Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Why I identify as a Republican...
When I first read this column by Michael Tomasky, I meant to comment on it, since it was one of the first issues that dealt straight on with a major problem I have with the Democrats. I never got around to it, until I was prompted by this Armed Liberal post.
I'm opposed to abortion. It's a big deal with me, but not the biggest, and certainly not the only. My politics are weird enough that I accept there is no way in hell any candidate is going to be everything I'm looking for, so I look for 1.) people who agree with me on most major stuff, and 2.) People who at least understand where I'm coming from on the rest of it. I recognize that Democrats as a party support abortion rights, and consequently, so do most of their members. I'm cool - it's a complex issue, reasonable people will differ. But even when I suck it up and vote for for a pro-choice candidate (Max Cleland, just to pick a recent example), it's recognizing that I'm going against at least one issue that is important, and the idea that fighting anything that could even remotely be conceived as contrary to abortion-rights dogma trumps all else strikes me as shrill, and I'm not sure that folks realize how they sound when they're doing it.
A while back, the National Review Online posted a debate about gay marriage, where the conservative case for gay marriage (or at least civil unions) was discussed in depth. Andrew Sullivan speaks to conservative audiences on the issue regularly. None of this changes the general view of the GOP or conservatives as a larger group, (& it certainly doesn't do much good with the wackos, but like the poor, the wackos will always be with us), but the fact that these things exist means I don't feel so out in the cold disagreeing with conservatives on this particular issue. If the Nation, American Prospect, or Progressive has ever done anything simliar on abortion, I haven't seen it.
I disagree with conservative orthodoxy on several issues, enough that a Democrat who made a serious pitch for my vote would stand a chance of getting it. On the other hand, even a guy as liberal as Dennis Kucinich had to abandon his opposition to abortion before he could present himself as a Democrat on a nationwide stage. And if Dennis Kucinich couldn't call himself a Democrat based on this one issue, why should anyone with any objections to abortion even bother?
When I first read this column by Michael Tomasky, I meant to comment on it, since it was one of the first issues that dealt straight on with a major problem I have with the Democrats. I never got around to it, until I was prompted by this Armed Liberal post.
I'm opposed to abortion. It's a big deal with me, but not the biggest, and certainly not the only. My politics are weird enough that I accept there is no way in hell any candidate is going to be everything I'm looking for, so I look for 1.) people who agree with me on most major stuff, and 2.) People who at least understand where I'm coming from on the rest of it. I recognize that Democrats as a party support abortion rights, and consequently, so do most of their members. I'm cool - it's a complex issue, reasonable people will differ. But even when I suck it up and vote for for a pro-choice candidate (Max Cleland, just to pick a recent example), it's recognizing that I'm going against at least one issue that is important, and the idea that fighting anything that could even remotely be conceived as contrary to abortion-rights dogma trumps all else strikes me as shrill, and I'm not sure that folks realize how they sound when they're doing it.
A while back, the National Review Online posted a debate about gay marriage, where the conservative case for gay marriage (or at least civil unions) was discussed in depth. Andrew Sullivan speaks to conservative audiences on the issue regularly. None of this changes the general view of the GOP or conservatives as a larger group, (& it certainly doesn't do much good with the wackos, but like the poor, the wackos will always be with us), but the fact that these things exist means I don't feel so out in the cold disagreeing with conservatives on this particular issue. If the Nation, American Prospect, or Progressive has ever done anything simliar on abortion, I haven't seen it.
I disagree with conservative orthodoxy on several issues, enough that a Democrat who made a serious pitch for my vote would stand a chance of getting it. On the other hand, even a guy as liberal as Dennis Kucinich had to abandon his opposition to abortion before he could present himself as a Democrat on a nationwide stage. And if Dennis Kucinich couldn't call himself a Democrat based on this one issue, why should anyone with any objections to abortion even bother?
This is what happens when Angel is in reruns...
Vampire stories. We all love 'em, right? From Bram Stoker to Joss Whedon, there's no shortage of tales of supernatural horror to serve as silly escapism from the humdrum realities of modern life.
It is just silly escapism, right? Cause, if it is, someone needs to tell these people. (Note - link does not lead to hot Goth chicks in black leather, but rather a story about Romanians who dug up a corpse, cut his heart out, and ate it in an effort to prevent his undead form from stalking their family. Sorry.)
Better safe then sorry, I suppose.
Link via Volokh.
Vampire stories. We all love 'em, right? From Bram Stoker to Joss Whedon, there's no shortage of tales of supernatural horror to serve as silly escapism from the humdrum realities of modern life.
It is just silly escapism, right? Cause, if it is, someone needs to tell these people. (Note - link does not lead to hot Goth chicks in black leather, but rather a story about Romanians who dug up a corpse, cut his heart out, and ate it in an effort to prevent his undead form from stalking their family. Sorry.)
Better safe then sorry, I suppose.
Link via Volokh.
In defense of optimism...
It's always heartbreaking to listen to the families of people gone missing. Especially if you're familiar with the math on the subject. About how very, very rare it is for people who go missing for too long to be seen again. All too often, a body is all you can return.
The families believe, and we skeptics think it's because they have to. It wasn't all that long ago that I was thrilled to be wrong. It's still heartbreaking to watch the desperate hope that grips the families of the missing. But, thank God, sometimes that optimism is rewarded.
It's always heartbreaking to listen to the families of people gone missing. Especially if you're familiar with the math on the subject. About how very, very rare it is for people who go missing for too long to be seen again. All too often, a body is all you can return.
The families believe, and we skeptics think it's because they have to. It wasn't all that long ago that I was thrilled to be wrong. It's still heartbreaking to watch the desperate hope that grips the families of the missing. But, thank God, sometimes that optimism is rewarded.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
OK, so is there a larger lesson here or not?
Yesterday, I posted about an attempt to compare a brutal hate crime in Atlanta with the modest physical harassment suffered by a few Bushies counterprotesting an anti-Bush rally. Mithras, who pointed me towards this story, invites readers to "pick a side."
David Neiwart, who originally brought the story of the Atlanta hate crime to greater attention, has disavowed it and apologized to readers for posting it in the first place. He allows for the possibility that it may still pan out, and isn't going to go off on the people who led him down this apparently primrose path just yet, so there may still be some there there. But the fact that repeated attempts, from multiple people, to confirm any aspect of the story have borne nothing suggests that this urban legend may well be just that. (Atlanta PD's liason to the GLBT community heard nothing about it.)
Now, I never thought that either incident said anything about their respective "sides" as a whole. I said as much yesterday. But some who accepted this story seemed to believe its veracity said something about "the right." To those people, I ask: If the story is a hoax, does that say anything about "the left?" And, more importantly, if the story had larger implications yesterday, but not today, what's the difference?
I don't think it does have any larger implications. But then, I didn't think so yesterday either.
(Note - as I posted in Orcinus' comment section, I think Mr. Neiwart has handled the whole thing in a professional and classy manner. The blogosphere has always operated as a kind of rapid reaction environment, and when he heard about something, he posted his response. Later, when he was given cause to doubt what he first heard, he took it down and posted a correction. The only thing he did was believe something that turned out (apparently) not to be true, and that's only a fault if you refuse to correct the mistake. He did.)
Yesterday, I posted about an attempt to compare a brutal hate crime in Atlanta with the modest physical harassment suffered by a few Bushies counterprotesting an anti-Bush rally. Mithras, who pointed me towards this story, invites readers to "pick a side."
David Neiwart, who originally brought the story of the Atlanta hate crime to greater attention, has disavowed it and apologized to readers for posting it in the first place. He allows for the possibility that it may still pan out, and isn't going to go off on the people who led him down this apparently primrose path just yet, so there may still be some there there. But the fact that repeated attempts, from multiple people, to confirm any aspect of the story have borne nothing suggests that this urban legend may well be just that. (Atlanta PD's liason to the GLBT community heard nothing about it.)
Now, I never thought that either incident said anything about their respective "sides" as a whole. I said as much yesterday. But some who accepted this story seemed to believe its veracity said something about "the right." To those people, I ask: If the story is a hoax, does that say anything about "the left?" And, more importantly, if the story had larger implications yesterday, but not today, what's the difference?
I don't think it does have any larger implications. But then, I didn't think so yesterday either.
(Note - as I posted in Orcinus' comment section, I think Mr. Neiwart has handled the whole thing in a professional and classy manner. The blogosphere has always operated as a kind of rapid reaction environment, and when he heard about something, he posted his response. Later, when he was given cause to doubt what he first heard, he took it down and posted a correction. The only thing he did was believe something that turned out (apparently) not to be true, and that's only a fault if you refuse to correct the mistake. He did.)
Heroes...
We see them everywhere. Sometimes they wear uniforms. Police, firefighters, military...Tampa Bay Devil Ray...
We admire their courage, their willingness to perservere in the face of danger, their cold, wet noses...
Their cold wet noses?
Their cold wet noses.
We see them everywhere. Sometimes they wear uniforms. Police, firefighters, military...Tampa Bay Devil Ray...
We admire their courage, their willingness to perservere in the face of danger, their cold, wet noses...
Their cold wet noses?
Their cold wet noses.
Why it's better to be a good guy then a bad guy...
Uzbekistan is apparently reeling from being hit by terrorists. I say "apparently", because, hey, this is Uzbekistan. Anything you hear from Islam Karimov's government should be taken with a shakerful of salt.
It's better to be a good guy then a bad guy, because if Karimov were a good guy, we'd be more able to trust that the dead were terrorists foiled attempting to commit mayhem. Because this jackass does kill people just for thinking differently.
Uzbekistan is apparently reeling from being hit by terrorists. I say "apparently", because, hey, this is Uzbekistan. Anything you hear from Islam Karimov's government should be taken with a shakerful of salt.
It's better to be a good guy then a bad guy, because if Karimov were a good guy, we'd be more able to trust that the dead were terrorists foiled attempting to commit mayhem. Because this jackass does kill people just for thinking differently.
From "Fuhgeddaboudit!" to " 'Ow you doin'?"
Sopranos' Adrianna stepping down in class to join cast of "Joey"
The real reason this is news, of course, is that Adrianna has been cooperating with the FBI against, which means if they have to write her off the show...well, she's walking a fine line as it is.
Just check your bag next time you go bowling, is all I'm saying.
Sopranos' Adrianna stepping down in class to join cast of "Joey"
The real reason this is news, of course, is that Adrianna has been cooperating with the FBI against, which means if they have to write her off the show...well, she's walking a fine line as it is.
Just check your bag next time you go bowling, is all I'm saying.
Veddy, veddy eeentairesting...
OK, here's the situation...your parents went away for a week's vacation...
No, that's not it. The situation is you're in charge of a small Georgia town that's hosting the G-8. You know protestors are coming, 'cause you're a beautiful town on the beach. (I'm just saying, how many protestors would be willing to protest in the barren wasteland of northern Nunavut.) You're worried about the damage they're going to do.
You pass an ordinance that some people say goes to far. Or, more accurately, some people would have said goes too far if the protestors hadn't responded by threatening violence.
"If the city doesn't cooperate with us, we'll pull out," Pleasant said. "Then they'll be left with 5,000 to 10,000 activists who are real angry, and their precious little downtown could go up in flames. The less organization and planning you have, the more likelihood of that scenario."
You know, pledging to take responsiblity for your group, promising to help with cleanup, and making a statement that protesting globalization was all about helping the small businessman, and your local spending would reflect that, probably would have gone a long way.
I'm just saying, having dealt with small town leaders in the past, that "do things my way or your town will burn" tends not to work.
OK, here's the situation...your parents went away for a week's vacation...
No, that's not it. The situation is you're in charge of a small Georgia town that's hosting the G-8. You know protestors are coming, 'cause you're a beautiful town on the beach. (I'm just saying, how many protestors would be willing to protest in the barren wasteland of northern Nunavut.) You're worried about the damage they're going to do.
You pass an ordinance that some people say goes to far. Or, more accurately, some people would have said goes too far if the protestors hadn't responded by threatening violence.
"If the city doesn't cooperate with us, we'll pull out," Pleasant said. "Then they'll be left with 5,000 to 10,000 activists who are real angry, and their precious little downtown could go up in flames. The less organization and planning you have, the more likelihood of that scenario."
You know, pledging to take responsiblity for your group, promising to help with cleanup, and making a statement that protesting globalization was all about helping the small businessman, and your local spending would reflect that, probably would have gone a long way.
I'm just saying, having dealt with small town leaders in the past, that "do things my way or your town will burn" tends not to work.
I'm just asking...
OK, Bush is the President. That means he'll get credit for everything that goes well on his watch, and blamed for everything that goes bad. It's unfair, but it's unfair to everyone, since any President would get the same treatment. So has it been, so shall it ever be, que sera sera, etc.
Currently, gas prices are high. John Kerry is blaming George Bush. Fair point, or at least, fair within the context of political debate.
Here's the question. As a good environmentalist, doesn't Kerry want gas prices to be high? Wouldn't $2 a gallon and up gas encourage us to carpool, walk or bike more, purchase more energy efficient vehicles, and move forwards on alternative transportation? I mean, President Kerry isn't going to make it easier and more affordable for us all to drive everywhere in our pollution-belching SUV's, is he?
I mean, traffic in Atlanta is bad enough as it is.
OK, Bush is the President. That means he'll get credit for everything that goes well on his watch, and blamed for everything that goes bad. It's unfair, but it's unfair to everyone, since any President would get the same treatment. So has it been, so shall it ever be, que sera sera, etc.
Currently, gas prices are high. John Kerry is blaming George Bush. Fair point, or at least, fair within the context of political debate.
Here's the question. As a good environmentalist, doesn't Kerry want gas prices to be high? Wouldn't $2 a gallon and up gas encourage us to carpool, walk or bike more, purchase more energy efficient vehicles, and move forwards on alternative transportation? I mean, President Kerry isn't going to make it easier and more affordable for us all to drive everywhere in our pollution-belching SUV's, is he?
I mean, traffic in Atlanta is bad enough as it is.
Could you be a bigger bunch of punks?
Those wacky Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are at it again. See, some U.S. diplomats are visiting the region, so those crazy kids decide to go and threaten them.
Then, of course, you know what happens. What always happens when wacky kids are having fun. Someone runs and tells mom, and she has to back off.
