President Bush has drawn fire from opponents of the Iraq War for mentioning the “lessons of 9/11” and linking it to the Iraq War.
Fact: If it was not for 9/11, we wouldn’t be in Iraq right now. Period.
There’s no way that if we were still at peace and hadn't been attacked on 9/11 that Bush could have convinced Congress and the American people that an invasion and occupation was necessary.
The anti-war movement would have been a hundred times bigger than it was and Bush would have been impeached by Democrats still smarting from the impeachment of President Clinton. But 9/11 changed the entire equation and made it possible for the U.S. to launch an invasion of Iraq.
This is pure rhetoric coming from those who want to take away one of President Bush’s favorite Congressional Democrat-thumpers.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
FEC Looking into Regulating Blogs
The Federal Election Commission seems to feel that the blogging community has too much power, may threaten democracy itself and is looking into policing them.
With all due respect, the FEC can go kiss off.
They ought to keep their noses out of the blog community and get their act together on conducting elections. The last several elections have proven that they aren’t doing their JOBS well enough and they want to lock horns with people who use their Internet space to express their political viewpoints?
Is our own FEC going to follow the example of Iran and China and begin to jail people who dare to express their own opinion that may differ from the official government stand?
This is the essence of democracy itself. Campaign finance reforms have nothing to do with the blogging community, so the FEC ought to target politicians who break finance laws and leave the bloggers alone.
Who’s more guilty, the politician (who knows he’s breaking rules) who pays $35,000 to two bloggers to promote his viewpoints, or the two bloggers who took the money as a payment for services rendered?
Bloggers are not journalists. Well, some are and work for news networks, but 99.8% of the others don’t. Every major news organization has at least one reporter writing in blogs; with some it seems like every reporter has their own blog space on the company’s server.
The FEC has a job to do; they should do it and stay out of First Amendment territory. If they want to regulate political campaigns and official campaign blogs, that’s one thing, but to lump all blogs together is asking for trouble.
With all due respect, the FEC can go kiss off.
They ought to keep their noses out of the blog community and get their act together on conducting elections. The last several elections have proven that they aren’t doing their JOBS well enough and they want to lock horns with people who use their Internet space to express their political viewpoints?
Is our own FEC going to follow the example of Iran and China and begin to jail people who dare to express their own opinion that may differ from the official government stand?
This is the essence of democracy itself. Campaign finance reforms have nothing to do with the blogging community, so the FEC ought to target politicians who break finance laws and leave the bloggers alone.
Who’s more guilty, the politician (who knows he’s breaking rules) who pays $35,000 to two bloggers to promote his viewpoints, or the two bloggers who took the money as a payment for services rendered?
Bloggers are not journalists. Well, some are and work for news networks, but 99.8% of the others don’t. Every major news organization has at least one reporter writing in blogs; with some it seems like every reporter has their own blog space on the company’s server.
The FEC has a job to do; they should do it and stay out of First Amendment territory. If they want to regulate political campaigns and official campaign blogs, that’s one thing, but to lump all blogs together is asking for trouble.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Poetic Justice: Justice Souter’s Home Under Eminent Domain Threat
Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s home has been targeted for seizure and destruction by an LLC in Weare, New Hampshire, so that they can build a hotel where Justice Souter’s house now sits.
Justice Souter voted in favor of allowing state and local governments to have greater power in cases of eminent domain just a couple of short weeks ago.
If this story is accurate, this is poetic justice. Who would have thought that this new power given by the Supreme Court to local governments would be used against one of the Justices responsible for the majority vote?
Here’s the story. Justice Souter is probably having a cow.
6/29/05 NOTE: I cannot tell if this story is a joke or not. Take it with a grain of salt.
Justice Souter voted in favor of allowing state and local governments to have greater power in cases of eminent domain just a couple of short weeks ago.
If this story is accurate, this is poetic justice. Who would have thought that this new power given by the Supreme Court to local governments would be used against one of the Justices responsible for the majority vote?
Here’s the story. Justice Souter is probably having a cow.
6/29/05 NOTE: I cannot tell if this story is a joke or not. Take it with a grain of salt.
American Gold Star Moms Vote to Allow Non-U.S. Moms to Receive Gold Stars on Behalf of Their Sons/Daughters Who Fight and Die for the U.S. Military
The American Gold Star Mothers organization voted unanimously to amend their constitution to allow non-American mothers to receive gold stars for their U.S. military children who die in America’s wars.
This was in response to a request from a Filipino mom whose U.S. Army son died in combat in Afghanistan and had expressed an interest in joining the organization. But she couldn’t, due to the 1929 charter allowing only U.S. citizens to join. The 12-member executive board voted against changing the rule, and a campaign was started both within and outside the organization to change the group’s constitution.
The organization responded and voted yesterday to change the constitution. This is an excellent move by the American Moms organization and they deserve praise for adapting to meet the needs of others.
They have recognized that the face of the U.S. military has changed quite a bit since 1929. Some 140 members of the U.S. military who were NOT U.S. citizens have given up their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq or elsewhere during the war on terror.
Congratulations and thank you American Gold Star Mothers, not only for your changing this rule to honor others, but for your tremendous sacrifices in America’s various wars. You will never be forgotten.
This was in response to a request from a Filipino mom whose U.S. Army son died in combat in Afghanistan and had expressed an interest in joining the organization. But she couldn’t, due to the 1929 charter allowing only U.S. citizens to join. The 12-member executive board voted against changing the rule, and a campaign was started both within and outside the organization to change the group’s constitution.
The organization responded and voted yesterday to change the constitution. This is an excellent move by the American Moms organization and they deserve praise for adapting to meet the needs of others.
They have recognized that the face of the U.S. military has changed quite a bit since 1929. Some 140 members of the U.S. military who were NOT U.S. citizens have given up their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq or elsewhere during the war on terror.
Congratulations and thank you American Gold Star Mothers, not only for your changing this rule to honor others, but for your tremendous sacrifices in America’s various wars. You will never be forgotten.
Supreme Court Decisions on Ten Commandments: Mixed Messages and a Silver Lining
The Supreme Court issued a series of rulings yesterday that the Ten Commandments can be displayed ONLY as a part of a historical overview of the nation’s (or state’s) legal history.
In other words, if the Ten Commandments are on display and is not part of a larger exhibit of other documents which also contributed to the nation’s/state’s justice system(s), then it would be considered illegal. The same thing goes for Ten Commandments exhibits which stand alone in various state capitols. Those were also ruled unconstitutional due to religion being “showcased” (whatever that means).
Some are reading this to mean that if the states develop a larger overall display which features other documents and items, and happen to include the Ten Commandments as part of the overall history, this means that the Commandments CAN be displayed as the high court upheld on the Texas capitol display.
So conservatives should be happy that they will be able to display the Ten Commandments again as part of a larger display. It’s better than an outright ban on the commandments, which the Supreme Court could have easily done (and the minority-opinion justices wanted to do).
In other words, if the Ten Commandments are on display and is not part of a larger exhibit of other documents which also contributed to the nation’s/state’s justice system(s), then it would be considered illegal. The same thing goes for Ten Commandments exhibits which stand alone in various state capitols. Those were also ruled unconstitutional due to religion being “showcased” (whatever that means).
Some are reading this to mean that if the states develop a larger overall display which features other documents and items, and happen to include the Ten Commandments as part of the overall history, this means that the Commandments CAN be displayed as the high court upheld on the Texas capitol display.
So conservatives should be happy that they will be able to display the Ten Commandments again as part of a larger display. It’s better than an outright ban on the commandments, which the Supreme Court could have easily done (and the minority-opinion justices wanted to do).
