’t get your way, you’re failing to live up to your responsibilities as a public servant.

To put this in perspective, at this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama has 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom have been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those have been waiting more than a month. And cloture has been filed 16 times on Obama nominees, nine of whom were subsequently confirmed with 60 or more votes or by voice vote. Cloture was not filed on a single Bush nominee in his first year. And despite facing significantly less opposition, President Bush had already made 10 recess appointments by this point in his presidency and he made another five over the spring recess.

Emphasis Mine. This isn't governance; it's petulance. And it really has no place in government.

Clearly a Bad Decision

I remember clearly the complaints over the bailouts of the banking industry. I remember clearly how angry so many people on the Right were that Bush signed the initial stimulus and that Obama signed the second stimulus. I recall specifically friends and family members complaining about doling out money to Citibank in the wake of everything they did. I can't say I disagreed with the ire, however, I felt that since there seemed to be a general consensus among the electoral leadership and financial experts that it needed to be done, I yielded and hoped for the best.

Unfortunately, it seems my decision to trust the government was not the best choice. As it turns out, if the Government sells its stock acquired in exchange for the bailout of $25BB, we will only receive $33BB in return. Clearly an 8 Billion Dollar profit is nowhere near enough for making sure our financial structure didn't completely collapse.

RNC rejects joint 'civility' statement - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

At least they're consistent.

RNC rejects joint 'civility' statement - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Gone Scamming

I've been on the job hunt for about a month and a half now. Unfortunately, I was the victim of a downsizing at the law firm where I had worked since the bar.

That said, I've got my resume out umpteen different directions and to several different leads. I've made use of the job sites Careerbuilder and Monster, among others. Knowing that the job boards like Careerbuilder and Monster are where ID thieves and other predators like to try to score quick hits, I've been fairly vigilant about my correspondence with responders from those two places.

Yesterday, I received a letter addressed to "Dear (My Name)." It was from a Susan Davidson who works for a company referring to itself as "New City" building company and had a position for a "Customer Manager" position. The qualifications they'd listed were a bit below my level of education and experience, but, whatever. The e-mail tells me that they regarded my resume and consider me qualified for the customer manager job... and that I could click on the PDF for more information about job responsibilities and whatnot.

The job is really no different than other scams out there. My "job" would be to set up a bank account to receive payments, checks that would come every week at values between $1000 and $10,000 (How great that they would trust me with this money and not abscond with it!), hold it for a couple days, then transfer the amount less my $500 commission. This is the scam. The checks are not valid - they are written specifically to bounce. The thing is, they are supposed to bounce AFTER you've withdrawn the amounts deposited. The check you write will then be cashed and you'll be on the hook for the overdraft that incurs when the check bounces. It's not a very clever scam, but it apparently is effective enough to have people continue to try it.

Readers of my blog might be familiar with another scam that I'd posted about 9 months ago that is similar, but slightly different.

What I would emplore my readers, and people who come by after googling "new city building company" is to recognize that this is a scam. The name I received was "Susan Davidson" and the contact telephone number, an unlisted landline in Norman OK, is 405-253-5557. Others who come across similar scams involving this company, please let readers know of other names to be on the watch for.

Best List of the Year.

TPM presents an open letter to Conservatives.

Controlling the Message, Ctd

The Republican response to Health Care Reform over the past year was to delay, disinform, and generally refuse to cooperate. It seems only fitting that now that reform has passed via reconciliation, Senate Republicans now seek to delay HCR by "vowing to introduce hundreds of amendments" (source: CBS News) to try to force the bill to return to the House.

One of the proposed amendments is one that would deny erectile dysfunction drugs to sex offenders. According to the article linked above, "By opposing that amendment, Democrats are, at least in theory, opening themselves up to charges that they support using government money to provide sex offenders with Viagra -- surely an unpopular position if ever there was one."

Note how CBS is phrasing this debate - if Democrats oppose adding this amendment to Health Care Reform, they SUPPORT giving Viagra to sex offenders. This is a classic example of controlling the message. The real story about this particular amendment isn't whether Democrats support ED drugs for sex offenders - few rational congresspeople would support such a policy. Rather, the story that should matter is, if Republicans were serious about stuff like this, why didn't they work with Democrats during the run up to Health Care Reform to include provisions like this? The fact is Tom Coburn isn't serious about the amendments he's proposing. He's interested in trying to stop a reform that, if anything, is centrist in nature.

I'll give you three guesses as to what message will control this debate, and I'll give you a hint - it's not that Republicans delayed and lied for over a year and are attempting to continue to do so through political actions that could stand on their own aside HCR.

It Boggles the Mind

It continues to amaze me that people still believe Sarah Palin is a legitimate political option, or that she or her opinion really is worth anything. That said, this most recent development is perhaps as scary as any other - we see at the blog Palingates that Palin has posted on her website a map of the U.S. with certain areas targeted. These targeted areas, and by targeted I mean sighted in crosshairs represent "House democrats who represent districts 'we' carried in 2008 who voted for the (centrist, 1993 Republican) Health Care Bill." Palin's Twitter page reads "Commonsense Conservatives and lovers of America, 'Don't Retreat - Instead, Reload!"