Just wondering - how does that qualify as a "veiled" threat, as described by the Guardian. Did anyone think that Al-Aqsa was advising diplomats not to visit because the Gaza Strip lacks sufficient nightlife?
In other news of big bad terrorists acting like sissy little nancy-boys, newly appointed Hamas uberstud Abdel Aziz Rantisi ducks the softest of softball questions, regarding Hamas' commitment to Israel's destruction. The relevant exchange:
SPIEGEL: Are you truly interested in nothing more than an end to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Isn't your true goal to drive out the Jews, because you believe that the Israelis have no right to this country?
Rantissi: I want an end to the decades-long tragedy of the Palestinian people.
Who is this bozo kidding. Everyone knows what Hamas wants. No Hamas leader has ever equivocated on the subject. Heck, we know this is a softball interview, because the guy referred to Yassin's killing as a murder in the first question. And you can't give this guy a straight answer?
What a wuss.
Those wacky Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are at it again. See, some U.S. diplomats are visiting the region, so those crazy kids decide to go and threaten them.
Then, of course, you know what happens. What always happens when wacky kids are having fun. Someone runs and tells mom, and she has to back off.
Just wondering - how does that qualify as a "veiled" threat, as described by the Guardian. Did anyone think that Al-Aqsa was advising diplomats not to visit because the Gaza Strip lacks sufficient nightlife?
In other news of big bad terrorists acting like sissy little nancy-boys, newly appointed Hamas uberstud Abdel Aziz Rantisi ducks the softest of softball questions, regarding Hamas' commitment to Israel's destruction. The relevant exchange:
SPIEGEL: Are you truly interested in nothing more than an end to the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Isn't your true goal to drive out the Jews, because you believe that the Israelis have no right to this country?
Rantissi: I want an end to the decades-long tragedy of the Palestinian people.
Who is this bozo kidding. Everyone knows what Hamas wants. No Hamas leader has ever equivocated on the subject. Heck, we know this is a softball interview, because the guy referred to Yassin's killing as a murder in the first question. And you can't give this guy a straight answer?
What a wuss.
Taiwan on...
Come on, it's hard to think of witty headlines all the time. Via the indispensible Oxbloggers refers to an interview that Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian gave to the Washington Post.
In it, he emphatically refuses to cop to this "one China" nonsense. Reading further, I'd say this quote:
"Therefore, in the year 2006, we will hasten the birth of a new constitution for Taiwan, and in 2008, we intend to enact this new constitution, a tailor-made, efficient constitution that is suitable for Taiwan. And this is just a timetable for our constitutional reform. It is not a timetable for independence or any attempt to change our status quo." ...
...I'd say that throws down the gauntlet. He says it's not an attempt to change the status quo, but who are we kidding? It's a declaration that Taiwan will not be submitting to Beijing's governance any time soon. And China has always insisted that everyone keep up the illusion that Taiwan will soon be reunited with the mainland. Chen is pointing out the very real and very relevant point that the majority of Taiwan's citizens don't want to be part of China, especially not as China is currently constituted. The problem is, China's track record on listening to what citizens want is less than stellar.
I don't think the timeline Chen lays out is an accident, either. In 2008, of course, Beijing hosts the Summer Olympics, at which they intend to present themselves as a grown-up, responsible member of the world community. Invasions or or about Olympic time don't go over well abroad. The other side, however, is China places a lot of national pride on their claim to Taiwan, and they may just decide to piss the rest of the world off before they let Taiwan do anything that smacks of independence.
Which is where things get really fun. You see, we've promised to defend Taiwan. There is apparently a school of thought in China that says we haven't got the coconuts. (Money quote at bottom, where General Xiong is reported to have told a former U.S. official that the United States would not fight to defend Taiwan because "you will not sacrifice Los Angeles to protect Taiwan.") What I don't think the Chinese get is how popular Taiwan is here, which should actually make U.S. leaders nervous, since there will be considerable pressure not to abandon Taiwan, regardless of how much easier it makes life.
As I've previously stated on Chen, I'm a fan. And I don't think it helps anyone to pretend things that aren't true, like that Taiwan isn't an actual country. I think China keeps Taiwan from supporting reunification by preserving their authoritarian style of government, which means that China's leaders prefer their own personal power to the reunification of their country. Not very patriotic. Since the Tiananmen Square Fan Club isn't likely to have a crisis of conscience any time soon, things may come to a head sooner rather then later, with the hopes that things blow over by 2008.
No easy solutions here. Either we join a regional conflict on behalf of an small ally against a large nuclear power, or we punk out in front of God and the world. Remind me again why anyone would want to be President.
Come on, it's hard to think of witty headlines all the time. Via the indispensible Oxbloggers refers to an interview that Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian gave to the Washington Post.
In it, he emphatically refuses to cop to this "one China" nonsense. Reading further, I'd say this quote:
"Therefore, in the year 2006, we will hasten the birth of a new constitution for Taiwan, and in 2008, we intend to enact this new constitution, a tailor-made, efficient constitution that is suitable for Taiwan. And this is just a timetable for our constitutional reform. It is not a timetable for independence or any attempt to change our status quo." ...
...I'd say that throws down the gauntlet. He says it's not an attempt to change the status quo, but who are we kidding? It's a declaration that Taiwan will not be submitting to Beijing's governance any time soon. And China has always insisted that everyone keep up the illusion that Taiwan will soon be reunited with the mainland. Chen is pointing out the very real and very relevant point that the majority of Taiwan's citizens don't want to be part of China, especially not as China is currently constituted. The problem is, China's track record on listening to what citizens want is less than stellar.
I don't think the timeline Chen lays out is an accident, either. In 2008, of course, Beijing hosts the Summer Olympics, at which they intend to present themselves as a grown-up, responsible member of the world community. Invasions or or about Olympic time don't go over well abroad. The other side, however, is China places a lot of national pride on their claim to Taiwan, and they may just decide to piss the rest of the world off before they let Taiwan do anything that smacks of independence.
Which is where things get really fun. You see, we've promised to defend Taiwan. There is apparently a school of thought in China that says we haven't got the coconuts. (Money quote at bottom, where General Xiong is reported to have told a former U.S. official that the United States would not fight to defend Taiwan because "you will not sacrifice Los Angeles to protect Taiwan.") What I don't think the Chinese get is how popular Taiwan is here, which should actually make U.S. leaders nervous, since there will be considerable pressure not to abandon Taiwan, regardless of how much easier it makes life.
As I've previously stated on Chen, I'm a fan. And I don't think it helps anyone to pretend things that aren't true, like that Taiwan isn't an actual country. I think China keeps Taiwan from supporting reunification by preserving their authoritarian style of government, which means that China's leaders prefer their own personal power to the reunification of their country. Not very patriotic. Since the Tiananmen Square Fan Club isn't likely to have a crisis of conscience any time soon, things may come to a head sooner rather then later, with the hopes that things blow over by 2008.
No easy solutions here. Either we join a regional conflict on behalf of an small ally against a large nuclear power, or we punk out in front of God and the world. Remind me again why anyone would want to be President.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Those wacky jurors...
We've all heard about the Tyco trial, where one juror is apparently holding out and preventing a conviction. I don't have much of a problem with it myself. She's a juror, you have to persuade her beyond a reasonable doubt. Either do it, or try the stupid case again. That's how things work.
Besides, lone jurors can change things the other way, too. Here in Atlanta, one juror is giving prosecutors another shot at trying an alleged murderer.
No real comment at the moment. Just interesting.
We've all heard about the Tyco trial, where one juror is apparently holding out and preventing a conviction. I don't have much of a problem with it myself. She's a juror, you have to persuade her beyond a reasonable doubt. Either do it, or try the stupid case again. That's how things work.
Besides, lone jurors can change things the other way, too. Here in Atlanta, one juror is giving prosecutors another shot at trying an alleged murderer.
No real comment at the moment. Just interesting.
You see the coolest stuff reading blogs...
I mean, granted, working is fun, too. But when you check out blogs like Karol's, you can learn about the political geek equivalent of the NCAA tournament pools that have been sucking me dry for years.
So, without delay, enter the Maybe I Think Too Much election pool. I mean, you could win a subscription to the National Review or The American Prospect! How cool is that?
Don't answer that.
I mean, granted, working is fun, too. But when you check out blogs like Karol's, you can learn about the political geek equivalent of the NCAA tournament pools that have been sucking me dry for years.
So, without delay, enter the Maybe I Think Too Much election pool. I mean, you could win a subscription to the National Review or The American Prospect! How cool is that?
Don't answer that.
Good news, bad news...
The good news: Denise Majette running for Senate. This is good news because Majette is a perfectly credible candidate with fairly high name recognition, there should actually be a real race for the Senate this year. Not that he's a bad guy (I'll probably vote for him), but likely nominee Johnny Isakson needs a real opponent in the fall.
The bad news. This clears the way for Cynthia McKinney to get back in Congress. That's right. Cynthia McKinney. The woman who once filed a lawsuit claiming it was illegal to vote against her.
Great. Ceasar's. Ghost.
The good news: Denise Majette running for Senate. This is good news because Majette is a perfectly credible candidate with fairly high name recognition, there should actually be a real race for the Senate this year. Not that he's a bad guy (I'll probably vote for him), but likely nominee Johnny Isakson needs a real opponent in the fall.
The bad news. This clears the way for Cynthia McKinney to get back in Congress. That's right. Cynthia McKinney. The woman who once filed a lawsuit claiming it was illegal to vote against her.
Great. Ceasar's. Ghost.
Come on, Jack...
Can you believe Jack Bristow actually fell for Lauren's nonsense? I mean, the woman practically has "spy" stamped on her forehead, for Pete's sake.
Vaughn buying it I can believe. Vaughn's an idiot. Dixon should probably know better.
But Jack has no excuse.
Can you believe Jack Bristow actually fell for Lauren's nonsense? I mean, the woman practically has "spy" stamped on her forehead, for Pete's sake.
Vaughn buying it I can believe. Vaughn's an idiot. Dixon should probably know better.
But Jack has no excuse.
Parallel universes
Crosblog's resident agent provocateur, Mithras, points me towards an interesting connection being drawn. Apparently, a rightish blogger named Matt Margolis went to an anti-Bush rally with pro-Bush signs, propaganda, etc. They either behaved professionally or made asses of themselves, depending on who you ask, and as a result, got knocked around by some of the local anti-Bushers. This has swept the blogosphere, with left-wing sites either voicing the unequivocal condemnation that makes you proud to be an American, or engaging in rhetorical gymnastics to try and get across the idea that Matt needed his ass beat without actually saying it. (Most of the ones I've seen opt for the former, God love 'em.)
Then there is the attempt to draw a parallel to a truly horrific event. David Neiwert describes a truly outrageous, unforgiveable act of violence, apparently committed solely because the victim took an online cheap shot at Bush. More details here. Apparently the idea is that the far more severe nature of the second assault proves that right-wingers are more committed to violence, less tolerant of diverse viewpoints, and generally less pleasant people to be around. Two points.
1. There is some question as to whether or not the assault mentioned in the second story even happened. It supposedly occurred in Atlanta, where I live, and there has been nothing about it on the local news broadcasts or in the newspaper. Commentors on the above posts claim to have called the Atlanta Police Department and been told nothing of that sort has been reported. I'll admit, the fact that it hasn't been reported anywhere is odd, but Neiwart is standing by his story for the moment, and is asking for patience while he verifies. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, so let's proceed on the notion that it happened, exactly as described. I will note that Margolis' story has been reported in the mainstream media.
2. I don't get the connection. First off, the Atlanta assault occurs as a result of a few wingnuts going off on their own. No connection to any group, organization, party, anything. From this we are supposed to draw conclusions about "the right", "conservatives", "Bush supporters", or whoever. Meanwhile, Margolis and company are attacked by people at an organized rally, by actual groups, organizations, parties, etc. From this, we are right-wing Fox News drones if we draw any conclusions whatsoever about "the left", "liberals", "Bush opponents", or whoever. (Snippy remark - I assume it would be OK to draw the conclusion that "It's terrible, the things that awful George Bush makes people do")
The people in Atlanta and the folks in Boston are assholes, to varying degrees. (How big assholes the guys in Boston are to be determined by the amount of damage they would have done if they'd had free reign, the way the guys in Atlanta apparently did. Getting a fight broken up before you have a chance to cripple someone doesn't make you a better person than the guy who actually did cripple someone.) Give the folks in Boston a few months in jail for battery, send the pricks in Atlanta to prison for 20 years for aggravated assault. Neither event has to say anything about any larger movement, unless said larger movement chooses to adopt them.
Which they won't.
Crosblog's resident agent provocateur, Mithras, points me towards an interesting connection being drawn. Apparently, a rightish blogger named Matt Margolis went to an anti-Bush rally with pro-Bush signs, propaganda, etc. They either behaved professionally or made asses of themselves, depending on who you ask, and as a result, got knocked around by some of the local anti-Bushers. This has swept the blogosphere, with left-wing sites either voicing the unequivocal condemnation that makes you proud to be an American, or engaging in rhetorical gymnastics to try and get across the idea that Matt needed his ass beat without actually saying it. (Most of the ones I've seen opt for the former, God love 'em.)
Then there is the attempt to draw a parallel to a truly horrific event. David Neiwert describes a truly outrageous, unforgiveable act of violence, apparently committed solely because the victim took an online cheap shot at Bush. More details here. Apparently the idea is that the far more severe nature of the second assault proves that right-wingers are more committed to violence, less tolerant of diverse viewpoints, and generally less pleasant people to be around. Two points.
1. There is some question as to whether or not the assault mentioned in the second story even happened. It supposedly occurred in Atlanta, where I live, and there has been nothing about it on the local news broadcasts or in the newspaper. Commentors on the above posts claim to have called the Atlanta Police Department and been told nothing of that sort has been reported. I'll admit, the fact that it hasn't been reported anywhere is odd, but Neiwart is standing by his story for the moment, and is asking for patience while he verifies. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, so let's proceed on the notion that it happened, exactly as described. I will note that Margolis' story has been reported in the mainstream media.