Monday, June 27, 2005
Boy Attacked By Shark Two Days After Florida Officials Reopen Beaches
A 16 year-old teen was attacked by a shark two days after Florida officials declared the waters off Florida safe for swimmers following the death of a girl from a shark attack.
Are they learning anything yet?
Are they learning anything yet?
Series of Boy Scout Accidents Highlights Why "Guide to Safe Scouting" MUST Be Followed
Over to first person.
As a longtime supporter of the Boy Scout program, I am stunned and dismayed to hear of a rash of accidents and mishaps that have led to Scouts being lost, seriously injured or dying while at summer camp, while camping with their troops, or while on Scouting activities.
Most of the country knows about the Boy Scout who was lost in the mountains of Utah for four days, finally being located by searchers who never gave up hope that they would find 11 year-old Brennan Hawkins. It was only through the grace of God and a series of fortunate events that led to Brennan's safe recovery.
In Yellowstone National Park a few days after Brennan's miraculous recovery, another Boy Scout went missing after falling into fast-moving water. The Scout was with his fellow Scouts pushing logs into the river when a log clipped his legs and he tumbled into the river. Searchers and family members have given up hope that 13 year-old Luke Sanburg is still alive.
In Boise, Idaho, a 17 year-old member of a Venture Crew fell to his death after losing his grip on a zip line. This happened a week ago while the Scout was at a special summer camp for Venture Scouts. Something malfunctioned on the zip line itself and it caused the trolley assembly to jerk to a sudden halt, causing Jeffery Kenneth Lloyd to lose his grip on the handgrips and fall to the ground, landing on his back.
In Scouting, there is an all-important document called the "Guide to Safe Scouting." In each of these instances, there was a failure to follow what was in them. In the case of Brennan's loss and recovery, the buddy system failed when his buddy left him at the climbing tower to take off his harness on his own.
In the case of the Yellowstone situation, it is still uncertain if the pushing of logs into the river was part of some kind of an event, or if the Scouts were doing it on their own. Safe Swim Defense rules may have been overlooked there; or it could have been a freak accident. In any case, no one told the Scouts to stop doing what they were doing. Where was the Qualified Supervision, which is the first point of the Safe Swim Defense?
In the case of the zip line in Idaho, Scouting regs call for helmets and harnesses to be used if a participant is more than six feet off the ground. It falls under COPE staff supervision (Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience--basically a high ropes obstacle course). As a current BSA COPE Instructor, I'm very familiar with these guidelines. Why was this Scout not attached with rope to the trolley assembly on this zip line? He fell more than fifteen feet so this should have been supervised under COPE rules.
It is uncertain if a nearby church group was running this event, or if it was a Boy Scout-related event, but someone is responsible for not taking proper safety precautions which led to the death of this Scout.
With summer well underway, Scout leaders need to be sure that they are making sure that the "Guide to Safe Scouting" is being followed in all respects.
Kids shouldn't be dying at camp.
As a longtime supporter of the Boy Scout program, I am stunned and dismayed to hear of a rash of accidents and mishaps that have led to Scouts being lost, seriously injured or dying while at summer camp, while camping with their troops, or while on Scouting activities.
Most of the country knows about the Boy Scout who was lost in the mountains of Utah for four days, finally being located by searchers who never gave up hope that they would find 11 year-old Brennan Hawkins. It was only through the grace of God and a series of fortunate events that led to Brennan's safe recovery.
In Yellowstone National Park a few days after Brennan's miraculous recovery, another Boy Scout went missing after falling into fast-moving water. The Scout was with his fellow Scouts pushing logs into the river when a log clipped his legs and he tumbled into the river. Searchers and family members have given up hope that 13 year-old Luke Sanburg is still alive.
In Boise, Idaho, a 17 year-old member of a Venture Crew fell to his death after losing his grip on a zip line. This happened a week ago while the Scout was at a special summer camp for Venture Scouts. Something malfunctioned on the zip line itself and it caused the trolley assembly to jerk to a sudden halt, causing Jeffery Kenneth Lloyd to lose his grip on the handgrips and fall to the ground, landing on his back.
In Scouting, there is an all-important document called the "Guide to Safe Scouting." In each of these instances, there was a failure to follow what was in them. In the case of Brennan's loss and recovery, the buddy system failed when his buddy left him at the climbing tower to take off his harness on his own.
In the case of the Yellowstone situation, it is still uncertain if the pushing of logs into the river was part of some kind of an event, or if the Scouts were doing it on their own. Safe Swim Defense rules may have been overlooked there; or it could have been a freak accident. In any case, no one told the Scouts to stop doing what they were doing. Where was the Qualified Supervision, which is the first point of the Safe Swim Defense?
In the case of the zip line in Idaho, Scouting regs call for helmets and harnesses to be used if a participant is more than six feet off the ground. It falls under COPE staff supervision (Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience--basically a high ropes obstacle course). As a current BSA COPE Instructor, I'm very familiar with these guidelines. Why was this Scout not attached with rope to the trolley assembly on this zip line? He fell more than fifteen feet so this should have been supervised under COPE rules.
It is uncertain if a nearby church group was running this event, or if it was a Boy Scout-related event, but someone is responsible for not taking proper safety precautions which led to the death of this Scout.
With summer well underway, Scout leaders need to be sure that they are making sure that the "Guide to Safe Scouting" is being followed in all respects.
Kids shouldn't be dying at camp.
Tom Cruise Needs a Publicist and Needs to Get on What MJ is Taking
Did anyone notice how subdued Michael Jackson was during his trial? Some have speculated that he was heavily drugged to keep him under control.
Tom Cruise needs some of what MJ is on too. Cruise can’t handle publicity on his own (he got rid of his publicist) and is creating a major problem for Steven Spielburg’s publicity campaign for his upcoming film “War of the Worlds.”
Instead of promoting the film, Cruise has managed to go crazy on the set of the Oprah Winfrey show, gotten into arguments with interviewers about scientology and psychiatry, and drawn all the attention to himself. Spielburg must be having kittens.
Cruise is acting like a teenager who is off his ADD/ADHD medications. It’s a major turn-off; if he doesn’t start to behave in public, some may decide that they’ve seen enough of him and his antics on TV and won’t want to pay to see him in “War of the Worlds.”
Instead of egging him on, perhaps Oprah ought to tell her friend Tom Cruise to get with the program and publicize the film instead of himself. And many are not interested in the intricacies of Scientology either.
Tom Cruise needs some of what MJ is on too. Cruise can’t handle publicity on his own (he got rid of his publicist) and is creating a major problem for Steven Spielburg’s publicity campaign for his upcoming film “War of the Worlds.”
Instead of promoting the film, Cruise has managed to go crazy on the set of the Oprah Winfrey show, gotten into arguments with interviewers about scientology and psychiatry, and drawn all the attention to himself. Spielburg must be having kittens.
Cruise is acting like a teenager who is off his ADD/ADHD medications. It’s a major turn-off; if he doesn’t start to behave in public, some may decide that they’ve seen enough of him and his antics on TV and won’t want to pay to see him in “War of the Worlds.”
Instead of egging him on, perhaps Oprah ought to tell her friend Tom Cruise to get with the program and publicize the film instead of himself. And many are not interested in the intricacies of Scientology either.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Windows XP “N” Not Catching on in Europe: Well, DUH!!
The watered-down version of Windows XP that the European Union ordered Microsoft to produce and sell in its territory is proving to be VERY unpopular. European, American and international PC makers and distributors are thumbing their noses up at it, European retail chains are saying they will not carry it, and European consumers are speaking up too, asking why they should be made to buy an inferior product.