A reasonable person reading this tweet and seeing her facebook page might legitimately come to the conclusion that she is openly advocating violence against our country's elected officials.

If you click on this link to No More Mister Nice Blog, you will find a good summary of the increased violence as well as a video with Rachel Maddow summarizing the increase in violent attacks aimed at congressional democrats, with the concise Maddow statement "What they could not achieve in the ballot box they are trying to achieve through violence and intimidation."

Clearly cause for concern.

Initial Politics

I've noted for years my disdain for people who phrase their political ideology as "I am a Republican/Democrat, so I believe X, Y, and Z," rather than "I believe X, B, and Z, so I consider myself a Republican/Democrat." The difference is significant because in the former, you decide what you believe based on which ideology you decided to hitch your wagon to as opposed to determining what your values are and allowing them to determine which political party's platform most closely matches your values.

A prime example of this, coincidentally, is the current Health Care Reform bill President Obama signed yesterday. Republicans, Teabaggers, and Conservatives across the country have railed against this bill as a step towards socialism, Democrats taking over 1/6 of the economy, loss of freedom, etc. What none of these people have said is just how similar this bill is to the Republican-proffered bill in 1993 as a response to Hillarycare.

From Kaiser Health News:

"In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be the main Republican health overhaul proposal: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

Titled the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993," it had 21 co-sponsors, including two Democrats (Sens. Boren and Kerrey). The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan. It bears similarity to the Democratic bill passed by the Senate Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

Politics are a funny thing. It makes people support or oppose programs based on initials, rather than substance. If we lived in a confederacy of grown-ups, perhaps things could get accomplished more quickly.

Republican Health Care

If they could have gotten it:

I recently had a daughter who had to stay home from school due to headlice. I tried to get some treatment for her at the doctor and contacted our insurance company to check up on availability. In response, I got:

Under the current law, children who are prone to contracting headlice (e.g. children who attend public school, children who attend daycare, or who attend non-protestant or Catholic houses of religious worship - Jewish children will be considered on a case-by-case basis) will be considered as patients with a pre-existing condition should headlice be... See More contracted. As such, it will not be covered by current policy.
While this may seem harsh, one must understand that it's the choice of the child or the parent to have place their children in harm's way. If parents were truly responsible, they would keep their children away from such potentially harmful environments. It does not make sense financially to infringe upon the freedoms of the insureds who take the care to see to it that their children are not placed in such an environment to share the burden of risks to which less responsible parents expose their children.

I also got a $20 "Consulting fee" charged to my account for the inquiry.

But, I understood that I accepted the risks by being a less responsible parent and I cheerily paid my insurance company for the time it took them to write and e-mail this letter.

A Confederacy of Grown-ups, Ctd

(Cross posted at Vim and Vinegar) Readers of my blog will recognize the title of this post, A Confederacy of Grown-ups. It's a title I've used a couple times in the past to highlight behavior on the part of our elected officials and others that border on childish petulance. In the current instance, the target of my consternation is one Senator John McCain who, in response to the passage of HCR, stated: "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

While I would like to include some pithy statement about the how it would be impossible for the Republicans in Congress to cooperate any less, I leave the response to Harry Reid, posted from Balloon Juice, who seems to have found something he must have forgotten he lost:

For someone who campaigned on ‘Country First’ and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it’s absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we’ve gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.
At a time when our economy is suffering and we’re fighting two wars, the American people need Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans to start working with us to confront the challenges facing our country—not reiterating their constant opposition to helping working families when they need it most.

I don't think I could find any better way to phrase it.

Can't Make This Up

I was just watching the C-Span vote on the debate rules for HCR and they were taking callers who were offering their opinion on Health Care Reform. One of the callers was opposed to heath care reform was complaining. Her complaint ran along the lines of "My husband is in the military over in Iraq and this bill is communistic."

I don't fully understand why it matters that her husband is active duty with regard to her position on health care, but it does create the ironic position of someone who is benefitting from government-provided mandated health care is complaining about government-provided mandated health care.

A Confederacy of Grown-ups, Ctd

From Talking Points Memo:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) just told our Brian Beutler that a short time ago, a protestor watching the House proceedings from the gallery got rowdy, yelling "Kill the Bill." He resisted four Capitol Hill police officers trying to remove him from the gallery and as this was happening he was cheered loudly by dozens of House Republicans.

"I've never seen members of the House cheering on a guy resisting being kicked out of the gallery," said Frank. "It's a dangerous situation and the Republicans are cheering him on."

These are our elected Representatives. They're supposed to be leaders - grown-ups, if you will. And they're acting like you'd expect kids in a lunchroom food fight would act.

Perhaps an Obama Influencer?