2. I don't get the connection. First off, the Atlanta assault occurs as a result of a few wingnuts going off on their own. No connection to any group, organization, party, anything. From this we are supposed to draw conclusions about "the right", "conservatives", "Bush supporters", or whoever. Meanwhile, Margolis and company are attacked by people at an organized rally, by actual groups, organizations, parties, etc. From this, we are right-wing Fox News drones if we draw any conclusions whatsoever about "the left", "liberals", "Bush opponents", or whoever. (Snippy remark - I assume it would be OK to draw the conclusion that "It's terrible, the things that awful George Bush makes people do")
The people in Atlanta and the folks in Boston are assholes, to varying degrees. (How big assholes the guys in Boston are to be determined by the amount of damage they would have done if they'd had free reign, the way the guys in Atlanta apparently did. Getting a fight broken up before you have a chance to cripple someone doesn't make you a better person than the guy who actually did cripple someone.) Give the folks in Boston a few months in jail for battery, send the pricks in Atlanta to prison for 20 years for aggravated assault. Neither event has to say anything about any larger movement, unless said larger movement chooses to adopt them.
Which they won't.
Because I'm fair and balanced, dammit!
I'm a fairy enthusiastic supporter of rape shield laws, which are a topic of discussion courtesy of the Kobe Bryant case. However, whenever you pass a law, you always pass the law of unintended consequences.
This Salon article points out the other side. (If you're not a member of Salon, and I can't for the life of me imagine why you would be, you can watch an ad and read the article.)
I'm a fairy enthusiastic supporter of rape shield laws, which are a topic of discussion courtesy of the Kobe Bryant case. However, whenever you pass a law, you always pass the law of unintended consequences.
This Salon article points out the other side. (If you're not a member of Salon, and I can't for the life of me imagine why you would be, you can watch an ad and read the article.)
Sunday, March 28, 2004
What do you mean, I can't have the President of Tunisia shot?
The Arab League plans to get together to talk about stuff, only horror of horrors! They learn that other countries actually hold different opinions on stuff. So, of course, they meet anyway, and work through their differences with tolerance and mutual respect.
Or, they act like a bunch of six year olds, and call the whole thing off.
It's always amusing to watch dictators try to function in international organizations. The surprise at the existence of contrary opinions is genuine, which makes it even more hilarious.
I'm reminded of a few years back, Deng Xiaoping of China visited the U.S. Of course, he was met by people protesting China's occupation of Tibet, as well as other potentially bad ideas of the Chinese government. I read somewhere an interview with one of then-President Clinton's advisors who said Deng was genuinely upset with the protesters. The Chinese belived that of course Clinton had the power to restrain them, and the only reason he didn't was spite. They refused to accept American explanations that the protesters genuinely had a right to be heard.
Well, it's funny as long as you don't live in one of those countries, I guess.
The Arab League plans to get together to talk about stuff, only horror of horrors! They learn that other countries actually hold different opinions on stuff. So, of course, they meet anyway, and work through their differences with tolerance and mutual respect.
Or, they act like a bunch of six year olds, and call the whole thing off.
It's always amusing to watch dictators try to function in international organizations. The surprise at the existence of contrary opinions is genuine, which makes it even more hilarious.
I'm reminded of a few years back, Deng Xiaoping of China visited the U.S. Of course, he was met by people protesting China's occupation of Tibet, as well as other potentially bad ideas of the Chinese government. I read somewhere an interview with one of then-President Clinton's advisors who said Deng was genuinely upset with the protesters. The Chinese belived that of course Clinton had the power to restrain them, and the only reason he didn't was spite. They refused to accept American explanations that the protesters genuinely had a right to be heard.
Well, it's funny as long as you don't live in one of those countries, I guess.
Define fair...
Saddam has a lawyer. And...sit down for this. He's French.
I know, I was stunned, too. Mr. Verges says that a fair trial for Saddam would be "impossible." Hey, I'm willing to skip to the execution too, but most folks think we should at least give it a shot.
Also, whose definition of "fair" are we using? Saddam used to think it was "fair" to have the wives and daughters of his political opponents raped in front of them, and to have people fed feet first through a plastic shredder. Will there be pre-trial motions filed to this effect?
Saddam has a lawyer. And...sit down for this. He's French.
I know, I was stunned, too. Mr. Verges says that a fair trial for Saddam would be "impossible." Hey, I'm willing to skip to the execution too, but most folks think we should at least give it a shot.
Also, whose definition of "fair" are we using? Saddam used to think it was "fair" to have the wives and daughters of his political opponents raped in front of them, and to have people fed feet first through a plastic shredder. Will there be pre-trial motions filed to this effect?
So...you want some, or not?
OK, first Hamas threatens the U.S. Then they punk out. Then new target...I mean, head of Hamas Abdel Aziz Rantisi gives a speech that sounds very much like it's on again.
I mean...God declared war on us. Hamas is the army of God. Therefore, we need to bomb the living crap out of...anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?
OK, first Hamas threatens the U.S. Then they punk out. Then new target...I mean, head of Hamas Abdel Aziz Rantisi gives a speech that sounds very much like it's on again.
I mean...God declared war on us. Hamas is the army of God. Therefore, we need to bomb the living crap out of...anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?
Friday, March 26, 2004
Go Illini...
I'm off to the Atlanta Regional Semi-finals. First up is Texas v. Xavier, then Duke (boo! hiss!) vs. My wife's alma mater, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana!
I'm off to the Atlanta Regional Semi-finals. First up is Texas v. Xavier, then Duke (boo! hiss!) vs. My wife's alma mater, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana!
For those keeping score at home...
Number of murders caused by The Passion of the Christ: 0
Number of murders solved by The Passion of the Christ: 1
We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
Number of murders caused by The Passion of the Christ: 0
Number of murders solved by The Passion of the Christ: 1
We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.
Since it was apparently a bad thing, let's blame the Jews
Someone had to tell those wacky kids at the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades that conning a socially insecure teenager into strapping on a bomb belt was bad form. You see, some people would have known that already. If you think they should have too, you're a Zionist lackey.
But don't worry! You see, it didn't actually happen! Those even wackier Jews made the whole thing up! And the best part is, we can tell this story about Zionist Perfidy without ever mentioning that Al-Aqsa has already claimed credit for it. Of course, they later released a statement that said "Never mind."
And you can believe what they're saying now, despite it's complete opposition to what they're saying then. (Must...not...make...Richard...Clarke...joke...) I mean, after all, how can you doubt people who say Sheik Yassin was a moderate?
I mean, the alternative is, they're a bunch of crapsacks who are committed to nothing but violence, and Israel's wall is probaby not such a bad idea. And we know that can't be the case.
Someone had to tell those wacky kids at the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades that conning a socially insecure teenager into strapping on a bomb belt was bad form. You see, some people would have known that already. If you think they should have too, you're a Zionist lackey.
But don't worry! You see, it didn't actually happen! Those even wackier Jews made the whole thing up! And the best part is, we can tell this story about Zionist Perfidy without ever mentioning that Al-Aqsa has already claimed credit for it. Of course, they later released a statement that said "Never mind."
And you can believe what they're saying now, despite it's complete opposition to what they're saying then. (Must...not...make...Richard...Clarke...joke...) I mean, after all, how can you doubt people who say Sheik Yassin was a moderate?
I mean, the alternative is, they're a bunch of crapsacks who are committed to nothing but violence, and Israel's wall is probaby not such a bad idea. And we know that can't be the case.
A dark day for law enforcement...
Lenny Briscoe is leaving the New York Police Department.
Let us all raise our glasses to this fine public servant.
Lenny Briscoe is leaving the New York Police Department.
Let us all raise our glasses to this fine public servant.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Everybody blogs...
And I mean everybody. It appears that we can now welcome none other than Noam Chomsky to the blogosphere. A couple of posts up so far that a cynical man might interpret as Noam claiming that it ain't a real democracy unless his candidates win. I'm sure the cynical man would be wrong about that.
First learned about it from Mithras, then found out Karol had weighed in as well.
I probably won't be a regular visitor myself, but hey, if he ever leaves a comment, that could change...
And I mean everybody. It appears that we can now welcome none other than Noam Chomsky to the blogosphere. A couple of posts up so far that a cynical man might interpret as Noam claiming that it ain't a real democracy unless his candidates win. I'm sure the cynical man would be wrong about that.
First learned about it from Mithras, then found out Karol had weighed in as well.
I probably won't be a regular visitor myself, but hey, if he ever leaves a comment, that could change...
Democracy, Shmemocracy...
I can understand Al Gore challenging the election he lost. I can understand Lien Chan challenging the election he lost. Those races were close, and the margin of victory falls within the margin of error. Perfectly reasonable to file a contest and make sure. Support or oppose the people involved, they were perfectly reasonable actions, given the closeness of the contest.
But when you get your ass beat like a drum, the problem isn't with the ones who count the drumbeats. The people who wanted to turn Malaysia into Early 2001 Afghanistan were emphatically rejected. Why? Could it be because no sane person wants you to do that to their country? Nah, the public was clamoring for amputations and forced veilings. Other guys must have cheated. (I'm not under any illusions that Malaysia is the epitome of democracy, but the idea that Islamic extremists scare the hell out of the majority of the population makes all kinds of sense.)
I can understand Al Gore challenging the election he lost. I can understand Lien Chan challenging the election he lost. Those races were close, and the margin of victory falls within the margin of error. Perfectly reasonable to file a contest and make sure. Support or oppose the people involved, they were perfectly reasonable actions, given the closeness of the contest.
But when you get your ass beat like a drum, the problem isn't with the ones who count the drumbeats. The people who wanted to turn Malaysia into Early 2001 Afghanistan were emphatically rejected. Why? Could it be because no sane person wants you to do that to their country? Nah, the public was clamoring for amputations and forced veilings. Other guys must have cheated. (I'm not under any illusions that Malaysia is the epitome of democracy, but the idea that Islamic extremists scare the hell out of the majority of the population makes all kinds of sense.)
I have a confession to make...
I like pro wrestling. There, I said it. I have two degrees, I've seen an opera. I'm bilingual. I have visited many foreign countries. I do my level best to keep informed on important issues of the day, and have what I believe are well-considered views on most of them.
I also enjoy a pastime that reality show fans look down on, intellectually speaking. And yes, I know that it's "fake" (which doesn't accurately describe the physical toll the sport takes on its performers, but yes, the outcomes are predetermined and the wrestlers cooperate to put on a show). Thanks to the internet, I know a lot more then I'd like to, frankly. I know whose contract is up, who's in the doghouse with management, who the suits think is the next big star, and of course, who's nailing the owner's daughter. You can predict a lot, knowing these things.
I miss the good old days. It used to surprise me. The stuff that happened back when guys like Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, and Randy Savage were in their prime. It was fun then, even if my dad would laugh at me every time I thought someone was finally going to beat that damned Honky Tonk Man.
Vince McMahon and the WWE won. They own it all, to the point that if someone wanted to argue monopoly, they'd probably have a shot. They are, however, finally getting around to putting some of it out.
It'll be fun to be a kid again.
I like pro wrestling. There, I said it. I have two degrees, I've seen an opera. I'm bilingual. I have visited many foreign countries. I do my level best to keep informed on important issues of the day, and have what I believe are well-considered views on most of them.
I also enjoy a pastime that reality show fans look down on, intellectually speaking. And yes, I know that it's "fake" (which doesn't accurately describe the physical toll the sport takes on its performers, but yes, the outcomes are predetermined and the wrestlers cooperate to put on a show). Thanks to the internet, I know a lot more then I'd like to, frankly. I know whose contract is up, who's in the doghouse with management, who the suits think is the next big star, and of course, who's nailing the owner's daughter. You can predict a lot, knowing these things.
I miss the good old days. It used to surprise me. The stuff that happened back when guys like Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, and Randy Savage were in their prime. It was fun then, even if my dad would laugh at me every time I thought someone was finally going to beat that damned Honky Tonk Man.
Vince McMahon and the WWE won. They own it all, to the point that if someone wanted to argue monopoly, they'd probably have a shot. They are, however, finally getting around to putting some of it out.
It'll be fun to be a kid again.
Hornet's Nest? What Hornet's Nest...
Senate takes up bill criminalizing harming an unborn child.
These provisions are pretty common in state laws, in my experience, and usually get passed without too much fanfare. With the whole Scott Peterson trial set to dominate the news over the summer, this has become a fairly good sized deal, especially with an election about to take place with a President who strongly supports the bill running against a Senator who's against it.
Now, as someone who disagrees with most of NARAL's public policy positions, I'm all for anything that diminishes their credibility in the public eye. But somebody really needs to take those folks aside and explain to them that they're coming off like wackos here. People look at the question of whether or not Laci and Connor Peterson qualify as two victims and say "well, of course they do," pretty much regardless of their position on abortion.
Concerning the two amendments mentioned in the story, Sen. Murray's sounds worthy, albeit not really connected to the issue at hand, while Sen. Feinstein (who I normally like), has proposed an amendment that is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever been in the position Laci Peterson's family now finds themselves. You can find families of murder victims who oppose the death penalty. You can find relatives of 9/11 victims who opposed a military response. Can you find anyone who's ever loved a pregnant woman lost to violence who doesn't believe the child was a victim as well?
Speaking as someone who's probably going to want Bush re-elected, I'm happy to let this become an issue. The sound strategic and moral response would have been for NARAL and company to agree that this isn't about abortion, and if not actually supporting it, at least let it pass.
I know of radical anti-abortion zealots who have long contended that there is no difference between an abortion, clinically performed by a trained and licensed doctor who operates with the consent of a mother, and a brutal murder that takes place while the mother fights like mad for both their lives. I must confess, I'm suprised that NARAL agrees with them.
Senate takes up bill criminalizing harming an unborn child.
These provisions are pretty common in state laws, in my experience, and usually get passed without too much fanfare. With the whole Scott Peterson trial set to dominate the news over the summer, this has become a fairly good sized deal, especially with an election about to take place with a President who strongly supports the bill running against a Senator who's against it.
Now, as someone who disagrees with most of NARAL's public policy positions, I'm all for anything that diminishes their credibility in the public eye. But somebody really needs to take those folks aside and explain to them that they're coming off like wackos here. People look at the question of whether or not Laci and Connor Peterson qualify as two victims and say "well, of course they do," pretty much regardless of their position on abortion.
Concerning the two amendments mentioned in the story, Sen. Murray's sounds worthy, albeit not really connected to the issue at hand, while Sen. Feinstein (who I normally like), has proposed an amendment that is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever been in the position Laci Peterson's family now finds themselves. You can find families of murder victims who oppose the death penalty. You can find relatives of 9/11 victims who opposed a military response. Can you find anyone who's ever loved a pregnant woman lost to violence who doesn't believe the child was a victim as well?