WinXP “N” was ordered after EU regulators ruled that the inclusion of the operating system’s popular Media Player propagated a Microsoft monopoly.
Consumers would rather have a fully operational WinXP, that they can uninstall the Media Player from if they choose to.
DUH!!
This is another example of regulators being out of step with what the public wants. It’s all the same the world over.
WinXP “N” was ordered after EU regulators ruled that the inclusion of the operating system’s popular Media Player propagated a Microsoft monopoly.
Consumers would rather have a fully operational WinXP, that they can uninstall the Media Player from if they choose to.
DUH!!
This is another example of regulators being out of step with what the public wants. It’s all the same the world over.
Florida Beaches Re-Open Day After Girl is Attacked by Sharks and Dies: Umm…What About the Sharks?
Florida beaches re-opened today, following the death of a 14 year-old girl after she was attacked by a shark. This re-opening happened even after sharks were spotted again in shallow water. Officials insist the water is safe for swimming.
Are those people nuts?
Are those people nuts?
Criticism of Guantanamo Bay is NOT Intended to Hurt U.S., Only to Help It
Some people out there are saying that those who are speaking out against the Guantanamo Bay prison camp are only trying to hurt the U.S and were “propagandists.”
These kinds of comments are coming from people who aren’t interested in hearing what the opposition is saying to them, won’t do something about it unless there is a personal benefit to them, and believe the REAL propaganda coming from the White House and the military brass.
Representative Hunter should really pay attention to what people are trying to tell him instead of resorting to name-calling others who disagree with his opinion. Coming from a man with his education and experience, it is disappointing to hear him play the political game in this way.
And lawmakers, of all people, should appreciate the value of human rights and respect for the establishment of justice in every corner of the world.
How can we, as a nation, insist that other nations establish strong judicial traditions, when we, as a nation, tolerate the absence of justice for certain types of prisoners in certain parts of the world?
The hypocrisy must END!
Charge these people with crimes and let an American jury decide on their guilt or innocence! Some of these prisoners have been held for three years (so far); that’s long enough to determine if they have valid information to give or not.
These kinds of comments are coming from people who aren’t interested in hearing what the opposition is saying to them, won’t do something about it unless there is a personal benefit to them, and believe the REAL propaganda coming from the White House and the military brass.
Representative Hunter should really pay attention to what people are trying to tell him instead of resorting to name-calling others who disagree with his opinion. Coming from a man with his education and experience, it is disappointing to hear him play the political game in this way.
And lawmakers, of all people, should appreciate the value of human rights and respect for the establishment of justice in every corner of the world.
How can we, as a nation, insist that other nations establish strong judicial traditions, when we, as a nation, tolerate the absence of justice for certain types of prisoners in certain parts of the world?
The hypocrisy must END!
Charge these people with crimes and let an American jury decide on their guilt or innocence! Some of these prisoners have been held for three years (so far); that’s long enough to determine if they have valid information to give or not.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
What in the World Are Those Idiots in Washington Doing Now??!
Karl Rove took to their airwaves and said that after 9/11 the liberal Democrats in Congress opposed retaliating against Osama bin-Laden and Afghanistan and would have preferred to hold sessions on why the terrorists hate us so much and issued subpoenas against the terrorists.
The Democrats are furious and demanding that Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors, retract his words, apologize or resign.
If he has to apologize, then Howard Dean should too for his comments a couple of weeks ago.
And then...all of those idiots in Washington should grow up! ENOUGH ALREADY!!
The Democrats are furious and demanding that Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors, retract his words, apologize or resign.
If he has to apologize, then Howard Dean should too for his comments a couple of weeks ago.
And then...all of those idiots in Washington should grow up! ENOUGH ALREADY!!
Pro-Guantanamo Arguments Don't Make Too Much Sense
One of the most common arguments that people use when describing the prisoners at Gitmo Bay is that their insurgent friends are responsible for beheading Western hostages in Iraq and that alone should be enough to hold onto the prisoners at any cost.
So....exactly which Gitmo prisoners beheaded the hostages? Names, please. Point them out.
What? What? The beheadings were going on while the current crop of prisoners were already at Guantanamo Bay? Does that mean that not all of them were involved? What??! Most were taken in Afghanistan??!
Who cares about that? They’re just like the ones doing the beheadings.
Keep ‘em anyways? Yes, Sir. Anything you say, Sir.
Makes perfect sense to me! Yup. Yup.
Isn't pro-Guantanamo groupthink wonderful? It reinforces stupidity!
So....exactly which Gitmo prisoners beheaded the hostages? Names, please. Point them out.
What? What? The beheadings were going on while the current crop of prisoners were already at Guantanamo Bay? Does that mean that not all of them were involved? What??! Most were taken in Afghanistan??!
Who cares about that? They’re just like the ones doing the beheadings.
Keep ‘em anyways? Yes, Sir. Anything you say, Sir.
Makes perfect sense to me! Yup. Yup.
Isn't pro-Guantanamo groupthink wonderful? It reinforces stupidity!
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
U.S. Limiting Iraqi Judicial Access to Saddam: Iraqis Have a Lot of Work to Do Yet
In a very strong statement, Iraqi justice minister Abdel Hussein Shandal accused the United States of denying Iraqi officials access to Saddam Hussein for the purpose of interrogating him in preparation for his trial.
The U.S. countered by saying that Iraq needs to develop a court system that is strong and independent; the judicial tribunal that the Iraqi government wants to use to judge Saddam’s innocence or guilt was appointed by the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority.
Until the new Iraqi government vets out and appoints the judges themselves, the system that they want to use is open to charges of being under the influence of the United States, which would not be a good thing when deciding whether to sentence Saddam to life or death should he be convicted of the very serious charges against him.
Before they go after big fish like Saddam, they should deal with some of the small fry first, get some experience and work the bugs out of their system. The last thing they need is a show-trial for Saddam, which would undermine the Iraqi judicial system.
The U.S. countered by saying that Iraq needs to develop a court system that is strong and independent; the judicial tribunal that the Iraqi government wants to use to judge Saddam’s innocence or guilt was appointed by the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority.
Until the new Iraqi government vets out and appoints the judges themselves, the system that they want to use is open to charges of being under the influence of the United States, which would not be a good thing when deciding whether to sentence Saddam to life or death should he be convicted of the very serious charges against him.
Before they go after big fish like Saddam, they should deal with some of the small fry first, get some experience and work the bugs out of their system. The last thing they need is a show-trial for Saddam, which would undermine the Iraqi judicial system.
House Set to Vote on Flag Burning Amendment: Assault on First Amendment Continues
Before going any further, flag burning/desecration is a reprehensible act. It’s extremely disrespectful to our war veterans who have fought and died for their nation’s colors.
It’s an insult to the many thousands of Iraq and Afghan War veterans who have shed their blood to further democracy around the world.
As despicable as flag burning is, it’s also protected speech. The Supreme Court has upheld this, which is the reason that some in Congress are trying to write it into the Constitution of the United States as the 28th Amendment.
The House is due to vote today on this issue. According to Constitutional law, it must receive a ‘yes’ vote from 2/3 of the Representatives and then 2/3 of the votes in the Senate. If both houses approve it, then it goes to the several states for ratification. Thirty-eight states must ratify it within a certain time span (seven years in most cases) in order for it to be adopted as an Amendment.
The First Amendment must not be weakened for any reason, and banning flag burning would put a limit on free speech.
Those who burn flags for political demonstration purposes should be put into their place, but not at the cost of putting a muzzle on the First Amendment. This is a dangerous move.