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Ghandi

Shades of Grey

I became a fan of Balloon Juice about a year ago. John Cole and company do an excellent job of taking issues and explaining them in a pithy manner. For example, writer Tim F. offers his take on America's need to separate good from evil and convince ourselves that we couldn't possibly be evil:

We want to tell ourselves that some unbridgeable gulf separates us from the awful impulses that lead people to commit evil. Our entertainment industry is more than happy to sell that illusion back to us. The further we sink into manichean self-righteousness the more evil behavior will be accepted by politically significant numbers of Americans.

The entire article is a good read.

Talking Baseball

Today on Mike and Mike in the Morning, the guys had Fay Vincent (former commissioner of baseball) on, and he discussed the concept of making baseball more competitive against the Yankees and Red Sox vis a vis realignment.

One of the things that came up was the luxury tax, and the fact that smaller market teams such as Kansas City have some $90 million in tax revenue that they don't use to sign high priced players. The guys seemed to commiserate on this point, wondering where this extra revenue goes.

The concept seems simple enough, small market teams get X amount of money each year, and they have several million that they can use to woo the Pujols, Howards, Sheets, and other high impact players of the world, so they should be on relatively equal footing with teams like the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox.

There are a couple problems to this concept. First off, just because you have a lot of money to spend on players doesn't mean that the players are worth the amount of money they'd be paid (and some of us would argue that none of the players are worth what they're paid). It also presumes that a player who would get 35 million would like to be the one or two all-star salaried player(s) on a team that's put their bets on him rather than one of eight or ten players on a team with annual aspirations for the World Series like in New York.

What we have here is a situation where the wealthy are bitching about having to create a competitive environment. These guys don't want to share their money with the other teams in the league. I can't blame them for being selfish, and I suppose it makes sense to want to create an environment where only you will have the best toys and therefore the best chances to win.

However, baseball is an venue of entertainment; it's not war. There is an inherent logic in maintaining superiority in warfare whereas it is less sensible for the greater good in sports to have the entire market dominated by 15% of the teams. As evidence, consider the relative marketing success that is football. Football is clearly the most popular sport in America, due in no small part to the parity of the sport. Each year, every team except the Lions has a chance to improve or build upon its success and create a winning team. This parity instills connections to home teams which in turn creates a larger fan base. Each city can believe that their team is on the path to regular season and/or playoff success, and therefore the fans are more connected.

Baseball's current structure is geared towards creating the perception of a more even playing field. Unfortunately, this is just a perception, and the league seems to believe that as long as the big market teams are succeeding, they're filling seats, which is the best way to go. They point to the fact that when the Yankees are in town, teams sell more tickets. This strikes me as false logic, as if another team were to exhibit more success, or each team had more capacity for winning, then the fans would be more willing to show up for home games, which would thereby increase ticket sales across the board.

Rich people whining about the exact number of millions they have drives me crazy.

It's like the Pot Calling the Kettle a Liar

(Cross-posted at Vim and Vinegar) One of the key terms I remember from the Bush Administration was the phrase "Cowboy Diplomacy." President Bush had a penchant for acting in an extra-Constitutional manner, to wit - the 4th Amendment violations, the enemies lists, denying entry to public gatherings, the denial of habeas corpus to our detainees, the violation of Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions (Treaties are "Supreme Law of the Land," hence Constitutional), et cetera.

The man referred to as "Bush's Brain" recently criticized President Obama (Surprise - a Republican who determines that whatever a Democratic President does is wrong simply because there's a D next to his name) for the handling of affairs in Israel. Bush's Brain said: "We saw it in Honduras. Where rather than monitoring the situation, they let a cowboy president try to act in an extra-constitutional way to violate a fundamental principle in the Constitution, without having done their homework in advance."(Source: thinkprogress.org)

Apparently, it's wrong to act in an extra-Constituional manner, and "cowboy presidents" need to be monitored. Strange that this premise was rejected outright for our own "cowboy" president...

“I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them,

You can't beat the Mudflats for finding outstanding takedowns of Sarah Palin. (title from the article linked)

"The Texas Textbook Massacre"

(Cross-posted at Vim and Vinegar) That's how the recent decision to revamp the Texas education standards was described by Kathy Miller, the President of the Texas Freedom Network. Most significant of these changes was the removal of Thomas Jefferson from the world history standards. In addition, a proposal to include discussion on the importance of the concept of Separation of Church and State was rejected.

Other changes include: America's financial system will be herewith described as "free enterprise" because, as Member Terri Leo (R - Spring) writes: "Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation. You know, ‘capitalist pig!’" And while it's not possible to list the most outrageous change, it's hard to have a post on this development without including the following tidbit from this TFN insider summary: "In an absurd attempt to excuse Joseph McCarthy’s outrageous witchhunts in the 1950s, far-right board members succeeded in adding a requirement that students learn about “communist infiltration in U.S. government” during the Cold War. (Board member Don McLeroy has even claimed outright that Joseph McCarthy has been “vindicated,” a contention not supported by mainstream scholarship.)"