Speaking as someone who's probably going to want Bush re-elected, I'm happy to let this become an issue. The sound strategic and moral response would have been for NARAL and company to agree that this isn't about abortion, and if not actually supporting it, at least let it pass.
I know of radical anti-abortion zealots who have long contended that there is no difference between an abortion, clinically performed by a trained and licensed doctor who operates with the consent of a mother, and a brutal murder that takes place while the mother fights like mad for both their lives. I must confess, I'm suprised that NARAL agrees with them.
Since we're talking about amending the U.S. Constitution for you...
Let's say you're the extremely popular governor of a fairly large state. You have a reputation as moderate, no serious scandals in your past, and pretty easy on the eye to boot. You are exactly the kind of person your party, and independant minded folks from all political walks of life, would want to consider as a candidate for President of the United States.
There's a problem. You weren't born in the U.S. Constitution says you can't run. Of course, back in the day, there may have been cause for concern about divided loyalties, but in this day and age, that concern seems somewhat anachronistic.
So, we start talking about amending the Constitution, largely with you in mind.
Interestingly enough, the family of a murder victim in your state is trying to amend the state constitution to correct what they see as an injustice regarding their loved one. Men and women of good will can differ on the policy merits of the amendment, but as governor, your support will obviously be sought out. And, in fact, you are asked by the family for your support.
Would it kill you to give them a straight answer?
Let's say you're the extremely popular governor of a fairly large state. You have a reputation as moderate, no serious scandals in your past, and pretty easy on the eye to boot. You are exactly the kind of person your party, and independant minded folks from all political walks of life, would want to consider as a candidate for President of the United States.
There's a problem. You weren't born in the U.S. Constitution says you can't run. Of course, back in the day, there may have been cause for concern about divided loyalties, but in this day and age, that concern seems somewhat anachronistic.
So, we start talking about amending the Constitution, largely with you in mind.
Interestingly enough, the family of a murder victim in your state is trying to amend the state constitution to correct what they see as an injustice regarding their loved one. Men and women of good will can differ on the policy merits of the amendment, but as governor, your support will obviously be sought out. And, in fact, you are asked by the family for your support.
Would it kill you to give them a straight answer?
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Kobe Question...
OK, right now, Kobe Bryant's accuser is being grilled about her sex life for having the temerity to accuse a rich guy of rape.
We're not even close to addressing the ultimate question (was she raped, or did she just decide to get her name and reputation dragged through the mud for the hell of it). We're just asking right now how much of her previous sexual exploits can be admitted for the purpose of either casting doubt on her testimony, offering alternate explanations for supposedly incriminating evidence, or intimidating her into submission. (Kobe will take anything he can get, I'm sure.) Kobe's lawyers believe it's all fair game, and it is in fact a violation of everything that makes our country great to not let them roam far and wide over her history.
I've always wanted to pose a question to Kobe's defense team. And that question is this:
"In your world, with your rules, why on earth would anyone ever report a sexual assault?"
I'm just wondering. Seriously.
OK, right now, Kobe Bryant's accuser is being grilled about her sex life for having the temerity to accuse a rich guy of rape.
We're not even close to addressing the ultimate question (was she raped, or did she just decide to get her name and reputation dragged through the mud for the hell of it). We're just asking right now how much of her previous sexual exploits can be admitted for the purpose of either casting doubt on her testimony, offering alternate explanations for supposedly incriminating evidence, or intimidating her into submission. (Kobe will take anything he can get, I'm sure.) Kobe's lawyers believe it's all fair game, and it is in fact a violation of everything that makes our country great to not let them roam far and wide over her history.
I've always wanted to pose a question to Kobe's defense team. And that question is this:
"In your world, with your rules, why on earth would anyone ever report a sexual assault?"
I'm just wondering. Seriously.
I'll take it.
If you're going to criticize someone, you should also be willing to praise them. I've said my fair share about Spain's election and Zapatero, and that I thought ill of Zapatero's committment to truly fighting the GPEB's.
While I'm still not crazy about the message sent by anyone who cuts out of Iraq (I still think it's tatamount to throwing Iraqis to the wolves), I have thought that if Zapatero matched his withdrawl from Iraq with a greater committment elsewhere, he'd still be doing his part.
Apparently, he's talking about beefing up the Spanish presence in Afghanistan.
Not much to say about that. Good for him, if it happens. There are different ways to fight the bad guys, but you have to recognize that any effective means of fighting is going to piss the bad guys off. True good guys do it anyway.
I'd said before I hoped Zapatero's committment to the greater conflict was sincere, but I doubted it. I said I hoped to be proven wrong about him. It appears he may actually do it.
As Spike would say, "Good on you, mate!"
If you're going to criticize someone, you should also be willing to praise them. I've said my fair share about Spain's election and Zapatero, and that I thought ill of Zapatero's committment to truly fighting the GPEB's.
While I'm still not crazy about the message sent by anyone who cuts out of Iraq (I still think it's tatamount to throwing Iraqis to the wolves), I have thought that if Zapatero matched his withdrawl from Iraq with a greater committment elsewhere, he'd still be doing his part.
Apparently, he's talking about beefing up the Spanish presence in Afghanistan.
Not much to say about that. Good for him, if it happens. There are different ways to fight the bad guys, but you have to recognize that any effective means of fighting is going to piss the bad guys off. True good guys do it anyway.
I'd said before I hoped Zapatero's committment to the greater conflict was sincere, but I doubted it. I said I hoped to be proven wrong about him. It appears he may actually do it.
As Spike would say, "Good on you, mate!"
Damn right you won't...
OK, I asked a hypothetical question yesterday. By threatening us, wasn't Hamas inviting Captain Unilateral to turn their entire playground into a charred, smoldering husk? I mean, we don't all agree on pre-emption, but we all solid on anyone who got beef with the U.S. to the A gets they caps peeled, right?
(Translation of last sentence for Republicans: If you threaten the United States, we will eliminate you.)
Apparently someone pointed that out to Hamas, because Hamas would like to make it clear that they are absolutely not threatening retaliation against the U.S.
One advantage of having a warmongering cowboy with his finger on the button. Sometimes people watch what they say.
OK, I asked a hypothetical question yesterday. By threatening us, wasn't Hamas inviting Captain Unilateral to turn their entire playground into a charred, smoldering husk? I mean, we don't all agree on pre-emption, but we all solid on anyone who got beef with the U.S. to the A gets they caps peeled, right?
(Translation of last sentence for Republicans: If you threaten the United States, we will eliminate you.)
Apparently someone pointed that out to Hamas, because Hamas would like to make it clear that they are absolutely not threatening retaliation against the U.S.
One advantage of having a warmongering cowboy with his finger on the button. Sometimes people watch what they say.
The devil is in the details...
OK, you read this story, and you think the British have gone off their collective rockers. I mean, sending a man to prison for defending his home from robbers? Are they serious?
Well, I support a man's right to defend his home as strongly as anyone here. But apparently, there's more to the story. Doesn't mean the dead guy didn't have it coming, but maybe if the details in the second story were true, maybe we're not talking about the noble defender of hearth and home we thought they were. (I read the second story after comming on this post of Karol's. My views have evolved in the last half hour.)
Granted, the Brits bring some of this bad press on themselves. It's well known that they are not fans of the individual right to self defense.
At least, the leaders do. The populace supports self-defense. Maybe someday someone will notice.
OK, you read this story, and you think the British have gone off their collective rockers. I mean, sending a man to prison for defending his home from robbers? Are they serious?
Well, I support a man's right to defend his home as strongly as anyone here. But apparently, there's more to the story. Doesn't mean the dead guy didn't have it coming, but maybe if the details in the second story were true, maybe we're not talking about the noble defender of hearth and home we thought they were. (I read the second story after comming on this post of Karol's. My views have evolved in the last half hour.)
Granted, the Brits bring some of this bad press on themselves. It's well known that they are not fans of the individual right to self defense.
At least, the leaders do. The populace supports self-defense. Maybe someday someone will notice.
What in the hell...
...was wrong with JPL last night? Dude, "She Believes In Me" ain't that hard a song to sing. People like him , though, and that should save him.
Amy rocked the house. I'd have thought she'd be next on the chopping block, but that performance was one of the best of the night. Also dug John Stevens' take on "King of the Road." When you heard what song he was going to sing, you just went "Oh, yeah. That'll work." And it did.
All moot, though. Because, with all due props to the local girl we're supposed to be pulling for around here, your next American Idol is Fantasia. Country night was a bit of a downer for her, but with that out of the way, watch the hell out.
...was wrong with JPL last night? Dude, "She Believes In Me" ain't that hard a song to sing. People like him , though, and that should save him.
Amy rocked the house. I'd have thought she'd be next on the chopping block, but that performance was one of the best of the night. Also dug John Stevens' take on "King of the Road." When you heard what song he was going to sing, you just went "Oh, yeah. That'll work." And it did.
All moot, though. Because, with all due props to the local girl we're supposed to be pulling for around here, your next American Idol is Fantasia. Country night was a bit of a downer for her, but with that out of the way, watch the hell out.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Want me to vote for Kerry?
You've got time to arrange it, since he's on vacation at the moment. Bush is being a bit of a wuss about the whole Sheik Yassin thing, as discussed here. I'm sure the President has zero problem with Israel icing this turdburger, and is only equivocating due to the realpolitik involved with Europe finally finding a bombing victim they can empathize with.
(Note the President. European leaders don't like you. They don't want you to win. They won't help you. They have visions in their pointy European heads of the Shangri-La awaiting us all once Kerry bounces your cowboy ass back to Crawford. They are not letting go of their dreams. Doing anything for the sole, or main purpose of ingratiating yourself to these folks is a galactic waste of time. Adjust your schedule and/or medications accordingly.)
Kerry has yet to weigh in. The money quote from the above story is: "Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was on vacation, but a spokesman said Yassin’s history couldn’t be ignored.
“It’s important to remember that Sheik Yassin was responsible for organizing dozens of deadly terror attacks in Israel,” Mark Kornblau told JTA."
I agree with Kerry on essentially squat, but if he comes back from vacation and utters the following statement:
"With regards to the Israeli killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, let me just say: Good riddance to bad rubbish."
...he says that, my vote is his.
You've got time to arrange it, since he's on vacation at the moment. Bush is being a bit of a wuss about the whole Sheik Yassin thing, as discussed here. I'm sure the President has zero problem with Israel icing this turdburger, and is only equivocating due to the realpolitik involved with Europe finally finding a bombing victim they can empathize with.
(Note the President. European leaders don't like you. They don't want you to win. They won't help you. They have visions in their pointy European heads of the Shangri-La awaiting us all once Kerry bounces your cowboy ass back to Crawford. They are not letting go of their dreams. Doing anything for the sole, or main purpose of ingratiating yourself to these folks is a galactic waste of time. Adjust your schedule and/or medications accordingly.)
Kerry has yet to weigh in. The money quote from the above story is: "Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was on vacation, but a spokesman said Yassin’s history couldn’t be ignored.
“It’s important to remember that Sheik Yassin was responsible for organizing dozens of deadly terror attacks in Israel,” Mark Kornblau told JTA."
I agree with Kerry on essentially squat, but if he comes back from vacation and utters the following statement:
"With regards to the Israeli killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, let me just say: Good riddance to bad rubbish."
...he says that, my vote is his.
OK, I have a question...
There is disagreement across the political spectrum about whether the U.S. can strike pre-emptively in response to perceived threats. Iraq wasn't a danger at the time we invaded, but Saddam wanted to be, and perhaps, given time, could've been. Were we justified in striking first?
(Note - above question rhetorical and not point of post.)
The thing I think most everyone agrees on is when we do receive a real threat from someone with the means and commitment to carry it out, we have the right, nay...the duty to beat their asses like a #16 seed. (It's March Madness time. Get used to basketball analogies.) Everyone agrees with the Afghanistan portion of the War on Terror, whatever their political affiliation. (Which isn't how I remember it when we were discussing Afghanistan, but we're glad to have them on board in any sense).
My point is, after Sheik Yassin suffered that "unfortunate accident" (in the Sopranos sense of the term), Hamas threatened us. Given their track record, I don't think anyone doubts that Hamas means it when they threaten to blow up people they don't like (and they don't like pretty much everyone), and the statement seems pretty unambiguous that we are now at or near the front of that list.
So, it would seem to me that Hamas has just given Dubya the green-light to start blowing crap up over in the Hamas neck of the woods.
Not saying we should. I'm just saying.
There is disagreement across the political spectrum about whether the U.S. can strike pre-emptively in response to perceived threats. Iraq wasn't a danger at the time we invaded, but Saddam wanted to be, and perhaps, given time, could've been. Were we justified in striking first?
(Note - above question rhetorical and not point of post.)
The thing I think most everyone agrees on is when we do receive a real threat from someone with the means and commitment to carry it out, we have the right, nay...the duty to beat their asses like a #16 seed. (It's March Madness time. Get used to basketball analogies.) Everyone agrees with the Afghanistan portion of the War on Terror, whatever their political affiliation. (Which isn't how I remember it when we were discussing Afghanistan, but we're glad to have them on board in any sense).
My point is, after Sheik Yassin suffered that "unfortunate accident" (in the Sopranos sense of the term), Hamas threatened us. Given their track record, I don't think anyone doubts that Hamas means it when they threaten to blow up people they don't like (and they don't like pretty much everyone), and the statement seems pretty unambiguous that we are now at or near the front of that list.
So, it would seem to me that Hamas has just given Dubya the green-light to start blowing crap up over in the Hamas neck of the woods.
Not saying we should. I'm just saying.
Taiwan vs. Spain - the parallels continue...
Remember the claim that where the Popular Party really sank itself by sticking to its increasingly unlikely claims that the Basques were behind the Madrid bombing?
According to the Weekly Standard, the same thing happened in Taiwan. The author, who was there, notes that the KMT became obsessed by the fear that sympathy for the nearly assassinated Chen would translate into a comeback win, leading them to spread increasingly unlikely rumors that Chen had staged the shooting for precisely that reason. Therefore, the KMT's moronic reaction to the shooting altered the election as much, if not more, then the shooting itself.