It’s an insult to the many thousands of Iraq and Afghan War veterans who have shed their blood to further democracy around the world.
As despicable as flag burning is, it’s also protected speech. The Supreme Court has upheld this, which is the reason that some in Congress are trying to write it into the Constitution of the United States as the 28th Amendment.
The House is due to vote today on this issue. According to Constitutional law, it must receive a ‘yes’ vote from 2/3 of the Representatives and then 2/3 of the votes in the Senate. If both houses approve it, then it goes to the several states for ratification. Thirty-eight states must ratify it within a certain time span (seven years in most cases) in order for it to be adopted as an Amendment.
The First Amendment must not be weakened for any reason, and banning flag burning would put a limit on free speech.
Those who burn flags for political demonstration purposes should be put into their place, but not at the cost of putting a muzzle on the First Amendment. This is a dangerous move.
Senator Durbin Knuckles Under & Apologizes for Comments
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, under fire for his comments about American interrogators using Soviet or Nazi-style tactics to break enemy prisoners during interrogations, apologized for the comments.
Another critic of Guantanamo Bay and the ridiculous “legal limbo” status quo has been silenced.
His comments, when put back into context, are not nearly as bad as they were made out to be. See the Congressional Record on his full speech and accompanying FBI documents that he quoted.
There are some lessons to be drawn from this situation.
The entire controversy is an example of an age-old political tactic to get others to lose face. Both Democrats and Republicans enjoy employing it against one another for leverage and for maximum effect on their political enemies. Some recent examples:
Does anyone remember Kerry’s voting for the $80 billion military bill before voting against it? He said those words and the Republicans used it to maximum effect in their ads. Does anyone remember Bush saying the war couldn’t be won during the Presidential debate with Kerry? Same damned thing. Both sides used the other’s words against each other with great effectiveness.
This is also an example of politicians obsessed with the word “Nazi.” They call each other Nazis, they call groups of people Nazis, they refer to this or that as Nazi. Politicians should stop abusing the word. “Nazi” is synonymous with utter evil. So if members of Congress wish to use the word as a weapon but can’t take the heat that follows, they should get out of the kitchen, because they WILL get burned badly.
Durbin’s apology has effectively ended the food fight; the argument that Durbin was trying to advance (as found in the FBI report) was lost as the food fight progressed.
Here's a 2004 speech from Durbin on treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Though it's a year old, it is still valid today.
Another critic of Guantanamo Bay and the ridiculous “legal limbo” status quo has been silenced.
His comments, when put back into context, are not nearly as bad as they were made out to be. See the Congressional Record on his full speech and accompanying FBI documents that he quoted.
There are some lessons to be drawn from this situation.
The entire controversy is an example of an age-old political tactic to get others to lose face. Both Democrats and Republicans enjoy employing it against one another for leverage and for maximum effect on their political enemies. Some recent examples:
Does anyone remember Kerry’s voting for the $80 billion military bill before voting against it? He said those words and the Republicans used it to maximum effect in their ads. Does anyone remember Bush saying the war couldn’t be won during the Presidential debate with Kerry? Same damned thing. Both sides used the other’s words against each other with great effectiveness.
This is also an example of politicians obsessed with the word “Nazi.” They call each other Nazis, they call groups of people Nazis, they refer to this or that as Nazi. Politicians should stop abusing the word. “Nazi” is synonymous with utter evil. So if members of Congress wish to use the word as a weapon but can’t take the heat that follows, they should get out of the kitchen, because they WILL get burned badly.
Durbin’s apology has effectively ended the food fight; the argument that Durbin was trying to advance (as found in the FBI report) was lost as the food fight progressed.
Here's a 2004 speech from Durbin on treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Though it's a year old, it is still valid today.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
California Shaken By Series of Earthquakes
Californians are wondering if they are going to be hit with a major earthquake sometime in the near future. This, after California was struck by three earthquakes since Sunday. The quakes, measuring 7.2, 5.2 and 4.9 on the Richter Scale, struck within five days of one another.
The 7.2 quake was off the coast of California and caused tsunami warnings to be briefly issued. The latest one, today, struck along the San Andreas faultline which is widely believed will one day slip and cause much of California to be destroyed.
Seismologists are saying that quakes like this happen all the time and that the public should not be alarmed.
The 7.2 quake was off the coast of California and caused tsunami warnings to be briefly issued. The latest one, today, struck along the San Andreas faultline which is widely believed will one day slip and cause much of California to be destroyed.
Seismologists are saying that quakes like this happen all the time and that the public should not be alarmed.
Senator Durbin’s Statements: Look Closely at What He Said Before Condemning Him
Democratic Senator Dick Durban’s comments about comparing American prison guard actions to Nazi and Soviet treatment of prisoners isn’t as bad as Fox News and conservatives are making it out to be.
Here is the passage he read from the FBI report from an agent reporting what he saw during his visits to Guantanamo Bay (and this is directly from the Congressional Record):
This is the very next thing that Durban said:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly that is not the case. This was the actions of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
Now, did he directly say that the American guards were just like Nazi or Soviet guards and their treatment of prisoners?
Read what he said carefully. That’s not what he said at all.
The first sentence is crucial. It says, in brief, that IF we didn’t know that it was an FBI report on how Americans were treating their prisoners, we’d assume that it was a report on Soviet or Nazi conduct toward prisoners due to the brutality of what was happening to the prisoners as described in the report. Or some other regime that is well known for not caring about people, such as Pol Pot.
The second sentence: "Sadly, this is not the case." He's expressing regret that it ISN'T a report from somewhere else about someone else.
The third sentence: "This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." That's what the FBI report says. Durbin was simply re-emphasizing the content of the FBI report.
Understand: this is political hay, nothing more. And it is those who are Guantanamo's biggest supporters who are making the most noise about the Senator's statements. The Senator's statement was accurate and it's making the Administration and those out on the right really upset. They should get over it.
This is free speech. Any attempt to paint it as something else plays right into the opposition's hands. What are the prison camp supporters going to suggest next, banning free speech of Americans who oppose holding foreign prisoners without trial? Will that be part of Patriot Act III?
With all due respect, go jump in a lake.
Here is the passage he read from the FBI report from an agent reporting what he saw during his visits to Guantanamo Bay (and this is directly from the Congressional Record):
This is the very next thing that Durban said:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly that is not the case. This was the actions of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
Now, did he directly say that the American guards were just like Nazi or Soviet guards and their treatment of prisoners?
Read what he said carefully. That’s not what he said at all.
The first sentence is crucial. It says, in brief, that IF we didn’t know that it was an FBI report on how Americans were treating their prisoners, we’d assume that it was a report on Soviet or Nazi conduct toward prisoners due to the brutality of what was happening to the prisoners as described in the report. Or some other regime that is well known for not caring about people, such as Pol Pot.
The second sentence: "Sadly, this is not the case." He's expressing regret that it ISN'T a report from somewhere else about someone else.
The third sentence: "This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." That's what the FBI report says. Durbin was simply re-emphasizing the content of the FBI report.
Understand: this is political hay, nothing more. And it is those who are Guantanamo's biggest supporters who are making the most noise about the Senator's statements. The Senator's statement was accurate and it's making the Administration and those out on the right really upset. They should get over it.
This is free speech. Any attempt to paint it as something else plays right into the opposition's hands. What are the prison camp supporters going to suggest next, banning free speech of Americans who oppose holding foreign prisoners without trial? Will that be part of Patriot Act III?