These changes to the Texas curriculum will affect textbooks across the country, as Texas is (one of, if not) the largest buyers of textbooks in the nation. These changes, and the ones that I haven't commented will bear tremendously on the quality of education in our country. Further, by substituting Jefferson for Aquinas and John Calvin, Texas has given a larger foothold for Christian educational encroachment into public education - which future generations might not be able to understand, due to the exclusion of a segment considering the importance of separation of Church and State...

There are little, simple things that you can do to show your displeasure. One thing you can do is sign up for Just Educate, a TFN petition (I promise, I don't work for TFN, I just get daily updates from them, and they are an outstanding source for education issues in Texas).

Changes are afoot, and not for the better.

Fear and

(Cross Posted at Vim and Vinegar)

It's a hypothesis I've not heard said out loud, but I can't say that I'm surprised someone considered it - the meta-analysis of several studies have recently been completed testing the hypothesis that racism is linked to religion (Christianity). The results: "Religious congregations generally express more prejudiced views towards other races. Furthermore, the more devout the community, the greater the racism."

The study was published in the February issue of Personality and Social Psychology Review, with the conclusion: "Only religious agnostics were racially tolerant." Again, I can't say that I'm absolutely surprised by this outcome - I've noticed that agnostics seems to be more willing to accept that others' ideas or habits may be acceptable, or that while what they believe might be right for them, there are no shoes that fit all feet.

Put another way by the Center for Inquiry article linked at the beginning of this post: "Religious agnostics would be people who combine a religious/spiritual attitude in living life with a humble admission that they don't know if their approach is the only right way. Religious agnostics are pluralistic -- they have no problem admiring how different people can enjoy different religious paths. And it is precisely this lack of dogmatism which permits humanistic values to shine through. Religious exclusivism defeats humanistic universalism, but religious pluralism enhances humanistic universalism."

Perhaps tolerance comes from accepting that we can't know the unknowable and accepting that someone else's ideas may be as accurate or inaccurate as our own.

At Least She Knows it's Ironic

So far, I've only heard this blurb on it, but it bears noting that what Sarah Palin would have you believe is a Socialist program aimed at creating "death panels," is what she and her family made use of when she lived in Western Alaska. From the article linked above: ""We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. 'And I think now, isn't that ironic?'"

Yes. It's ironic. It's also disingenuous. You have spent months railing against the very same program you took advantage of when it was convenient for you.

On Detention

(Cross-posted at Vim and Vinegar)

I'd like everyone to play "pretend" for a moment. Pretend that you are minding your own business in your own home. You are a taxpayer, a citizen, gainfully employed and well-liked. One day, the police come to your house and bring you in for holding. You're not necessarily under arrest, at least, you aren't charged with any crimes. The police are just concerned, because, you see, one country invaded another country after a group of terrorists blew up two buildings in the first country's largest city. Now, after a week of questioning, the local police have decided that you've not only done nothing wrong, but you are in fact completely innocent.
You think you're free to go. This sort of logic is, of course, wrong. It turns out the country who was attacked by the terrorists think that there is sufficient evidence to justify holding you as a terror suspect yourself. So rather than being released, you are transported - not to another prison in your home country, not even to the country who believes that you may be a terrorist. No, instead you are transferred to yet another country where the attacked nation leases a strip of land. You are kept away from the attorneys who are appointed to defend you against whatever charges will eventually be filed against you. You don't get to see the evidence against you because the Government believes that you will share that classified information with your terrorist cronies - as if you had any. You watch as others in your situation have tubes violently forced down their throats into their stomachs so that they are available for interrogations. You are subjected to and learn that others are denied sleep, slammed against walls, induced into hypothermia, have their phobias used against them. You hear stories of how others who are detained are strapped head down at an angle on a plank, a cloth over their mouth while gallons of water is poured over their head. You are threatened with death. You hear gunshots coming from other rooms, which you believe is the murder of other detainees.
This is necessary, you learn your captors argue, because they need to get the information that you, the worst of the worst, possess. You find out that leader of the government holding you captive has told his staff to write pieces of paper that say they can do all this to you and the others in your position, for an undisclosed period of time, forever, even, if they need, to keep their people safe. You find out that one of these authors believes that his president has the authority to "crush the testicles" of your son, if he believes that would prevent a terrorist attack. You learn that according to this Government, none of this qualifies as torture, even if they go beyond what is written on these pieces of paper.
After several years, your lawyers, who you hardly got to see and were unable to present any adequate defense with, has gotten your case before the court of the country to detained you. This court has determined that you are entitled to something called "habeas corpus," which means you can challenge the government's justification for holding you. It turns out that the government's position is pretty simple. They believe that because they think you might be a terrorist, they can keep you in prison forever, and do what they want to you within the limits of the pieces of paper written for the president, and the laws of the country don't apply to you, because you aren't, technically, in the country.
Your lawyer protests on your behalf.
And he wins. Which means you win.
It turns out there was no justification for your detention, and therefore, you are to be released. No harm, no foul, perhaps.