Also curious to note that from the domestic side of things, the KMT is the party of the right in Taiwan, and Chen represents the party of the left. (At least the major ones - Taiwan has minor parties that aid in coalition governments.) I never knew that before, even though I've always admired Chen. (My views on world leaders are based pretty much solely on what they do on the world stage - what they do internally as far as taxes and domestic laws are between them and their electorate, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I can admire Tony Blair, while recognizing that were I a Brit, I probably wouldn't vote for him.)
Curiouser and curiouser...
Remember the claim that where the Popular Party really sank itself by sticking to its increasingly unlikely claims that the Basques were behind the Madrid bombing?
According to the Weekly Standard, the same thing happened in Taiwan. The author, who was there, notes that the KMT became obsessed by the fear that sympathy for the nearly assassinated Chen would translate into a comeback win, leading them to spread increasingly unlikely rumors that Chen had staged the shooting for precisely that reason. Therefore, the KMT's moronic reaction to the shooting altered the election as much, if not more, then the shooting itself.
Also curious to note that from the domestic side of things, the KMT is the party of the right in Taiwan, and Chen represents the party of the left. (At least the major ones - Taiwan has minor parties that aid in coalition governments.) I never knew that before, even though I've always admired Chen. (My views on world leaders are based pretty much solely on what they do on the world stage - what they do internally as far as taxes and domestic laws are between them and their electorate, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I can admire Tony Blair, while recognizing that were I a Brit, I probably wouldn't vote for him.)
Curiouser and curiouser...
Monday, March 22, 2004
Bloggers Against Drunk Driving...
Hat tip to Mithras, for pointing me towards a topic of interest to me, at least. The question: Instead of taking drivers' licenses from persons convicted for the first time of drunk driving (Technically - "driving under the influence of alcohol" - you don't have to be slobbering drunk to be impaired) - we should take away their license to drink.
Proposal first made by
Mark Kleiman, supported by Atrios, and if not wholly opposed, at least criticized by Mithras. It should be noted that Kleiman suggests this as a punishment for anyone convicted of any form of being stupid under the influence.
It should also be noted that this is not changing one form of punishment for another. In my experience (and my experience is as a prosecuting attorney who handles a lot of DUI cases), people convicted of drunk driving usually spend at least some time on probation, during which they are ordered not to drink alcohol. (Usually, they have to be evaluated to see if they have a drinking problem and comply with whatever recommendations are made by the evaluator). So, basically, the judges are way ahead of these folks, and the only proposal being made is to stop suspending their drivers' licenses.
Which is a bad idea. In terms of which condition people are more likely to comply with, remember, alcoholism is an addiction, driving is not. Also, people who drink and drive are, let's not forget, dangers to the rest of us. The license suspension is done to make sure that they don't drive until we're sure they can do so without putting the rest of us in danger. Also, if it's your first offense, and if you cooperate with the officer (by which I mean providing a breath or blood sample when asked), you are almost certainly eligible for a work permit. I can't help but notice that people who are convinced of the existence of hordes of innocents whose lives were ruined by "only having two beers", tend not to mention these things.
If you choose to drive after having a drink, we let you do that here. BUT, by doing so, you assume some responsibility regarding your level of alcohol and your ability to drive. People who don't live up to that responsbility are dangers to the rest of us, and the rest of us come first. That's why they lose their driver's licenses.
Hat tip to Mithras, for pointing me towards a topic of interest to me, at least. The question: Instead of taking drivers' licenses from persons convicted for the first time of drunk driving (Technically - "driving under the influence of alcohol" - you don't have to be slobbering drunk to be impaired) - we should take away their license to drink.
Proposal first made by
Mark Kleiman, supported by Atrios, and if not wholly opposed, at least criticized by Mithras. It should be noted that Kleiman suggests this as a punishment for anyone convicted of any form of being stupid under the influence.
It should also be noted that this is not changing one form of punishment for another. In my experience (and my experience is as a prosecuting attorney who handles a lot of DUI cases), people convicted of drunk driving usually spend at least some time on probation, during which they are ordered not to drink alcohol. (Usually, they have to be evaluated to see if they have a drinking problem and comply with whatever recommendations are made by the evaluator). So, basically, the judges are way ahead of these folks, and the only proposal being made is to stop suspending their drivers' licenses.
Which is a bad idea. In terms of which condition people are more likely to comply with, remember, alcoholism is an addiction, driving is not. Also, people who drink and drive are, let's not forget, dangers to the rest of us. The license suspension is done to make sure that they don't drive until we're sure they can do so without putting the rest of us in danger. Also, if it's your first offense, and if you cooperate with the officer (by which I mean providing a breath or blood sample when asked), you are almost certainly eligible for a work permit. I can't help but notice that people who are convinced of the existence of hordes of innocents whose lives were ruined by "only having two beers", tend not to mention these things.
If you choose to drive after having a drink, we let you do that here. BUT, by doing so, you assume some responsibility regarding your level of alcohol and your ability to drive. People who don't live up to that responsbility are dangers to the rest of us, and the rest of us come first. That's why they lose their driver's licenses.
Yeah, the world's gonna miss this guy.
Leader of Hamas dead, Sharon unable to discuss without first saying "Ding, dong..."
The usual suspects are, of course, up in arms. The United Nations, an agency renowned throughout the world for its unyielding opposition to anti-Israeli terrorism, has condemned the attack.
And, of course, Yassin's brothers in arms are pledging unremitting violence. As opposed to the peaceful status we all got used to while he was alive. I mean, exactly what does Hamas have to threaten? "Before, we were irrevocably committed to the destruction of Israel, but now...now, we're really pissed, and we're going to..." do what, precisely? As much as you can to kill as many Jews as you can? How does that differ from when Yassin was alive?
It'd be delusional to think sending him to hell is going to change anyone's mind on the value of mass slaughter any more than George Khoury's death is going to. But since the Palestinians are still planning on doing everything they can to destroy Israel, the only choice Israel had was whether to face the barrage of violence with Yassin alive and planning attacks, or dead.
It may not have been right, but it wasn't wrong.
Leader of Hamas dead, Sharon unable to discuss without first saying "Ding, dong..."
The usual suspects are, of course, up in arms. The United Nations, an agency renowned throughout the world for its unyielding opposition to anti-Israeli terrorism, has condemned the attack.
And, of course, Yassin's brothers in arms are pledging unremitting violence. As opposed to the peaceful status we all got used to while he was alive. I mean, exactly what does Hamas have to threaten? "Before, we were irrevocably committed to the destruction of Israel, but now...now, we're really pissed, and we're going to..." do what, precisely? As much as you can to kill as many Jews as you can? How does that differ from when Yassin was alive?
It'd be delusional to think sending him to hell is going to change anyone's mind on the value of mass slaughter any more than George Khoury's death is going to. But since the Palestinians are still planning on doing everything they can to destroy Israel, the only choice Israel had was whether to face the barrage of violence with Yassin alive and planning attacks, or dead.
It may not have been right, but it wasn't wrong.
Ok, if he was a Jew, he'd have had it coming...
...however, it turns out he was an Arab. And not just any Arab, either, but the son of an Israeli Arab lawyer who challenged Israeli policy through legal means (to wit: Not blowing people up.)
I'm curious to know what Arafat and company think happened here. (Or anyone who thinks it would have been "understandable" or "legitimate resistance" had George Khoury been a Jew.) Was it a murder? Something akin to when a police officer fires, believing he's facing a gun, only to find out his adversary was unarmed? An accident? Basically, do the shooters need to be hauled in the dock to face murder charges?
Folks have "apologized" in the manner that I hate more than anything else. The "look, I didn't technically do anything wrong, but I'm sorry you're upset with how things turned out," apology. If people keep the pressure on, I don't doubt that the Palestinian Authority will somehow manage to turn up two or three people who will be prominently sentenced for killing Mr. Khoury, then quietly released a few months later.
The Khourys seem like the kind of people that, had they been representative of Palestinian sentiment, would have already produced a peace agreement. Instead, the Palestinian cause consists of people who think Jews out for a jog deserve to be shot, and the people who quietly stand by and let the first group act with impunity.
And because of that, George Khoury is dead.
...however, it turns out he was an Arab. And not just any Arab, either, but the son of an Israeli Arab lawyer who challenged Israeli policy through legal means (to wit: Not blowing people up.)
I'm curious to know what Arafat and company think happened here. (Or anyone who thinks it would have been "understandable" or "legitimate resistance" had George Khoury been a Jew.) Was it a murder? Something akin to when a police officer fires, believing he's facing a gun, only to find out his adversary was unarmed? An accident? Basically, do the shooters need to be hauled in the dock to face murder charges?
Folks have "apologized" in the manner that I hate more than anything else. The "look, I didn't technically do anything wrong, but I'm sorry you're upset with how things turned out," apology. If people keep the pressure on, I don't doubt that the Palestinian Authority will somehow manage to turn up two or three people who will be prominently sentenced for killing Mr. Khoury, then quietly released a few months later.
The Khourys seem like the kind of people that, had they been representative of Palestinian sentiment, would have already produced a peace agreement. Instead, the Palestinian cause consists of people who think Jews out for a jog deserve to be shot, and the people who quietly stand by and let the first group act with impunity.
And because of that, George Khoury is dead.
Truly Mighty...
My friend Mike blogs intermittently over at Diary of a Mighty Bastard. Drop by now and then when you get a chance.
My friend Mike blogs intermittently over at Diary of a Mighty Bastard. Drop by now and then when you get a chance.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
While I may be infallible on world affairs...
Stop laughing. That wasn't a joke. Lawyers don't have senses of humor.
Anyhow, while I may be infallible on world affairs, my college basketball needs a little work. I got 21 games out of 32 right in the first round, missing Manhattan's upset, and putting too much faith in my chosen underdogs Dayton, Air Force, and Southern Illinois, among others. However, I am in the top 260,000 at my online pool.
The comeback begins today.
Stop laughing. That wasn't a joke. Lawyers don't have senses of humor.
Anyhow, while I may be infallible on world affairs, my college basketball needs a little work. I got 21 games out of 32 right in the first round, missing Manhattan's upset, and putting too much faith in my chosen underdogs Dayton, Air Force, and Southern Illinois, among others. However, I am in the top 260,000 at my online pool.
The comeback begins today.
A question...
And I'm seriously asking, because I haven't heard.
Apparently it's possible that the U.N. has been less then ethical regarding Iraq. Now, there are people who have complained about it.
But what I want to know is this: Has John Kerry uttered word one? For that matter, has anyone who is prominently trumpeting the position that the only responsible position is to turn the whole shebang over to the U.N. addressed how this scandal might affect the question of whether the U.N. is worthy of such trust.
(For me, at least, the statement "The U.N. has its problems, but it's the best thing we have," addresses nothing. If it's corrupt, if it's in the pocket of a brutal dictator, taking money that was supposed to be spent on food and medicine so Saddam Hussein could point to starving children and saying "sanctions are killing innocent Iraqis!" - then they are emphatically not the best thing we have.)
But anyone? Kerry? Any Democrat who ran for President on the "bring in the U.N." platform? Chirac? Schroeder? Zapatero?
I just want to know what's been said. I mean, they can't be ignoring it. Can they?
And I'm seriously asking, because I haven't heard.
Apparently it's possible that the U.N. has been less then ethical regarding Iraq. Now, there are people who have complained about it.
But what I want to know is this: Has John Kerry uttered word one? For that matter, has anyone who is prominently trumpeting the position that the only responsible position is to turn the whole shebang over to the U.N. addressed how this scandal might affect the question of whether the U.N. is worthy of such trust.
(For me, at least, the statement "The U.N. has its problems, but it's the best thing we have," addresses nothing. If it's corrupt, if it's in the pocket of a brutal dictator, taking money that was supposed to be spent on food and medicine so Saddam Hussein could point to starving children and saying "sanctions are killing innocent Iraqis!" - then they are emphatically not the best thing we have.)
But anyone? Kerry? Any Democrat who ran for President on the "bring in the U.N." platform? Chirac? Schroeder? Zapatero?
I just want to know what's been said. I mean, they can't be ignoring it. Can they?
Conundrum...
OK, we all remember the whole Spain thing. People who wanted the Iraq war courageously repudiated pointed out that Zapatero's election was obviously not a cave-in to terrorism, and only right-wing fools would think so. Said right-wing fools pointed out that the sudden disappearance of the Popular Party's lead could only be explained by a capitulation to terrorism, and anyone who thought so was an appeaser or had their head in the sand.
Both sides would like to make it clear that their interpretations of events in Spain is the result of fair, dispassionate analysis of all arguments, and not cramming facts into a previously cemented worldview.
I bring this up, because it happened in reverse in Taiwan.
At least it was in reverse for me personally. I like Chen Shui-Bien, and admire what he's trying to do in Taiwan. That said, I can't vote in Taiwan, and apparently the people who can were planning on getting rid of him. Then he gets shot. Suddenly, Lien Chan's lead vanished, and Chen wins.
In other words, an intervening act of violence may have affected the results of a democratic election. Sound familiar?
There are still questions surrounding the shooting of Chen, including the claim that he staged it himself. China, who hates Chen, is another obvious suspect.
I'm posting this before I take my regular lap through the blogosphere, so I'm sure I'm about to learn something that'll affect my take on things. At present, I don't have a firm one. As I like Chen, I'm glad he's still in charge...but some things are more important than the result of any single election, like the integrity of the process. I don't know what effect the shooting had on the process, but people who like the result shouldn't brush off the very real concerns this raises.
OK, we all remember the whole Spain thing. People who wanted the Iraq war courageously repudiated pointed out that Zapatero's election was obviously not a cave-in to terrorism, and only right-wing fools would think so. Said right-wing fools pointed out that the sudden disappearance of the Popular Party's lead could only be explained by a capitulation to terrorism, and anyone who thought so was an appeaser or had their head in the sand.
Both sides would like to make it clear that their interpretations of events in Spain is the result of fair, dispassionate analysis of all arguments, and not cramming facts into a previously cemented worldview.
I bring this up, because it happened in reverse in Taiwan.
At least it was in reverse for me personally. I like Chen Shui-Bien, and admire what he's trying to do in Taiwan. That said, I can't vote in Taiwan, and apparently the people who can were planning on getting rid of him. Then he gets shot. Suddenly, Lien Chan's lead vanished, and Chen wins.