With all due respect, go jump in a lake.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Deserter Returns to U.S. After Defecting to North Korea Four Decades Ago
A former U.S. Army soldier who defected to North Korea in 1965 is currently in the U.S. visiting his critically ill mother.
He left North Korea last month and turned himself in to U.S. authorities in Japan after his wife (a Japanese national kidnapped by North Korean agents decades ago) was freed and returned home to Japan.
He was subsequently court-martialed, found guilty and sentenced to twenty-five days in jail, plus a dishonorable discharge. He has since rejoined his family.
This man simply didn’t flee to Canada like others in his generation did. He defected to North Korea and cooperated with the North Koreans in their propaganda campaigns against the U.S. and South Korea. He claims that he didn’t want to fight in the Vietnam War, which was raging at the time, but instead of declaring himself a conscientious objector (CO), he ran to the enemy North Korean communists for help.
By declaring himself a CO in 1965, he would have spent some time in the stockade and then been dishonorably discharged (as he did and was last month). Instead he ran away and joined the enemy.
He also turned his back on his mom and his family for four decades.
This man is not just a deserter, but a traitor as well.
Those who wish to protest his presence in his home town of Rich Square, North Carolina, have every right to do so, but they probably shouldn’t. They should ignore him and then let him leave peacefully. What’s done is done. He is a traitor forever; nothing he says or does will change that; nor will the actions of some angry American citizens who want to vent their anger at him. It's likely he'll return with his wife and children to Japan.
Is he even an American citizen anymore?
He left North Korea last month and turned himself in to U.S. authorities in Japan after his wife (a Japanese national kidnapped by North Korean agents decades ago) was freed and returned home to Japan.
He was subsequently court-martialed, found guilty and sentenced to twenty-five days in jail, plus a dishonorable discharge. He has since rejoined his family.
This man simply didn’t flee to Canada like others in his generation did. He defected to North Korea and cooperated with the North Koreans in their propaganda campaigns against the U.S. and South Korea. He claims that he didn’t want to fight in the Vietnam War, which was raging at the time, but instead of declaring himself a conscientious objector (CO), he ran to the enemy North Korean communists for help.
By declaring himself a CO in 1965, he would have spent some time in the stockade and then been dishonorably discharged (as he did and was last month). Instead he ran away and joined the enemy.
He also turned his back on his mom and his family for four decades.
This man is not just a deserter, but a traitor as well.
Those who wish to protest his presence in his home town of Rich Square, North Carolina, have every right to do so, but they probably shouldn’t. They should ignore him and then let him leave peacefully. What’s done is done. He is a traitor forever; nothing he says or does will change that; nor will the actions of some angry American citizens who want to vent their anger at him. It's likely he'll return with his wife and children to Japan.
Is he even an American citizen anymore?
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Jackson’s Career is Over: NOT!
News pundits are saying that Michael Jackson’s singing career is over and that he will never recover from the accusations and trial that led to yesterday’s verdict.
The news pundits are wrong.
They seem to forget that while Jackson’s last album, “HIStory”, tanked in the United States due to all the negative publicity, the album was a runaway hit overseas. So was “Invincible”, his 2001 release. For every album sold in the U.S., five were sold overseas.
The accuser in the recent scandal and trial (and his idiot mother) with the inept prosecution failed to convince a jury that he did what they said he did to this kid. Their case was so full of holes that it didn’t have much of an effect on what the public thinks of Jackson compared to what it thought of him before the accusation and trial. Jackson still remains very popular in Europe and overseas.
IF Jackson stays out of the press and focuses on his singing like he used to when he was the most popular singer on the planet, the die-hard fans will support him and he could slowly recover part of the ground he lost in the United States. And if his music is good enough, as it has been in the past, some will choose to be sympathetic or even chalk up this trial as a case of an overzealous mom and DA going after Jackson for money and revenge.
Here’s what people are saying that he HAS to do to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the general public: he’s gotta stop sleeping with the little boys. There must be no more interviews with Dianne Sawyer or Geraldo Riviera. His speaking voice is a major turn-off to the general public. He must never show public displays of affection toward boys in front of the press. He must not participate in any documentaries EVER again. The only time his voice should be heard on the air is when he’s singing. People don’t want to see Jackson grabbing his crotch while he’s dancing. They don’t want to hear him crying about how mean the police and the DA were to him either. No sleep-overs. EVER again. No hanging his kids over guard rails for the entire world to see. If he has something to say he tells his publicist what to say on his behalf.
The sad part is that he can’t keep his mouth shut and would rather commit suicide than be separated from children. He will tolerate no restrictions or give up his access to children. This is deeply troubling. The jury said afterwards that they felt he was guilty of something, but didn’t have enough evidence to find him guilty due to the ineptitude of the prosecution.
But Jackson is far from being finished with his musical career. So for people to say it’s done, that’s not quite correct. If Jackson doesn’t change his ways IMMEDIATELY, it definitely will be, but for now there is still hope for him to turn things around slowly. But it’s up to him.
The news pundits are wrong.
They seem to forget that while Jackson’s last album, “HIStory”, tanked in the United States due to all the negative publicity, the album was a runaway hit overseas. So was “Invincible”, his 2001 release. For every album sold in the U.S., five were sold overseas.
The accuser in the recent scandal and trial (and his idiot mother) with the inept prosecution failed to convince a jury that he did what they said he did to this kid. Their case was so full of holes that it didn’t have much of an effect on what the public thinks of Jackson compared to what it thought of him before the accusation and trial. Jackson still remains very popular in Europe and overseas.
IF Jackson stays out of the press and focuses on his singing like he used to when he was the most popular singer on the planet, the die-hard fans will support him and he could slowly recover part of the ground he lost in the United States. And if his music is good enough, as it has been in the past, some will choose to be sympathetic or even chalk up this trial as a case of an overzealous mom and DA going after Jackson for money and revenge.
Here’s what people are saying that he HAS to do to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the general public: he’s gotta stop sleeping with the little boys. There must be no more interviews with Dianne Sawyer or Geraldo Riviera. His speaking voice is a major turn-off to the general public. He must never show public displays of affection toward boys in front of the press. He must not participate in any documentaries EVER again. The only time his voice should be heard on the air is when he’s singing. People don’t want to see Jackson grabbing his crotch while he’s dancing. They don’t want to hear him crying about how mean the police and the DA were to him either. No sleep-overs. EVER again. No hanging his kids over guard rails for the entire world to see. If he has something to say he tells his publicist what to say on his behalf.
The sad part is that he can’t keep his mouth shut and would rather commit suicide than be separated from children. He will tolerate no restrictions or give up his access to children. This is deeply troubling. The jury said afterwards that they felt he was guilty of something, but didn’t have enough evidence to find him guilty due to the ineptitude of the prosecution.
But Jackson is far from being finished with his musical career. So for people to say it’s done, that’s not quite correct. If Jackson doesn’t change his ways IMMEDIATELY, it definitely will be, but for now there is still hope for him to turn things around slowly. But it’s up to him.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Sneddon Tells Press Prosection Team Did It’s Job: BS!!
DA Tom Sneddon said in an interview with the press that he was proud of the job that the prosecution team did in the Michael Jackson molestation case and that they were disappointed with the verdict.
Proud of the job that the team did, eh? They failed! What is there to be proud of?
Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. NOT GUILTY on ALL 10 charges!
They executed a hundred search warrants on Jackson, and STILL couldn’t find enough evidence to prop up their weak case. So they went out and found shoddy witnesses who could put some of the pieces together to form a jigsaw puzzle picture with half the pieces missing and hoped that the jury would buy it. They didn’t.
They wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars to execute a hundred searches of the Neverland Ranch and Jackson’s other properties; they wasted millions of dollars bringing a case that they knew was doomed to fail. Why?
So Sneddon could gain some revenge on Jackson for Jackson’s poking fun at Sneddon in some of his songs. For Jackson denying Sneddon his moment in the news by buying off the kid in the 1993 case. Sneddon denies all of this; he doesn’t want the bill for this debacle to have his name on it.
This case should not have been brought against Jackson if the prosecution didn’t feel it could win it. And that kid’s mom on the stand…that was the DA’s worst nightmare scenario that played out before that jury.
This was all about revenge, a kid's story that had been co-opted by his corruptive mom, and a prosecutor who was willing to connect the dots to take advantage of a situation that may or may not have been true to achieve his own ends.
This is justice?
Proud of the job that the team did, eh? They failed! What is there to be proud of?
Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty. NOT GUILTY on ALL 10 charges!
They executed a hundred search warrants on Jackson, and STILL couldn’t find enough evidence to prop up their weak case. So they went out and found shoddy witnesses who could put some of the pieces together to form a jigsaw puzzle picture with half the pieces missing and hoped that the jury would buy it. They didn’t.
They wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars to execute a hundred searches of the Neverland Ranch and Jackson’s other properties; they wasted millions of dollars bringing a case that they knew was doomed to fail. Why?
So Sneddon could gain some revenge on Jackson for Jackson’s poking fun at Sneddon in some of his songs. For Jackson denying Sneddon his moment in the news by buying off the kid in the 1993 case. Sneddon denies all of this; he doesn’t want the bill for this debacle to have his name on it.
This case should not have been brought against Jackson if the prosecution didn’t feel it could win it. And that kid’s mom on the stand…that was the DA’s worst nightmare scenario that played out before that jury.
This was all about revenge, a kid's story that had been co-opted by his corruptive mom, and a prosecutor who was willing to connect the dots to take advantage of a situation that may or may not have been true to achieve his own ends.
This is justice?
Jackson Found Not Guilty: Prosecution Screws Itself
Is anyone REALLY surprised that Michael Jackson was found not guilty?
The prosecution blew its own case when it called bad witnesses to testify who later admitted to lying on the stand while under oath, had grudges against Jackson that they admitted to on the stand, were proven to have an axe to grind, or had some kind of chink in their armor that the defense was able to exploit. And putting the child’s mother on the stand was a HUGE and costly mistake.
Millions of dollars have been wasted on this showboat trial. It was painful to watch the prosecution case fall completely apart and equally enjoyable watching the defense demolish witness after witness. Several journalists were spotted drooling over all the dramatic turns in this case. DA Tom Sneddon should never have allowed that to happen.
Was Jackson guilty?
According to the jury, NO!
But Jackson WAS guilty of putting himself into situations where he was vulnerable to these kinds of accusations. Sleeping in bed with children that were not his own? Going on camera and saying that he did so and that he didn’t have any particular problem with it? With that voice of his, talking about kids and sex, was there anyone out there who wasn’t squirming while watching his interviews?
Jackson must change the way he interacts with children. There are certain lines that must NEVER be crossed when interacting with other people's kids, and Jackson has a reputation for crossing that line casually and then thumbing his nose up at the DA, even blasting Sneddon in one of his songs.
No, Jackson was lucky that the prosecution was inept. DA Sneddon was so focused on getting revenge on Jackson that he led the ENTIRE case to ruin. It’s time for Tom Sneddon to retire to the lake. What a farce!
On a side note, the jury did its job and ruled on the evidence that was presented to it. What other alternative did they have?
The prosecution blew its own case when it called bad witnesses to testify who later admitted to lying on the stand while under oath, had grudges against Jackson that they admitted to on the stand, were proven to have an axe to grind, or had some kind of chink in their armor that the defense was able to exploit. And putting the child’s mother on the stand was a HUGE and costly mistake.
Millions of dollars have been wasted on this showboat trial. It was painful to watch the prosecution case fall completely apart and equally enjoyable watching the defense demolish witness after witness. Several journalists were spotted drooling over all the dramatic turns in this case. DA Tom Sneddon should never have allowed that to happen.
Was Jackson guilty?
According to the jury, NO!
But Jackson WAS guilty of putting himself into situations where he was vulnerable to these kinds of accusations. Sleeping in bed with children that were not his own? Going on camera and saying that he did so and that he didn’t have any particular problem with it? With that voice of his, talking about kids and sex, was there anyone out there who wasn’t squirming while watching his interviews?
Jackson must change the way he interacts with children. There are certain lines that must NEVER be crossed when interacting with other people's kids, and Jackson has a reputation for crossing that line casually and then thumbing his nose up at the DA, even blasting Sneddon in one of his songs.
No, Jackson was lucky that the prosecution was inept. DA Sneddon was so focused on getting revenge on Jackson that he led the ENTIRE case to ruin. It’s time for Tom Sneddon to retire to the lake. What a farce!
On a side note, the jury did its job and ruled on the evidence that was presented to it. What other alternative did they have?
Cheney Says ‘No’ to Plans to Close Guantanamo Prison
Vice-President Cheney says that there are no plans to get rid of the prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amid allegations that prisoners are being abused by guards and interrogators.
That's too bad.
Cheney said that those prisoners who remain there are “hardcore” and “bad people.”
Those prisoners should be transferred to the mainland, put into the criminal justice system, put on trial and put away with other hardened criminals IF they’re found guilty by a jury. This entire concept of the U.S. military holding onto foreign nationals for questioning indefinitely without trial in communist Cuba ought to be done away with.
Does anyone think that our civilian maximum-security prison systems AREN’T full of “hardcore” or “bad people" and cannot handle terrorists as well as murderers?
Gitmo has become a huge distraction and a major publicity problem for an Administration that is trying to rally international support for the war on terror.
America’s human rights image has suffered severe damage from the Administration’s handling of the war, the setting up of these special prison camps and the sex and interrogation scandals coming from those camps. Cheney is dead wrong when he says America's image isn't being damaged.
Enough, already!
Transfer the prisoners over to the American justice system; it’s much better equipped and trained than part-time reserve forces and National Guardsmen (who have been involuntarily called up and sent over there) to handle prisoners properly. Let the military police deal with their own and the civilian courts handle everything else.
That's too bad.
Cheney said that those prisoners who remain there are “hardcore” and “bad people.”
Those prisoners should be transferred to the mainland, put into the criminal justice system, put on trial and put away with other hardened criminals IF they’re found guilty by a jury. This entire concept of the U.S. military holding onto foreign nationals for questioning indefinitely without trial in communist Cuba ought to be done away with.
Does anyone think that our civilian maximum-security prison systems AREN’T full of “hardcore” or “bad people" and cannot handle terrorists as well as murderers?
Gitmo has become a huge distraction and a major publicity problem for an Administration that is trying to rally international support for the war on terror.
America’s human rights image has suffered severe damage from the Administration’s handling of the war, the setting up of these special prison camps and the sex and interrogation scandals coming from those camps. Cheney is dead wrong when he says America's image isn't being damaged.
Enough, already!
Transfer the prisoners over to the American justice system; it’s much better equipped and trained than part-time reserve forces and National Guardsmen (who have been involuntarily called up and sent over there) to handle prisoners properly. Let the military police deal with their own and the civilian courts handle everything else.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Iron No More: Mike Tyson’s Boxing Career Likely Over
Mike Tyson decided that he’d had enough and threw in the towel during his boxing match with Irishman Kevin McBride.