Unfortunately, for several years, this situation has borne out countless times. Enhanced somewhat to include more of what has transpired against the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, this narrative is similar to what Lakhdar Boumediene endured at the hands of our government.

The reason for this game this morning is because Mark Benjamin today wrote an article at Salon.com on waterboarding and just how stringent the protocol was to ensure proper interrogation. He writes:

[i]nterrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney "specially designed" to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner's nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing.

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding "session." Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second "applications" of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee's nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.

It turns out, however, that there's a new case that Judge Wayne R. Anderson is allowing - a suit filed against Donals Rumsfeld charging the former Secretary of Defense with authorizing torture. For space sake, I will link to the article at the Huffington Post here. the suit is Donal Vance and Nathan Ertel v. Donald Rumsfeld, United States of America and Unidentified Agents. We'll see what comes from this, but the allegations include the claim that "Rumsfeld informed Major Miller that his mission was to 'gitmo-ize' Camp Cropper." That would clear the road for destroying the potential to call the detainee abuses anything other than Torture.

Ugly, but Effective

I went to Radio Shack today and purchased a new cable to attach my new computer to our modem. We had a problem, you see, in that there is no telephone jack in the room in which we keep our computer. This wasn't a problem with the laptop, as we just used our wireless router. This turns out to be less effective with the new computer, however, as it has Windows 7 and does not appear to be compatible with the wireless router that we have.

I will need to check for a patch to see if there's something we can download to make it compatible. Otherwise, we'll need to purchase a new wireless router, which is fine by me.

Job search is still going. Lots of outs, no ins.

Inflammatory Rhetoric

Sometimes, I'm not sure exactly how to explain just how asinine I think what someone says or does is. The current object of my ire are Senator Grassley, Liz Cheney and their inflammatory rhetoric against Constitutionally-mandated due process. Liz Cheney refers to the attorneys in the Department of Justice who were appointed to defend the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as "the Al-Qaeda Seven." She's not referring to the detainees, whose guilt was at (or is still at) issue, or have been shown to be not guilty of the crimes for which they were detained, if not charged. No, she's referring to the attorneys, and wants them outed for daring to defend what she refers to as the already guilty.

Why anyone would vote for a Republican in this day and age given their leadership's disdain for the Constitution is beyond my capacity to understand.

Tuesday Morning

Random Quote:

A bureaucrat is a Democrat who holds some office that a Republican wants. - Harry S Truman

Weekend Update

Not a whole lot going on today. Job search is taking a back burner as it's Sunday. Weeded and treated the front yard - I'm watering it now. I'm skeptical, but crossing my fingers that the weed incursion can be reversed by a guy with limited green in his thumbs.

I need a yardkeeper.

Friendly Reminder

Courtesy of the Mudflats:

In Pursuit of Knowledge

Stephen Barr discusses the futility that is Intelligent Design as a science

Having written my Substantive Writing paper on the farce that is ID, I can empathize.

Try, Try Again

We've added a new dog (again) to the household. We think she'll be a better fit.

Welcome Molly.

Birthday Wishes

The Princess's birthday is coming up. She's asked for several things for her birthday, including (among others) a puppy. We've tried a Great Puppy Experiment already and it didn't quite turn out as we'd have liked. I have considered trying a smaller puppy, perhaps a rat terrier-type dog that would be a little better fit for the house, but I think the spouse is a little reluctant. She suggested we get the Princess a fish. This is plausible, but we'd have to find a place to put it... Maybe in the center pass-through in the kitchen...

What's the Big Deal?

The Canadian Women's Hockey team won their third consecutive Olympic gold medal. That they won gold is apparently less important than the way they celebrated - with beer.

I don't see the big deal. Throw some Back Bacon on the ice and you've got the essence of Canada...

Head Scratching Quote of the Day

"Rosa Parks did not move to the front of the bus to support sodomy." - Barb Davis White, Tea Partier and Republican nominee for Minnesota's 5th Congressional District.

Words fail.

It's Thursday

I'm baking chicken for dinner tonight.

Applied for a couple more positions. I'm a bit frustrated. Tired, agitated, etc.

Still Looking

So, I've been out of work for nearly 2 weeks now. I've sent out umpteen resumes, followed up on umpteen leads, registered with multiple headhunters and temp-to-hire firms, as well as expanded my search beyond the law practice field. As of yet, I've heard no positive responses.

It's getting frustrating.

More Magic Words

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, a case that challenges the constitutionality of anti-terror laws (such as in the PATRIOT ACT) that makes it a crime to "provide material support" to terrorist organizations. The problem with the law is that it's quite broad; "material support" could mean a whole slew of things, from providing personnel to training to attorneys writing amicus briefs in their defense.

Of course, as Glenn Greenwald notes, so much of what is potentially a crime should be superceded by 1st Amendment rights. The New York Times has an interesting article on point here, as is this Yahoo! article.