In other words, an intervening act of violence may have affected the results of a democratic election. Sound familiar?
There are still questions surrounding the shooting of Chen, including the claim that he staged it himself. China, who hates Chen, is another obvious suspect.
I'm posting this before I take my regular lap through the blogosphere, so I'm sure I'm about to learn something that'll affect my take on things. At present, I don't have a firm one. As I like Chen, I'm glad he's still in charge...but some things are more important than the result of any single election, like the integrity of the process. I don't know what effect the shooting had on the process, but people who like the result shouldn't brush off the very real concerns this raises.
This would seem to be good news...
Relatively moderate guy whomps Islamist ass in Malaysian election.
Anyone needs a headline writer, give me a call. I think that pretty much sums up everything you'd need to know without actually clicking on the link.
(Ed. note - please click on the link.)
Granted - this guy is filling the spot occupied by Mahathir "Jews Rule The World - Vote Kerry!" Mohammed, who is not exactly the kind of guy looking to lead the Muslim world into the 21st, or even the 18th century. But given the alternatives presented - Abdullah clearly represents the step forward, and small steps forward are better than going backwards.
Relatively moderate guy whomps Islamist ass in Malaysian election.
Anyone needs a headline writer, give me a call. I think that pretty much sums up everything you'd need to know without actually clicking on the link.
(Ed. note - please click on the link.)
Granted - this guy is filling the spot occupied by Mahathir "Jews Rule The World - Vote Kerry!" Mohammed, who is not exactly the kind of guy looking to lead the Muslim world into the 21st, or even the 18th century. But given the alternatives presented - Abdullah clearly represents the step forward, and small steps forward are better than going backwards.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
On my way...
My wife is auditioning for "The Apprentice 2." I look forward to hearing how this went.
My wife is auditioning for "The Apprentice 2." I look forward to hearing how this went.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
OK, It appears I may have been wrong about something.
Back when we all cared about Martha Stewart (we don't anymore, right?), Cube left a question in my comments section asking about other celebrity defendants, including R. Kelly. I responded with confidence:
Kelly's screwed. If they have his ass on video doing...I prefer not to think about it...to someone they can prove is 14, the only question is how deep the whole they throw him in is going to be.
Reality, meet Gib. Gib, Reality.
Now that those introductions are out of the way...I do want to note that I'm not criticizing the ruling. I don't have any basis to say the judge's findings were legally wrong, and the uncomfortable truth is now and then a guilty guy gets off on a technicality. (A "technicality" being the most legitimate thing R. Kelly's gotten off on since...oh, never mind.)
I do hope, however, that no one is buying Mr. Kelly's statement on the matter:
"My faith in the system of justice has never wavered, and with this victory behind me, I look forward to clearing my name in Illinois," Kelly said in a statement. "As I've said before, I am confident that when all the facts come out, people will see that I'm no criminal."
You didn't "clear your name" in Tampa, buttnugget. Nobody found that it wasn't child porn or that it wasn't yours. The practical effect of what happened is people will believe you are guilty as hell and hired expensive lawyers to weasel your way out of it. And as far as being presumed innocent, the only people required to do that are the people who sit on your jury. The rest of us do not have to presume squat.
Look at it this way, if you had a 14 year old daughter who loved R. Kelly's music, and you found out she had a chance to go backstage and meet him after a show, would you let her? I mean, he did "clear his name" on one of his child porn charges and he's presumed innocent on the other, right?
Back when we all cared about Martha Stewart (we don't anymore, right?), Cube left a question in my comments section asking about other celebrity defendants, including R. Kelly. I responded with confidence:
Kelly's screwed. If they have his ass on video doing...I prefer not to think about it...to someone they can prove is 14, the only question is how deep the whole they throw him in is going to be.
Reality, meet Gib. Gib, Reality.
Now that those introductions are out of the way...I do want to note that I'm not criticizing the ruling. I don't have any basis to say the judge's findings were legally wrong, and the uncomfortable truth is now and then a guilty guy gets off on a technicality. (A "technicality" being the most legitimate thing R. Kelly's gotten off on since...oh, never mind.)
I do hope, however, that no one is buying Mr. Kelly's statement on the matter:
"My faith in the system of justice has never wavered, and with this victory behind me, I look forward to clearing my name in Illinois," Kelly said in a statement. "As I've said before, I am confident that when all the facts come out, people will see that I'm no criminal."
You didn't "clear your name" in Tampa, buttnugget. Nobody found that it wasn't child porn or that it wasn't yours. The practical effect of what happened is people will believe you are guilty as hell and hired expensive lawyers to weasel your way out of it. And as far as being presumed innocent, the only people required to do that are the people who sit on your jury. The rest of us do not have to presume squat.
Look at it this way, if you had a 14 year old daughter who loved R. Kelly's music, and you found out she had a chance to go backstage and meet him after a show, would you let her? I mean, he did "clear his name" on one of his child porn charges and he's presumed innocent on the other, right?
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
What Really Matters...
My hope is that everyone will put aside political and personal differences to celebrate that which truly makes America great: The NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament.
The first weekend of the tournament is the best, as everyone tries to pick which no-name school sends which too-big-for-their-britches-major-conference punk back to class early.
For what it's worth, the best chances for an upset include always scary Manhattan, Atlantic-10 mainstay Dayton, lucky to dance and damned if they're gonna blow it Air Force, untested and dangerous E. Tennessee State, and champions of the giant-killing Horizon League, Illinois-Chicago. Also include anyone playing a Big Ten team, as they have a tendency to underperform.
Who goes all the way? My dream final: Gonzaga vs. Illinois.
The one I actually put down on the sheet as happening: Kentucky vs. Mississippi State, with the Wildcats winning again.
It is horribly, horribly wrong that our justice system actually thinks I should be in court conducting jury trials instead of in a sports bar with 25 TV screens watching the wonder that is March Madness.
My hope is that everyone will put aside political and personal differences to celebrate that which truly makes America great: The NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament.
The first weekend of the tournament is the best, as everyone tries to pick which no-name school sends which too-big-for-their-britches-major-conference punk back to class early.
For what it's worth, the best chances for an upset include always scary Manhattan, Atlantic-10 mainstay Dayton, lucky to dance and damned if they're gonna blow it Air Force, untested and dangerous E. Tennessee State, and champions of the giant-killing Horizon League, Illinois-Chicago. Also include anyone playing a Big Ten team, as they have a tendency to underperform.
Who goes all the way? My dream final: Gonzaga vs. Illinois.
The one I actually put down on the sheet as happening: Kentucky vs. Mississippi State, with the Wildcats winning again.
It is horribly, horribly wrong that our justice system actually thinks I should be in court conducting jury trials instead of in a sports bar with 25 TV screens watching the wonder that is March Madness.
Going pro...
Kevin Drum has moved from Calpundit to Washington Monthly.
Now he's actually getting paid to bloviate about whatever sticks in his craw...lucky bastard.
Kevin Drum has moved from Calpundit to Washington Monthly.
Now he's actually getting paid to bloviate about whatever sticks in his craw...lucky bastard.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Please oh please let this be true...
It hasn't apparently hit the "real" news yet, but there are reportsthat it's starting to hit the fan in Iran.
It's been said before, but it always bears repeating, every time it looks like it's going to happen.
Go Iran. Give the GPEB's who stole your country the hell they so richly deserve.
It hasn't apparently hit the "real" news yet, but there are reportsthat it's starting to hit the fan in Iran.
It's been said before, but it always bears repeating, every time it looks like it's going to happen.
Go Iran. Give the GPEB's who stole your country the hell they so richly deserve.
Last comment on Spain
OK, who are we kidding? Someone or something will set me off, and I'll start running by big yap again. Until that happens (possibly in the next 20 minutes or so), here's my last thought on the whole Spanish election thing.
Defenders of the election result have made the point that anytime people hold a free election, and everyone accepts the results, the bad guys lose. This is true, so far as it goes. After all, the GPEB's committment to democracy is, at best, the ever popular "one man, one vote, one time." (See, Arafat comma, Yassir).
It's not that simple, however. Sure, it's great that Spain still had an election, and people weren't afraid to vote, and since they are a free country, whoever leads them is their business and our job is to deal with them, whoever that is. (John Kerry's Mystery Leaders won't necessarily agree with that last statement, but I stand by it.) But the above facts do not mean that Zapatero's election wasn't caused by fear, and it doesn't mean that the GPEB's don't believe they just got rid of a thorn in their side by blowing up a train and killing 200 innocent people.
The first concern (Zapatero elected by a scared populace eager to squirm out of the crosshairs) is the least important. There were perfectly valid reasons a perfectly sane person would reject the Popular Party. In any event, no Spaniard is going to admit they switched their vote, or reconsidered a decision not to vote, out of fear. Since we can't prove the first point, consider it conceded.
The second one matters the most. The people who blew up the train have the people and the presence of mind to do it again - if not in Spain, then somewhere else. Whether they choose to try has got to be based in part on what effect they had. And I don't think anyone's even tried to argue that Team Al-Qaeda isn't looking at the switch in Spain and thinking "we just made a democracy toss its ruling party. - We did that. And maybe we could do it again...hey, anyone know when Poland votes?"
Zapatero - and anyone who wants to present his election as something less than a defeat for the war on terror - needs to address the perception his election has given the GPEB's. It doesn't diminish the Prime Minister-Elect to acknowledge this perception, provided he follows up with actions that correct it. But to act like this perception is some ridiculous right-wing fantasy germinated in the dark recesses of Paul Wolfowitz' mind is dangerous.
I simply can't conceive of a scenario where the Al-Qaeda braintrust gathers around a satellite TV, sees the Spanish election results, and says "Well, that sure as hell backfired on us."
And I can't conceive of why they wouldn't try it again.
OK, who are we kidding? Someone or something will set me off, and I'll start running by big yap again. Until that happens (possibly in the next 20 minutes or so), here's my last thought on the whole Spanish election thing.
Defenders of the election result have made the point that anytime people hold a free election, and everyone accepts the results, the bad guys lose. This is true, so far as it goes. After all, the GPEB's committment to democracy is, at best, the ever popular "one man, one vote, one time." (See, Arafat comma, Yassir).
It's not that simple, however. Sure, it's great that Spain still had an election, and people weren't afraid to vote, and since they are a free country, whoever leads them is their business and our job is to deal with them, whoever that is. (John Kerry's Mystery Leaders won't necessarily agree with that last statement, but I stand by it.) But the above facts do not mean that Zapatero's election wasn't caused by fear, and it doesn't mean that the GPEB's don't believe they just got rid of a thorn in their side by blowing up a train and killing 200 innocent people.
The first concern (Zapatero elected by a scared populace eager to squirm out of the crosshairs) is the least important. There were perfectly valid reasons a perfectly sane person would reject the Popular Party. In any event, no Spaniard is going to admit they switched their vote, or reconsidered a decision not to vote, out of fear. Since we can't prove the first point, consider it conceded.
The second one matters the most. The people who blew up the train have the people and the presence of mind to do it again - if not in Spain, then somewhere else. Whether they choose to try has got to be based in part on what effect they had. And I don't think anyone's even tried to argue that Team Al-Qaeda isn't looking at the switch in Spain and thinking "we just made a democracy toss its ruling party. - We did that. And maybe we could do it again...hey, anyone know when Poland votes?"
Zapatero - and anyone who wants to present his election as something less than a defeat for the war on terror - needs to address the perception his election has given the GPEB's. It doesn't diminish the Prime Minister-Elect to acknowledge this perception, provided he follows up with actions that correct it. But to act like this perception is some ridiculous right-wing fantasy germinated in the dark recesses of Paul Wolfowitz' mind is dangerous.
I simply can't conceive of a scenario where the Al-Qaeda braintrust gathers around a satellite TV, sees the Spanish election results, and says "Well, that sure as hell backfired on us."
And I can't conceive of why they wouldn't try it again.
OK, this sucks
U.S. Congressman drives like an ass. Kills an innocent man. Who's financially responsible for the harm he caused his victim's family?
If you said, "Why, fellow taxpayer, obviously you and I are," give yourself a gold star.
I was OK with the sentence Janklow got at the time. Of course, we all knew he was getting sued, and I suppose we shouldn't be surprised he's trying to pass off the civil costs just like he tried to duck the criminal penalties.
But if Janklow truly feels deep remorse (and any halfway decent person would be sick to their stomachs about it), he has to understand the difference between telling the victim's mother "I'm sorry for your loss" and "I'm sorry I took your son from you."
The former isn't an apology, at least not coming from the man responsible for the loss in the first place. And you can't credibly offer the latter without accepting the consequences.
Rep. Janklow, go to hell.
U.S. Congressman drives like an ass. Kills an innocent man. Who's financially responsible for the harm he caused his victim's family?
If you said, "Why, fellow taxpayer, obviously you and I are," give yourself a gold star.
I was OK with the sentence Janklow got at the time. Of course, we all knew he was getting sued, and I suppose we shouldn't be surprised he's trying to pass off the civil costs just like he tried to duck the criminal penalties.
But if Janklow truly feels deep remorse (and any halfway decent person would be sick to their stomachs about it), he has to understand the difference between telling the victim's mother "I'm sorry for your loss" and "I'm sorry I took your son from you."
The former isn't an apology, at least not coming from the man responsible for the loss in the first place. And you can't credibly offer the latter without accepting the consequences.
Rep. Janklow, go to hell.
Sentence first, verdict afterwards...
OK, I heard about the election in Spain on Good Morning America. I had a gut reaction to it. I read the blogs I trust (list to the right) - I posted my own opinion.
Now that that's all nicely out of the way, it's safe to actually do a little research to see if I had the basic facts correct when I made up my mind. Specifically, I think what matters most is whether or not Zapatero & Co. were winning prior to 3/11. Based on news reports from both in the U.S. and abroad, I feel confident that the Socialists were heading to defeat. (The money quote in each article states that the Popular Party was ahead in the polls a week prior - the Indianapolis Star mentions a solid economy as the reason.) What this means to me is that Spain had no plans to rise up and bounce the ruling party to send a message of principle that they rejected Bush or the war or any of it. I'm well aware the war was unpopular in Spain, but it wasn't going to push Zapatero over the top.