The momentum had turned against Tyson as McBride was beginning to give back what Tyson had been giving him in the first three rounds of the boxing match. During the fifth round, Tyson seemed to forget about boxing and focused on breaking McBride’s arm, below-the-belt shots, and a head-butt to McBride, opening up a cut near McBride’s left eye.
After the fifth round ended, Tyson (barely) returned to his corner and stayed there, telling the referee that he’d had enough. Afterwards, Tyson said that he “didn’t have the stomach for it anymore.”
Tyson had become more of a circus actor in recent years instead of a boxer. His antics in the ring, outside of the ring, and his press conferences were signs that the once-dominant boxer was gone for good. The fire had gone out of him some time ago; it was painful to watch Tyson’s transformation from the world’s most dominant boxer to his current status. He's a convicted felon and boxing was his one hope to recover from fiscal ruin and recover lost glory.
If Tyson is done with boxing for good, there’s always a possibility that he’ll return to the WWE and take up professional wrestling. But given his inability to stay out of trouble, Tyson might have a hard time convincing Vince McMahon that he’ll toe the line and do what Vince tells him to do. McMahon also won't want to pay as much as Tyson would probably want.
Tyson’s huge debts (nearly $40 million) will influence how much he would want if he tried a WWE run. The questions being asked in the sports world are: what will Mike Tyson do now? And is he really done with boxing?
The momentum had turned against Tyson as McBride was beginning to give back what Tyson had been giving him in the first three rounds of the boxing match. During the fifth round, Tyson seemed to forget about boxing and focused on breaking McBride’s arm, below-the-belt shots, and a head-butt to McBride, opening up a cut near McBride’s left eye.
After the fifth round ended, Tyson (barely) returned to his corner and stayed there, telling the referee that he’d had enough. Afterwards, Tyson said that he “didn’t have the stomach for it anymore.”
Tyson had become more of a circus actor in recent years instead of a boxer. His antics in the ring, outside of the ring, and his press conferences were signs that the once-dominant boxer was gone for good. The fire had gone out of him some time ago; it was painful to watch Tyson’s transformation from the world’s most dominant boxer to his current status. He's a convicted felon and boxing was his one hope to recover from fiscal ruin and recover lost glory.
If Tyson is done with boxing for good, there’s always a possibility that he’ll return to the WWE and take up professional wrestling. But given his inability to stay out of trouble, Tyson might have a hard time convincing Vince McMahon that he’ll toe the line and do what Vince tells him to do. McMahon also won't want to pay as much as Tyson would probably want.
Tyson’s huge debts (nearly $40 million) will influence how much he would want if he tried a WWE run. The questions being asked in the sports world are: what will Mike Tyson do now? And is he really done with boxing?
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Jackson Verdict Coming Soon
Much of the Western world is awaiting the Michael Jackson verdict, which could come any day.
One observation heard: the jury has put in five solid days so far; the odds are that this means that the jury is deadlocked and both sides are trying to convince the other side of Jackson’s guilt or innocence.
Can you imagine the books that the jurors will write about this? It’s a captivating story and one that will have legal experts and the entertainment world talking about for years to come.
My prediction: hung jury most likely; innocent verdict highly likely; guilty verdict uncertain.
One observation heard: the jury has put in five solid days so far; the odds are that this means that the jury is deadlocked and both sides are trying to convince the other side of Jackson’s guilt or innocence.
Can you imagine the books that the jurors will write about this? It’s a captivating story and one that will have legal experts and the entertainment world talking about for years to come.
My prediction: hung jury most likely; innocent verdict highly likely; guilty verdict uncertain.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Time for a Bolton Vote: Congress Should Vote Him Down
The time has come for the Senate to vote on the Bolton nomination. It should be noted that paperwork that the Senate has legally requested from the White House has yet to be turned over. The White House has indicated that it will not do so, so the Senate should reject the Bolton nomination 100-0 to get President Bush’s attention.
It doesn’t matter what the papers contain; a request for more information from the Senate is in accordance with the rules, so the White House should get with the program and honor the request so that this dead nomination can finally be buried.
Remember, no one likes a jerk for a boss.
It doesn’t matter what the papers contain; a request for more information from the Senate is in accordance with the rules, so the White House should get with the program and honor the request so that this dead nomination can finally be buried.
Remember, no one likes a jerk for a boss.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Lucas Talks of a Pre-Episode I Star Wars Movie
George Lucas said in an interview that he was considering a pre-Episode I Star Wars movie. Whether he was batting an idea around, joking, or dropping hints, it makes for an interesting discussion.
With the highly successful "Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" behind him, Lucas is looking at doing two Star Wars TV series.
If there was any weight to his comments about a pre-Phantom Menace movie, some think that it would be better if he did a movie that follows immediately after Revenge of the Sith to explain a few things, instead of focusing on Palpatine’s becoming a Dark Jedi and how he murdered his master in his sleep after learning all he could from Darth Plagius the Wise.
Some questions for an Episode 3½ : did all the Jedi (except Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi) die during the events of Episode III, or were there other Jedi that went into hiding, only to be hunted down by Darth Vader and the Emperor later on?
It’s been said in the Star Wars expanded universe that Palpatine subjugated all alien races and made humans the dominant species in the Empire. Is that Star Wars canon?
How did the Rebellion start, and when? When did Mon Mothma become leader of the Rebel Alliance? When did she stop being a senator and become a fugitive from the Emperor?
People have been waiting for the story of Darth Vader and the Emperor's rise to power to be told, so the story should be moved forward from Episode III, not back further in time.
With the highly successful "Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" behind him, Lucas is looking at doing two Star Wars TV series.
If there was any weight to his comments about a pre-Phantom Menace movie, some think that it would be better if he did a movie that follows immediately after Revenge of the Sith to explain a few things, instead of focusing on Palpatine’s becoming a Dark Jedi and how he murdered his master in his sleep after learning all he could from Darth Plagius the Wise.
Some questions for an Episode 3½ : did all the Jedi (except Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi) die during the events of Episode III, or were there other Jedi that went into hiding, only to be hunted down by Darth Vader and the Emperor later on?
It’s been said in the Star Wars expanded universe that Palpatine subjugated all alien races and made humans the dominant species in the Empire. Is that Star Wars canon?
How did the Rebellion start, and when? When did Mon Mothma become leader of the Rebel Alliance? When did she stop being a senator and become a fugitive from the Emperor?
People have been waiting for the story of Darth Vader and the Emperor's rise to power to be told, so the story should be moved forward from Episode III, not back further in time.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Bush Speech to OAS Falls Flat
President Bush had the honor of welcoming delegates to the Organization of American States to their annual meeting last week, which was held in Florida. It’s the first time since the mid-1970s that the United States has hosted the OAS.
Bush’s speech was disappointing and troubling. Based on what he said during that speech, it appears that he is not done sending the U.S. military in to liberate other countries from themselves. He proposed monitoring threats to democracy in the Americas and having other neighboring democracies intervene when democratic principals are threatened in any OAS member nation.
This is coming across as cowboy diplomacy from President Bush. He has two jobs to finish off (Iraq and Afghanistan), BEFORE getting us into a military confrontation anywhere else.
Bush should convince the OAS to isolate offending nations instead of convincing their neighbors to invade under the pretext of preserving democracy. His current proposal is meeting heavy resistance in Central and South America. Here’s why:
Nicaragua—invaded five times by U.S. military, including a 10 year occupation.
Panama—invaded sixteen times by U.S. military
Honduras—invaded five times by the U.S. military
Dominican Republic—invaded five times by the U.S. military, including an 8 year occupation.