Now, just to mix things up a little more: how attenuated does the support need to be? How much knowledge is there, or is it strict liability? What is a "terrorist organization?"

So many questions...

Police State Watch

I understand that there are several people who are absolutely certain that life begins at conception, despite the clear inability to prove such a thing. I also am aware that many people believe that life begins at birth, or somewhere in between, as our nation's and the Christian heritage established.

I also know that miscarriages are an act of nature, and they occur quite often.

What I don't understand is how anyone could expect to enforce a law that criminalized miscarriages if the woman acted "recklessly." "Reckless" of course, is a magic word that means whatever the speaker intends it to mean.

I don't see how this proposed law in Utah does anything other than place women further under a blanket of subjugation by the state.

Non-Sequitur, on Point Again

Wiley has a way.

Just Remember

That while the Conservative congressmen, talking heads, bloggers, and various loudmouths keep railing against "Obamacare" and the efforts at healthcare reform, despite the fact that virtually everyone except the health insurance lobby agrees that healthcare needs to be reformed, there has been no serious alternatives suggested by the Republicans, nor has there been any serious efforts at compromise by the Republicans.

Harry Truman (one of the greats) once said "I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a program; you have to be for something. Otherwise, you will never get anywhere."

He was right. As he was about so much.

Well Slap My Hog and Name Him Tom

Glenn Greenwald has penned a well-written post about the myth of small-government conservatives. In a nutshell, they don't exist. I've discussed this before, myself, but not since the advent of the "tea party" movement...

Why I'm Relentless on Ethical Treatment of Detainees

And punishment for those who mistreated them: it's part of our heritage - to distrust a government that lords authority over those without representation, who exercise control over those who they would lead.

I am reminded of a William O. Douglas quote: "The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected." That's why lawyers exist, and why I cannot stand the recent acquittal of Bybee and Yoo.

Intellectual Honesty

It seems to go out the window when discussing torture. The waterboard has been used as a torture method for hundreds of years by regimes that we would normally be ashamed to be associated with (Khmer Rouge, Gestapo, WWII Japan, inter alia). It's been prosecuted here in the United States (ask James Parker), yet there's still "debate."

But the discussion about torture goes beyond the waterboard alone. There are several other "enhanced interrogation tactics" that are available to those who think they're entitled to lord such control over others (even innocents). There's sleep deprivation, stress positions, slamming people into walls, sensory deprivation, and many others. The argument has been akin to the "ticking time bomb" a la Keifer Sutherland in 24. In a sense, some (like Thiessen) believe that "In traditional war, when you capture an enemy soldier, once he is disarmed and taken off the battlefield he has been “rendered unable to cause harm.” But that is not true of senior terrorist leaders like KSM. They retain the power to kill many thousands by withholding information about planned attacks. A captured terrorist leader remains an unjust aggressor who actively threatens society — targeting innocent civilians in violation of the laws of war — even when he is in custody." This is specious oversimplificating justification. I believe a reader who wrote in to Andrew Sullivan might have the best response:

[S]uppose the captured soldier in a "traditional" war is a high ranking officer with knowledge of the enemy's battle plan. Certainly, by Thiessen's definition, he would still be capable of inflicting harm by withholding information, yet Thiessen appears to be saying that torture is off limits for that individual. On the other hand, a relatively low-ranking al Qaeda operative with most likely little to no knowledge of operations outside of his particular cell (does anybody think that the idiot they convinced to put a bomb in his underwear has really been entrusted with information about planning for other Al Qaeda operations?) must be tortured.

The level of intellectual dishonesty gives me cause for despair.

I'm not sure it could explained any better...

Go Read the Inimitable Just Wondering

at Vim and Vinegar. What she said.

Not Surprising

Over at Balloon Juice, the following post can be found, showing the connection among various high profile grifters and the Tea Party movement. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but well, they're Republicans, if not in name, then in behavior...

Failed Experiment

Well, today the dog is going back to the shelter. I feel bad, but there's been some difficulty in introducing him successfully to the house. He's just a little too active for our family needs. The cats have been sequestered in our bedroom for the last five days (since we brought him home) and when he's able, he's been barking and whining with his head under our bed - where the cats have been hiding. He's rather single-minded of purpose in this category. When he's not been doing that, he's been climbing on the furniture, taking the kids' stuffed animals and shoes, and gnawing at my hand.

Yesterday, two incidents in particular probably pushed the situation over the edge. First, he peed on a floor pillow that was in the game room. I'm rather unhappy about this as he is perfectly housebroken. More importantly, though, the Apple and the Princess went out back to play with him and he got a little too rough. While I didn't see him biting the Apple or knocking him down, I did get to the door in time to see him tackle the Princess and bite her in the back of the neck. I should note that he had is ears pricked up and his tail was wagging like mad - in other words, he was playing, not trying to hurt the kids. However, he gave the kids a good spook, more than they deserved, and I don't want a dog in the house that bites, even playfully.