Don't get me wrong, Aznar's desperate attempt to blame the ETA certainly hurt. The way Aznar handled it certainly sent a message that the current administration wasn't doing their jobs properly, and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to bounce any elected leader. (Side note to Mith - When I made that point in my original post - I meant it as a defense of Zapatero - to me, that's the strongest argument that his election was not appeasement in action. I assume noone wants to be the go to guy when you're looking to surrender.)
We now pause to let everyone insert their own French jokes.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the Iraq war, and I think the people who have those reasons have reacted so strongly to the Spanish election do so because they have to know how it looks. Whatever the reason the Popular Party was turned out, it looks like voters in Spain changed their minds to elect the guy who wouldn't antagonize the GPEB's so much. And there's evidence that what happened was precisely what Al Qaeda intended to happen.
Whether or not this actually is a victory for terror, in my opinion, depends solely on Zapatero. I'm sure he loathes Al Qaeda, what they represent, what they did to his country, and what they want from his country. He has a chance to make it clear that Al-Qaeda was horribly mistaken about their goals being furthered by his election. The problem is, we all know that if he moves in that direction, Al Qaeda will very likely retaliate against him.
And while I'd love to be proven wrong down the road, nothing I've seen suggests he's that guy.
OK, I heard about the election in Spain on Good Morning America. I had a gut reaction to it. I read the blogs I trust (list to the right) - I posted my own opinion.
Now that that's all nicely out of the way, it's safe to actually do a little research to see if I had the basic facts correct when I made up my mind. Specifically, I think what matters most is whether or not Zapatero & Co. were winning prior to 3/11. Based on news reports from both in the U.S. and abroad, I feel confident that the Socialists were heading to defeat. (The money quote in each article states that the Popular Party was ahead in the polls a week prior - the Indianapolis Star mentions a solid economy as the reason.) What this means to me is that Spain had no plans to rise up and bounce the ruling party to send a message of principle that they rejected Bush or the war or any of it. I'm well aware the war was unpopular in Spain, but it wasn't going to push Zapatero over the top.
Don't get me wrong, Aznar's desperate attempt to blame the ETA certainly hurt. The way Aznar handled it certainly sent a message that the current administration wasn't doing their jobs properly, and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to bounce any elected leader. (Side note to Mith - When I made that point in my original post - I meant it as a defense of Zapatero - to me, that's the strongest argument that his election was not appeasement in action. I assume noone wants to be the go to guy when you're looking to surrender.)
We now pause to let everyone insert their own French jokes.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the Iraq war, and I think the people who have those reasons have reacted so strongly to the Spanish election do so because they have to know how it looks. Whatever the reason the Popular Party was turned out, it looks like voters in Spain changed their minds to elect the guy who wouldn't antagonize the GPEB's so much. And there's evidence that what happened was precisely what Al Qaeda intended to happen.
Whether or not this actually is a victory for terror, in my opinion, depends solely on Zapatero. I'm sure he loathes Al Qaeda, what they represent, what they did to his country, and what they want from his country. He has a chance to make it clear that Al-Qaeda was horribly mistaken about their goals being furthered by his election. The problem is, we all know that if he moves in that direction, Al Qaeda will very likely retaliate against him.
And while I'd love to be proven wrong down the road, nothing I've seen suggests he's that guy.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Ah, the joys of last minute guilty pleas...
Bottom line, here I am...and the big story this weekend is Spain, where Zapatero and the Socialists come from behind at the last minute and everyone is wondering what role the GPEB attack on 3/11 played.
Karol and Peter over at Alarming News see it as a victory for Al-Qaeda. Tacitus agrees in many words, and the usually verbose Steven Den Beste agrees in far fewer. And lest you think this was all right wing bloviation, I might add that Calpundit says much the same thing. Finally, read Jeff Jarvis' eloquent take on the subject.
But we are open to differing points of view here at the Crosblog, unless you're talking about Pauly Shore. (He sucks. Only fools and communists believe otherwise.) Arguing that Al-Qaeda didn't necessarily win squat in Spain, I present Dawn, following up on a point she made here. Lest I be accused of sending a fair maiden into battle unaided, I draft Jacob Levy at the Volokh Conspiracy to provide logistical support.
I'm sure anyone with basic math skills can count the links and see where I fall. In Zapatero's defense, I will note that the Spanish had adequate reason to be upset with his handling of the affair, specifically, his rush to blame the Basques. Here's a good post making the point that Aznar may have appeared to be shifting the blame where it didn't belong for political reasons, which would be a perfectly legitimate reason to vote him out. If true, it would mean Aznar and company weren't reliable in the war on terror, which was what they were running on.
That being said, I cannot conceive of how the Osama and his fellow GPEB's are not celebrating right now. The pro-war party was winning in Spain. A bomb went off. The pro-war party lost. How can they not take any message from that but the bomb scared the Spanish away from supporting the people who will fight Al-Qaeda? Can anyone seriously claim that voters who were inclined to support the Popular Party suddenly moved away because the Socialists had a better argument on European Monetary Policy? (Wild-ass guess: They don't.)
The bomb changed the game, and from appearances, it changed the game in Al-Qaeda's favor. Why not detonate bombs in Japan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, or anywhere else there's a chance to replace someone who wants to destroy Al-Qaeda with someone who thinks a reasonable deal can be made? Don't get me wrong, the game can be changed back, and the man who can change it is Zapatero. He can, if he wants, outline plans that make it clear that Spain is not backing off from the fight. I suppose he doesn't have to do it Bush's way if he doesn't want, but I have yet to hear a clear alternative that has any chance of an Al-Qaeda free world.
Of course, if he takes a strong stance, the GPEB's might decide that Spain hasn't learned its lesson. And the choice is whether we fight them now or let our kids fight them several years down the line.
Bottom line, here I am...and the big story this weekend is Spain, where Zapatero and the Socialists come from behind at the last minute and everyone is wondering what role the GPEB attack on 3/11 played.
Karol and Peter over at Alarming News see it as a victory for Al-Qaeda. Tacitus agrees in many words, and the usually verbose Steven Den Beste agrees in far fewer. And lest you think this was all right wing bloviation, I might add that Calpundit says much the same thing. Finally, read Jeff Jarvis' eloquent take on the subject.
But we are open to differing points of view here at the Crosblog, unless you're talking about Pauly Shore. (He sucks. Only fools and communists believe otherwise.) Arguing that Al-Qaeda didn't necessarily win squat in Spain, I present Dawn, following up on a point she made here. Lest I be accused of sending a fair maiden into battle unaided, I draft Jacob Levy at the Volokh Conspiracy to provide logistical support.
I'm sure anyone with basic math skills can count the links and see where I fall. In Zapatero's defense, I will note that the Spanish had adequate reason to be upset with his handling of the affair, specifically, his rush to blame the Basques. Here's a good post making the point that Aznar may have appeared to be shifting the blame where it didn't belong for political reasons, which would be a perfectly legitimate reason to vote him out. If true, it would mean Aznar and company weren't reliable in the war on terror, which was what they were running on.
That being said, I cannot conceive of how the Osama and his fellow GPEB's are not celebrating right now. The pro-war party was winning in Spain. A bomb went off. The pro-war party lost. How can they not take any message from that but the bomb scared the Spanish away from supporting the people who will fight Al-Qaeda? Can anyone seriously claim that voters who were inclined to support the Popular Party suddenly moved away because the Socialists had a better argument on European Monetary Policy? (Wild-ass guess: They don't.)
The bomb changed the game, and from appearances, it changed the game in Al-Qaeda's favor. Why not detonate bombs in Japan, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, or anywhere else there's a chance to replace someone who wants to destroy Al-Qaeda with someone who thinks a reasonable deal can be made? Don't get me wrong, the game can be changed back, and the man who can change it is Zapatero. He can, if he wants, outline plans that make it clear that Spain is not backing off from the fight. I suppose he doesn't have to do it Bush's way if he doesn't want, but I have yet to hear a clear alternative that has any chance of an Al-Qaeda free world.
Of course, if he takes a strong stance, the GPEB's might decide that Spain hasn't learned its lesson. And the choice is whether we fight them now or let our kids fight them several years down the line.
Blogging schedule to be adjusted...
I'm in jury trials this week. I'll still post, but it will be at different times then usual.
I'm in jury trials this week. I'll still post, but it will be at different times then usual.
Friday, March 12, 2004
The worst part is, people believe this crap.
The Israelis are apparently luring Palestinian men to their deaths with strippers.
How in the blue hell can anyone say this with a straight face? I mean, I know there's no risk of Europe suddenly running to Israel and saying "You're right, those guys are nuts. Do what you gotta do," but shouldn't the fact that this stuff gets taken seriously cause at least a few supporters of the Palestinians to re-assess a few things?
People occasionally ask "why don't we address the reasons these people hate us?" Here's the answer: Because their hatred is based on blatant lies like this one.
The Israelis are apparently luring Palestinian men to their deaths with strippers.
How in the blue hell can anyone say this with a straight face? I mean, I know there's no risk of Europe suddenly running to Israel and saying "You're right, those guys are nuts. Do what you gotta do," but shouldn't the fact that this stuff gets taken seriously cause at least a few supporters of the Palestinians to re-assess a few things?
People occasionally ask "why don't we address the reasons these people hate us?" Here's the answer: Because their hatred is based on blatant lies like this one.
Florida? Iffy. France? In the bag, baby.
Remember John Kerry saying that foreign leaders had privately told him they were pulling for him?
OK, he's not going to back that up. Which, I guess, means that if you wanted to conclude that those leaders were Kim Jong-Il, Than Shwe, and Fidel Castro, John Kerry wouldn't tell you you were wrong.
But, let's be serious for a moment. We can reasonably conclude that if Kerry is not in fact lying through his teeth, that he's been encouraged by the likes of Chirac, Schoeder, Martin, and whoever the hell's in charge of Belgium. It would be a P.R. coup if Kerry could claim support from world leaders Bush considers himself close to (Fox, Koizumi, Aznar, Berlusconi, Howard, and other people who don't exist, since Bush is a unilateralist), but Kerry's refusal to name names suggest that people we knew didn't like Bush...don't like Bush.
What I'm wondering is this: Is Kerry aware of any possibility that these leaders, whoever they may be, are actively working to undermine U.S. interests, so that things are going badly for us and Kerry has a better shot? Was it discussed? Should we expect all sorts of foreign policy concessions to start appearing after his inauguration?
Oh, yeah, and should the spectre of that bother anyone? I'm just asking, cause, you know, once upon a time, people who thought a Presidential candidate was conspiring with foreign leaders to undermine his rival was doing a bad thing.
Remember John Kerry saying that foreign leaders had privately told him they were pulling for him?
OK, he's not going to back that up. Which, I guess, means that if you wanted to conclude that those leaders were Kim Jong-Il, Than Shwe, and Fidel Castro, John Kerry wouldn't tell you you were wrong.
But, let's be serious for a moment. We can reasonably conclude that if Kerry is not in fact lying through his teeth, that he's been encouraged by the likes of Chirac, Schoeder, Martin, and whoever the hell's in charge of Belgium. It would be a P.R. coup if Kerry could claim support from world leaders Bush considers himself close to (Fox, Koizumi, Aznar, Berlusconi, Howard, and other people who don't exist, since Bush is a unilateralist), but Kerry's refusal to name names suggest that people we knew didn't like Bush...don't like Bush.
What I'm wondering is this: Is Kerry aware of any possibility that these leaders, whoever they may be, are actively working to undermine U.S. interests, so that things are going badly for us and Kerry has a better shot? Was it discussed? Should we expect all sorts of foreign policy concessions to start appearing after his inauguration?
Oh, yeah, and should the spectre of that bother anyone? I'm just asking, cause, you know, once upon a time, people who thought a Presidential candidate was conspiring with foreign leaders to undermine his rival was doing a bad thing.
God Keep the Spaniards
I didn't say anything about the mass murder that took place in Madrid. It's still not fully settled which band of gutless, poorly endowed bastards actually pulled this off.
Still, this is the blogosphere. We start discussing stuff as soon as it happens. Karol's post was the first I'd read discussing the matter. Other blogs don't advocate for any course of action, but simply take the opportunity to express condolences for those who died, and the loved ones left behind.
Despite the fact that Basque separatists are usually the GPEB's (gutless, poorly endowed bastards) behind terror in Spain,One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the work of Al-Qaeda in this. To consider the fact that Al-Qaeda is retaliating against an ally for the crime of daring to help us, we have to consider calling Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan "unilateral trivializes the very real risks and sacrifices made by those who stood with us.
At the moment, I think the only thing we can do is lend our condolences and aid to the victims. But we should also (and by "we", I mean not only Dubya, but Kerry as well) let Spain know that when they're ready to handle this, we got their back.
I didn't say anything about the mass murder that took place in Madrid. It's still not fully settled which band of gutless, poorly endowed bastards actually pulled this off.
Still, this is the blogosphere. We start discussing stuff as soon as it happens. Karol's post was the first I'd read discussing the matter. Other blogs don't advocate for any course of action, but simply take the opportunity to express condolences for those who died, and the loved ones left behind.
Despite the fact that Basque separatists are usually the GPEB's (gutless, poorly endowed bastards) behind terror in Spain,One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the work of Al-Qaeda in this. To consider the fact that Al-Qaeda is retaliating against an ally for the crime of daring to help us, we have to consider calling Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan "unilateral trivializes the very real risks and sacrifices made by those who stood with us.
At the moment, I think the only thing we can do is lend our condolences and aid to the victims. But we should also (and by "we", I mean not only Dubya, but Kerry as well) let Spain know that when they're ready to handle this, we got their back.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Man, I get the neatest quizzes from my fellow bloggers.
Take the quiz, but be advised. The quiz says I ain't a geek. Read my name at the bottom of this post. Note I'm blogging. Read the name at the bottom of the post again if you have to.
The quiz says I'm not a geek. John Kerry's campaign manager says he's not a liberal. The manager of the New York Mets says his team has a legit shot at the World Series this year.
People say stuff. That's all I'm saying.
| You are 14% geek | OK, so maybe you ain't a geek. You do, at least, show a bit of interest in the world around you. Either that, or you have enough of a sense of humor to pick some of the sillier answers on the test. Regardless, you're probably a pretty nifty, well-rounded person who gets along fine with people and can chat with just about anyone without fear of looking stupid or foolish or overly concerned with minutiae. God, I hate you. |
Take the Polygeek Quiz at Thudfactor.com
Take the quiz, but be advised. The quiz says I ain't a geek. Read my name at the bottom of this post. Note I'm blogging. Read the name at the bottom of the post again if you have to.