Cuba—invaded five times by the U.S. military
Guatemala—invaded six times by the U.S. military
Granada—invaded once by the U.S. military
El Salvador—invaded once by the U.S. military
Argentina—invaded once by the U.S. military
Haiti—invaded twice by the U.S. military, including a 19 year occupation.
Latin America doesn’t want more help with their internal affairs from the U.S. government. This is why governments friendly to the U.S. are opposing Bush's proposal. They are agreed that democracy does need to be encouraged, but use of military force should be the measure of last resort, not the first, in Latin America.
The U.S. needs to be encouraging more diplomacy, not more military adventures. There's enough military stuff going on in the world as it is.
Bush’s speech was disappointing and troubling. Based on what he said during that speech, it appears that he is not done sending the U.S. military in to liberate other countries from themselves. He proposed monitoring threats to democracy in the Americas and having other neighboring democracies intervene when democratic principals are threatened in any OAS member nation.
This is coming across as cowboy diplomacy from President Bush. He has two jobs to finish off (Iraq and Afghanistan), BEFORE getting us into a military confrontation anywhere else.
Bush should convince the OAS to isolate offending nations instead of convincing their neighbors to invade under the pretext of preserving democracy. His current proposal is meeting heavy resistance in Central and South America. Here’s why:
Nicaragua—invaded five times by U.S. military, including a 10 year occupation.
Panama—invaded sixteen times by U.S. military
Honduras—invaded five times by the U.S. military
Dominican Republic—invaded five times by the U.S. military, including an 8 year occupation.
Cuba—invaded five times by the U.S. military
Guatemala—invaded six times by the U.S. military
Granada—invaded once by the U.S. military
El Salvador—invaded once by the U.S. military
Argentina—invaded once by the U.S. military
Haiti—invaded twice by the U.S. military, including a 19 year occupation.
Latin America doesn’t want more help with their internal affairs from the U.S. government. This is why governments friendly to the U.S. are opposing Bush's proposal. They are agreed that democracy does need to be encouraged, but use of military force should be the measure of last resort, not the first, in Latin America.
The U.S. needs to be encouraging more diplomacy, not more military adventures. There's enough military stuff going on in the world as it is.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
North Koreans Praise President Bush for Calling Their Dictator "Mr. Dictator": How Dumb Can They Get?
The government of North Korea is praising President Bush for calling President Kim Jong-Ill “Mr. Kim Jong-Il.” This came a few days after the North Korean government called Vice-President Cheney a “blood-thirsty beast” after Cheney referred to the North Korean President as “irresponsible.”
Respectfully, North Korea should fire that SOB Jong-Il, and take care of the North Korean people who have suffered greatly the last couple of years from starvation, mysterious explosions and disease, and ban the North Korean communist party.
And President Bush shouldn’t use the “Mr.” in a civilized context with President Kim Jong-Il. He doesn’t deserve to be called by that honorific reference. He’s allowed millions of his people starve to death and used his military to keep the North Korean population from protesting against his mismanagement of North Korea’s food supply (among other things). His military seems to be eating pretty well he doesn’t look like he’s starving to death either.
So instead of playing word games with the U.S., North Korea really ought to secure international help in taking care of average North Koreans, and the six-way talks are the perfect place to start that process.
But North Korea’s blustering conduct so far has not resulted in favorable terms for the communist regime. They need to get with the program, forget about nuclear weapons and rejoin the community of nations. They need to make nice with their neighbors, so that their neighbors will help them with peaceful efforts, such as stabilizing the starvation problem that the North Koreans are trying to ignore.
Respectfully, North Korea should fire that SOB Jong-Il, and take care of the North Korean people who have suffered greatly the last couple of years from starvation, mysterious explosions and disease, and ban the North Korean communist party.
And President Bush shouldn’t use the “Mr.” in a civilized context with President Kim Jong-Il. He doesn’t deserve to be called by that honorific reference. He’s allowed millions of his people starve to death and used his military to keep the North Korean population from protesting against his mismanagement of North Korea’s food supply (among other things). His military seems to be eating pretty well he doesn’t look like he’s starving to death either.
So instead of playing word games with the U.S., North Korea really ought to secure international help in taking care of average North Koreans, and the six-way talks are the perfect place to start that process.
But North Korea’s blustering conduct so far has not resulted in favorable terms for the communist regime. They need to get with the program, forget about nuclear weapons and rejoin the community of nations. They need to make nice with their neighbors, so that their neighbors will help them with peaceful efforts, such as stabilizing the starvation problem that the North Koreans are trying to ignore.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Current EU Draft Constitution Dead: Netherlands Join France in Rejecting Treaty
The voters of the Netherlands joined with the voters of France and sent the draft EU Constitution straight into the garbage can.
The Dutch voted the treaty down 62% to 38%. That was a worse defeat for the treaty than the French ‘no’ vote of 55% to 45%. It is widely believed that some in the Dutch public were reluctant to vote ‘no’ on the treaty because they didn’t want their country, a founding member of the European Union, to be the first European nation to vote it down.
When the French did the honors and became the first nation to reject it, the pressure was off the Dutch and they voted how they felt.
What happens now?
Here's the story.
The Dutch voted the treaty down 62% to 38%. That was a worse defeat for the treaty than the French ‘no’ vote of 55% to 45%. It is widely believed that some in the Dutch public were reluctant to vote ‘no’ on the treaty because they didn’t want their country, a founding member of the European Union, to be the first European nation to vote it down.
When the French did the honors and became the first nation to reject it, the pressure was off the Dutch and they voted how they felt.
What happens now?
Here's the story.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Cheney in 2008?
There has been talk in the press of a serious 'dark horse' run at the White House by current U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.
This deserves some thought and conversation.
Would a Cheney Administration mean an extension of the Iraq War to 2012, or beyond?
Would he continue his pro-life stance?
Where would he stand on gay marriage as President? His point of view would be as the father of an out-of-the-closet daughter; the powerful religious right would be watching this issue very closely; so would gay rights activists. He would be in a no-win scenario: if he goes conservative on the issue, he'll be betraying his daughter; if he goes left on the issue, his conservative supporters will accuse him of betraying his principles and them. That is not an enviable position to be in.
Where would he stand on taxes? We've gone way too far in cutting taxes while there is a war going on. Would he support making the tax cuts permanent?
What about IRS reform?
What kind of Justices would Cheney put on the Supreme Court? The next two Presidential terms could see several Justices retire. The shape of the Court for the next twenty years (or longer) could be decided by Bush and his successor.
Would Cheney take a more pro-environment stand, or would he continue to side with big business? What about alternative energy?
Should be interesting to watch this play out (if it does).
This deserves some thought and conversation.
Would a Cheney Administration mean an extension of the Iraq War to 2012, or beyond?
Would he continue his pro-life stance?
Where would he stand on gay marriage as President? His point of view would be as the father of an out-of-the-closet daughter; the powerful religious right would be watching this issue very closely; so would gay rights activists. He would be in a no-win scenario: if he goes conservative on the issue, he'll be betraying his daughter; if he goes left on the issue, his conservative supporters will accuse him of betraying his principles and them. That is not an enviable position to be in.
Where would he stand on taxes? We've gone way too far in cutting taxes while there is a war going on. Would he support making the tax cuts permanent?
What about IRS reform?
What kind of Justices would Cheney put on the Supreme Court? The next two Presidential terms could see several Justices retire. The shape of the Court for the next twenty years (or longer) could be decided by Bush and his successor.
Would Cheney take a more pro-environment stand, or would he continue to side with big business? What about alternative energy?
Should be interesting to watch this play out (if it does).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)