He's got the potential to be a good dog, but he needs a family with older children or another alpha dog that he can follow and/or play with. He's definitely a loving dog and really likes attention, but, it's just not a good marriage with our family.

A Confederacy of Grown Ups

In their latest attempt to assume an air of maturity, the Republicans reportedly will feature a pinata of Nancy Pelosi at their CPAC. Additionally, Harry Reid will be featured in punching bag form.

You have to love Republicans. Messing up the economy, health care, war, the government, then blaming Democrats and getting away with it scot-free because the wimps in the MSM are afraid to call them on anything for fear of being labeled with their "liberal bias," which they're labeled with anyway...

At its core, I relate more with the Republican party's platform, however, the idiots in charge of the party (the wingnuts) have such a stranglehold and their mantra right now is apparently just "No."

American (Double) Standard

What happens when a man of middle eastern descent is detained on allegations that he is a terrorist? Think about what happened to Boumediene, among (hundreds of) others.

Now, what happens when Americans are arrested and charged with kidnapping (or potentially child trafficking)? Complaints of Human Rights Violations.

The concern should be about fair treatment for all who are detained, not just those who share your flag. Innocence or guilt are exclusive to no country's citizenry.

New Additions

We went to the movies today. Decided to check out Percy Jackson and the Olympians - the Lightning Thief. The cineplex was hosting the County animal shelter, presenting different pets that were up for adoption. After considering things for some time, we came home with Rusty, formerly Nino. Rusty is a (ridgeless) Rhodesian Ridgeback, and perhaps the most docile dog I've ever seen.

He's a great, quiet dog, who has had his first bath, prefers cat food to dog food, and constantly looks at us, as if he's just hoping that we're going to love him... I don't think he needs to worry

Valentine's Day

I feel bad. I have done nothing for Valentine's day, other than lose my job and need new tires. The wife has her company awards dinner tonight and I'll be staying at home with the kids. That is something, but I'd rather be able to splurge a little.
Maybe something belated.

There's a Choice We're Making

No, it's not to sing We Are the World, though we could do that if we wanted.

Rather, it's a choice as to whether or not to accept a potential contract document review position. The thing is, it pays significantly less than what I'm getting right now, with no promise of regular work, and a default pay agreement that I don't fully understand.

In addition, I've got other resume leads that are pending that have the prospect of paying a little bit to significantly more...

decisions...

Unconcerned

I heard a bit of bellyaching about Tim Tebow's Super Bowl commercial and concerns about the anti choice message. I thought the commercial was rather benign. The message was simple, not the "if you don't have an abortion then your son will win the Heisman. " I agree with the message, to discourage abortions, though as you know I stop short of wholesale banning.
It was fine, much ado about nothing.

Cheat Sheet

Let me just say, while I think it's funny that people still take Sarah Palin seriously as a candidate, every now and then she does something that really makes me wonder what kind of dream world these supporters live in. After months of Republicans lambasting the President for use of a teleprompter, we now have an image of Sarah Palin writing notes on her hand to help her remember what her priorities are when she's "President," though I seem to remember reading that she called for a Revolution last night, which one would assume would make her unfit for office (advocating the overthrow of the country is enough to disqualify you from holding a security clearance, so shouldn't it hold true for those who would lead the military).

Of course, one of the problems with not standing for anything concrete is that you can't remember what your positions are...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Super Bowl Sunday

And I'm somewhat excited about the game. I am close to ambivalent about who wins, though I think I am leaning slightly towards the Colts because I am a Manning fan and we have family in Indiana...

Saturday, Again

Well, I've got my resume out to several different leads. We'll see if anything bites.

On the Market

Well, my job, that I was hired for back at the end of 2007 to do for 8-10 weeks has come to completion. My last day will be next Friday.

While I'm disappointed at leaving, particularly because I genuinely like the people with whom I work. But I can't say as it's a real surprise - we've seen the work dwindle for the last little bit...

Anyway, I've got my resume going out, and a couple leads to follow up on. We'll see how it all works out.

Rahm's Apology

First off, I'm not sure that he needed to apologize. What he said was crass and unprofessional, but it was also said behind closed doors.

Second, I'm not sure which I'm feeling is more surprising, that Sarah Palin's ghostwriters on Facebook have never used the word for which they've expressed such shock and disdain (seriously, this is like "he who is without sin" stuff), or that the first thing Sarah Palin apparently thought when she heard the word was her son.

The record seems to suggest that Sarah Palin treats Trig as a prop for publicity purposes - why is a special needs child being handed off to her at book signings and other rallies instead of receiving the specialized treatment he ostensibly should be getting - so is there a double standard being applied here - that it's ok to sensationalize special needs when it's a Republican doing it?

It's Sunday

The last day in January.

I might need to go see a movie today.

Her Perspicacity is Astounding. Also

Sarah Palin had some input on the State of the Union address yesterday. I have read a transcript of her "interview (read: opportunity to get semi-coherent talking points and cheerleader statements out)" with Hannity. You can get a copy of the entire transcript with a link to a youtube video of the "interview" here, (the Mudflats) but for an example, I provide the following series of words of the English language:

Hannity: First of all, your initial reaction.

Palin: Ohhh, I think there was a lot of lecturing going on tonight versus inspiring the American people and independent politicians who were sitting in the audience waiting to hear some acknowledgment that there has been a disconnect between the White House and people who are expecting more from our government – more in terms of empowerment of the people not relying on government to meet all of our challenges, but empowering our families, our small businesses to fix the problems that we’re facing today.

Notice that she says that 1: the people want the government to do more by 2: having the government do less. She doesn't have any follow-up questions to answer, just softball leads for her to attempt to answer to get her diatribe out there.

Whenever she speaks, I'm more and more glad she's not our VP.

Y'all Might Be Hearin' More From Me

As it appears I might be on the job market here shortly. We'll see how things go.

Just Curious

But, how, exactly, is Coakley's defeat in Massachusetts (where she ran a Shelly Sekula-Gibbs campaign of "vote for me because I'm the Democrat") a referendum on Obama?

2 Weeks

We go to trial in 2 weeks. I'm not exactly freaking out, but it's stressful. I'll be the guy at home base pulling the info we need.

It looks to be interesting.

I'm thinking the Colts are going to win tonight, but I'm not fully certian.

I'm not sure what to think about this

I will have to think it over some this weekend...
Judge: Roeder can seek manslaughter defense - KansasCity.com

Happy Friday

Someone explain to me the appeal of the cartoon Chowter?

Have I finally reached that magical adulthood age where I am appalled by how far they push the envelope? Or is it really just crassness with no redeeming value?

Stay Classy, GOP

Pat Robertson probably only speaks for a minority of the GOP anymore, but he's still influential and, clearly, not very compassionate. Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, does speak for the GOP, and that's what makes his statements perhaps more awful than what Robertson said with regard to Haiti.

But, people keep giving them money.

Home Improvement

As I said we had a contractor come out over the weekend to inspect the windows and get us an estimate for replacements/new windows. While he was here, I had him do a quick check of a spot on my son's roof where we had some wind-driven rain damage from the hurricane at the end of '08. Today he'll be coming in to take care of that patch, which means I'm home this morning waiting for him to get it done.

We'll see how things go, hopefully they'll be right in and out.

Off to School and Work

Gotta take the Boy in to school this morning. He has Oboe Practice, and must go in a few minutes early 2 days a week. I don't mind, as it gives him a little more practice - he's pretty good, but needs to practice more (don't we all).

Then it's back to work. I had a nice weekend off - I'd more or less forgotten what it was like to have weekends free during last year. I'd worked the majority of weekends, which makes for a difficult attempt to recall what free time feels like. It's going to be a fun year.

Now That They Won a Game

Can we stop hearing the incessant babble about the Dallas Cowboys? I mean, really - does anyone really care how long it's been since they won a playoff game? The Lions have gone much longer without a playoff game, and haven't even sniffed the playoffs in longer than I can remember (thanks, Matt Millen).

Oh, and Sarah Palin is/was a train wreck.

taking a look

We're not sure we're actually going to do it, but we had a contractor come out yesterday to look at our windows to get an estimate on new or replacement double-panes. We'll see what the estimates are. I think at the very least we're going to replace the windows in the Apple's room (it's broken), and, depending on the cost, possibly the windows in the Princess's and Boy's rooms, just to improve the insulation in their rooms...

This Just In - Sarah Palin Lied!

Of course, what would be more powerful is if the campaign manager whose candidate chose such a horrific running mate actually owned up to the trainwreck he helped create vice pointing out what has been apparent for a year and a half.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Gd2GaGqGQu

A Few Things I Don't Care About

The Kardashians, Paris Hilton, Nicole Hilton, Perez Hilton, anything Hilton, the Pussycat Dolls, Dick Cheney's opinion on anything, "Birthers," "Truthers," the New York Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys, Texas Tech, Tyra Banks, The Bachelor, Big Brother, Survivor, Billionaire Bankers' cash "woes," Blue Dogs, professional obstructionists, Ann Coulter, Ann Althouse, the death of newsprint, the "liberal Bias" and health care reform opponents who oppose simply because it's a Democrat idea.

Good News in the Good Year

Not necessarily for everyone, but the Big Ten won two Jan. 1 games this year - go Ohio State and Penn State, and conference joke Northwestern was one missed field goal away from winning their bowl game, only to lose in overtime.

As far as we're concerned, we have a new computer being delivered today. Finally. I'm ready for some processing awesomeness.

Funiculi, Funicula

It's the end of the year.

Sorry for the dearth of posts, though I can see that my audience is rather smaller recently, too.

The computer's been acting a bit hinky lately, and as such, we've been wanting for internet access for a while. I've just (sort of) fixed the wireless, though it's unsecured now.