The quiz says I'm not a geek. John Kerry's campaign manager says he's not a liberal. The manager of the New York Mets says his team has a legit shot at the World Series this year.
People say stuff. That's all I'm saying.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Abu Abbas A-bites the dust
...and the usual suspects are up in arms about it. One hopes that when these folks come to us to register their concerns, we cue up either Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River" or Travis Tritt's "Here's A Quarter, Call Someone Who Cares", depending on whether they prefer pop or country.
Of course, they aren't the only ones upset about this.
"Natural causes" - if Abbas were strapped into a wheelchair, shot in the back, and dumped in the ocean, wouldn't there be something...natural...about that?
...and the usual suspects are up in arms about it. One hopes that when these folks come to us to register their concerns, we cue up either Justin Timberlake's "Cry Me A River" or Travis Tritt's "Here's A Quarter, Call Someone Who Cares", depending on whether they prefer pop or country.
Of course, they aren't the only ones upset about this.
"Natural causes" - if Abbas were strapped into a wheelchair, shot in the back, and dumped in the ocean, wouldn't there be something...natural...about that?
Conundrum...
In a similar vein with the whole Martha Stewart thing...here's something I saw in court today. I don't know if it's true, but the story was this...
A woman is being assaulted by her boyfriend. She calls the cops, who arrest the guy. In the process of working the case, the cops learn there's a warrant out for the victim's arrest. (Nothing major, but a warrant just the same.)
They arrested her, too. Thoughts?
In a similar vein with the whole Martha Stewart thing...here's something I saw in court today. I don't know if it's true, but the story was this...
A woman is being assaulted by her boyfriend. She calls the cops, who arrest the guy. In the process of working the case, the cops learn there's a warrant out for the victim's arrest. (Nothing major, but a warrant just the same.)
They arrested her, too. Thoughts?
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Malibu's Most Wanted II, Starring John Kerry
People are starting to get upset about John Kerry asking if he could be the second black president.
So...the Dems are offering to give us black elected officials, without us having to...you know...actually elect black officials?
Isn't this pretty much a tacit admission that the Democratic party has no prominent African-Americans the country as a whole would want as President, and they know this? Jesse Jackson? Um...we've thought better of that. Al Sharpton...you know, the actual black person running for President?
(The foregoing statement was hyperbole - under no circumstances is the author suggesting that we make up for Kerry's moronic statement by replacing him with Sharpton. That would punish everyone...except George Bush, who could take a nap until November, and wake up to find he had won every state in the union.)
I suppose the Democrats have some potential national candidates for the future, which is of course good, because it's not like any other party has national candidates right now.
People are starting to get upset about John Kerry asking if he could be the second black president.
So...the Dems are offering to give us black elected officials, without us having to...you know...actually elect black officials?
Isn't this pretty much a tacit admission that the Democratic party has no prominent African-Americans the country as a whole would want as President, and they know this? Jesse Jackson? Um...we've thought better of that. Al Sharpton...you know, the actual black person running for President?
(The foregoing statement was hyperbole - under no circumstances is the author suggesting that we make up for Kerry's moronic statement by replacing him with Sharpton. That would punish everyone...except George Bush, who could take a nap until November, and wake up to find he had won every state in the union.)
I suppose the Democrats have some potential national candidates for the future, which is of course good, because it's not like any other party has national candidates right now.
A real criminal. You know, like Martha Stewart...
John Muhammed gets his first death sentence.
I say his first, because he will probably receive at least one more death sentence, from Maryland. (DC doesn't have the death penalty.) His protege, Lee Boyd Malvo, has received one life sentence, and is awaiting prosecution while the Supreme Court considers death penalty cases related to executing people Malvo's age.
It kind of creates the image of digging up his corpse and executing him again. I can see the appeal.
John Muhammed gets his first death sentence.
I say his first, because he will probably receive at least one more death sentence, from Maryland. (DC doesn't have the death penalty.) His protege, Lee Boyd Malvo, has received one life sentence, and is awaiting prosecution while the Supreme Court considers death penalty cases related to executing people Malvo's age.
It kind of creates the image of digging up his corpse and executing him again. I can see the appeal.
Sit down...take a deep breath...
John Kerry has changed his mind on something.
OK, I had to be snarky about introducing that, but I suppose we should be grateful that Kerry has drifted towards the correct position. Granted, some of us knew that Arafat was an unreliable asshole back in 1997, but Kerry can be forgiven this mistake. I mean, it's not like it was his job or anything to catch these details.
I'm being snarky again, aren't I? Especially if I point out that Kerry is also switching positions as to Bush as a human being:
"He's an enjoyable person to be with," Kerry said. "He's funny and so forth, but he doesn't keep his promises."
Kerry added: "It has nothing to do with him being a good man, bad man. I'm not here to judge him personally, that's up to other people, that's up to God."
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's a different position then Kerry takes when speaking to the Teamsters.
OK, the actual point (one thing I love about blogging is you can just go ahead and write without having actually settled the question of what it is you plan to say.) Where was I? Oh, yes, the point. Since Kerry is complaining that Arafat is the problem, where do people who are sure all the problems in the Middle East would go away if only those damn Zionists would be more reasonable?
I mean, Kerry has made it clear he ain't on their side. Do they look at
the only candidate who is?
John Kerry has changed his mind on something.
OK, I had to be snarky about introducing that, but I suppose we should be grateful that Kerry has drifted towards the correct position. Granted, some of us knew that Arafat was an unreliable asshole back in 1997, but Kerry can be forgiven this mistake. I mean, it's not like it was his job or anything to catch these details.
I'm being snarky again, aren't I? Especially if I point out that Kerry is also switching positions as to Bush as a human being:
"He's an enjoyable person to be with," Kerry said. "He's funny and so forth, but he doesn't keep his promises."
Kerry added: "It has nothing to do with him being a good man, bad man. I'm not here to judge him personally, that's up to other people, that's up to God."
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's a different position then Kerry takes when speaking to the Teamsters.
OK, the actual point (one thing I love about blogging is you can just go ahead and write without having actually settled the question of what it is you plan to say.) Where was I? Oh, yes, the point. Since Kerry is complaining that Arafat is the problem, where do people who are sure all the problems in the Middle East would go away if only those damn Zionists would be more reasonable?
I mean, Kerry has made it clear he ain't on their side. Do they look at
the only candidate who is?
Blogger breaks through...
Congratulations to Calpundit, who has broken through to the world of blogging for not only fun, but profit.
I just wonder whether telling girls you were a "Political Animal" would help you pick them up.
Congratulations to Calpundit, who has broken through to the world of blogging for not only fun, but profit.
I just wonder whether telling girls you were a "Political Animal" would help you pick them up.
The Revolution Will Not Be On BlogSpot
Please drop by the new Blame Bush site and give Larry some grief about all the extra work he's created for those of us foolish enough to link to him, who now have to change our link rolls.
I swear, we should get some kind of subsidy.
Please drop by the new Blame Bush site and give Larry some grief about all the extra work he's created for those of us foolish enough to link to him, who now have to change our link rolls.
I swear, we should get some kind of subsidy.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Martha, redux...
Go read Dawn's take on the Martha Stewart thing.
I expected her to be acquitted all along, and I'm stunned that she wasn't. But I'm not sure I agree with this whole "she should never have been tried" argument lots of folks are making. (they range from folks like Dawn to NRO Troglodyte John Derbyshire.) The fact of the matter is, she broke the law. She was charged with some serious stuff, that got tossed mid-trial, but the fact is, she did break the laws she was charged with. (At least, a jury so found. I don't criticize jury verdicts that go against me personally, I ain't criticizing this one.)
She was offered a plea bargain. She turned it down. (I don't know what the details were. Ideally - she probably should have been offered probation in exchange for testimony against Bogdanovich - the broker is the part of the system, and the real bad guy here.) With that in mind, how can a U.S. Attorney just walk away from the charges entirely without having everyone believe the famous person got a break? "Look - we think she broke some laws. But, hey, haven't we all? It's just not worth the effort to prosecute. I mean, come on, you're gonna tell me you didn't exceed the posted speed limit, just a little, while driving home today? Then who are you to judge?"
To use the speeding analogy - there's one cop on the Interstate with one laser. He can't possibly pull over every single speeder. Should he turn his back on the ones he can get? Sure, Stewart ain't the only one who's lied, but so what? She's the one we got, and it is against the law. Should we effectively pretend she didn't just to avoid being accused of being out to get her?
Sure, Martha Stewart was probably trapped by fame - she couldn't tender a plea bargain without damaging her very public reputation, the way some no-name securities trader could. And sure, she was investigated for insider trading, and the government decided not to pursue those charges. But they did believe she broke the law - and I'm not comfortable with the idea that we had a moral obligation to pretend she didn't.
As for her sentence - as I understand the federal guidelines, she's probably looking at 10-15 months. To not get any jail time would be a huge departure. Also, Dawn mentions Stewart needs to do some serious begging. I wouldn't bet on seeing anything resembling contrition from Stewart any time soon.
Go read Dawn's take on the Martha Stewart thing.
I expected her to be acquitted all along, and I'm stunned that she wasn't. But I'm not sure I agree with this whole "she should never have been tried" argument lots of folks are making. (they range from folks like Dawn to NRO Troglodyte John Derbyshire.) The fact of the matter is, she broke the law. She was charged with some serious stuff, that got tossed mid-trial, but the fact is, she did break the laws she was charged with. (At least, a jury so found. I don't criticize jury verdicts that go against me personally, I ain't criticizing this one.)
She was offered a plea bargain. She turned it down. (I don't know what the details were. Ideally - she probably should have been offered probation in exchange for testimony against Bogdanovich - the broker is the part of the system, and the real bad guy here.) With that in mind, how can a U.S. Attorney just walk away from the charges entirely without having everyone believe the famous person got a break? "Look - we think she broke some laws. But, hey, haven't we all? It's just not worth the effort to prosecute. I mean, come on, you're gonna tell me you didn't exceed the posted speed limit, just a little, while driving home today? Then who are you to judge?"
To use the speeding analogy - there's one cop on the Interstate with one laser. He can't possibly pull over every single speeder. Should he turn his back on the ones he can get? Sure, Stewart ain't the only one who's lied, but so what? She's the one we got, and it is against the law. Should we effectively pretend she didn't just to avoid being accused of being out to get her?
Sure, Martha Stewart was probably trapped by fame - she couldn't tender a plea bargain without damaging her very public reputation, the way some no-name securities trader could. And sure, she was investigated for insider trading, and the government decided not to pursue those charges. But they did believe she broke the law - and I'm not comfortable with the idea that we had a moral obligation to pretend she didn't.
As for her sentence - as I understand the federal guidelines, she's probably looking at 10-15 months. To not get any jail time would be a huge departure. Also, Dawn mentions Stewart needs to do some serious begging. I wouldn't bet on seeing anything resembling contrition from Stewart any time soon.
Well, if you squint, it kinda looks like a quagmire...
After much ado about the Shiite walkout on the Iraq constitution, it appears we have a deal. Link acquired via Andrew Sullivan.
Sully's on the right track here. (I can call him Sully. We're tight like that.) Some folks disagreed with the constitution. They bitched, they moaned, they engaged in political theater. And in the end, we had a constitution. This is not an assault on democracy. This is democracy.
Similar sentiments are stirring in Afghanistan. Anyone remember Miss Afghanistan? Now, obviously, there were Afghanis who were offended by this. This, in itself, is not a huge deal. There are people in the U.S. offended by Miss America. But I read people criticizing her, and I was relieved, because they weren't putting out a hit on her. The previous regime would have been cool with that.
Bottom line, the fact that this faction or that faction is not on board with this element or that element is a good thing. It shows that we can have a this faction and that faction, and a discussion of this element and that element.
They couldn't before.
After much ado about the Shiite walkout on the Iraq constitution, it appears we have a deal. Link acquired via Andrew Sullivan.
Sully's on the right track here. (I can call him Sully. We're tight like that.) Some folks disagreed with the constitution. They bitched, they moaned, they engaged in political theater. And in the end, we had a constitution. This is not an assault on democracy. This is democracy.
Similar sentiments are stirring in Afghanistan. Anyone remember Miss Afghanistan? Now, obviously, there were Afghanis who were offended by this. This, in itself, is not a huge deal. There are people in the U.S. offended by Miss America. But I read people criticizing her, and I was relieved, because they weren't putting out a hit on her. The previous regime would have been cool with that.
Bottom line, the fact that this faction or that faction is not on board with this element or that element is a good thing. It shows that we can have a this faction and that faction, and a discussion of this element and that element.
They couldn't before.
The great debate continues...
Welcome Mithras, a repeat comment-leaving-guy who apparently finds me to be wrong on matters of interest to him.
Welcome Mithras, a repeat comment-leaving-guy who apparently finds me to be wrong on matters of interest to him.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Ding, dong, the witch is dead!
Martha Stewart guilty on all four counts.
All four remaining counts, that is. The most serious charge was tossed by the judge at the conclusion of the prosecution's case. She will probably be sentenced to around a year in prison.
Color me surprised. I thought the jury was going to find her not guilty, and they were going to do it fairly quickly. Not that I expected them to buy her version of events necessarily, but I did think the idea that the feds were going overkill on someone because of her fame would get some traction.
Now it's all over but the shouting. And the TV news editorials. And the appeal. And the...
I need a nap.
Martha Stewart guilty on all four counts.
All four remaining counts, that is. The most serious charge was tossed by the judge at the conclusion of the prosecution's case. She will probably be sentenced to around a year in prison.
Color me surprised. I thought the jury was going to find her not guilty, and they were going to do it fairly quickly. Not that I expected them to buy her version of events necessarily, but I did think the idea that the feds were going overkill on someone because of her fame would get some traction.
Now it's all over but the shouting. And the TV news editorials. And the appeal. And the...
I need a nap.
Fair and balanced, baby. Fair and balanced.
Kerry supporters don't see the big deal about Kim Jong Il preferring their guy. (Note - the supporters are the commentators.)
Dictators want one thing - to continue dictating. They want to deal with leaders who are willing to sign off on that for various reasons. People with...more European worldviews, who understand the need to overlook the odd torture chamber or summary execution in service of a more harmonious global community.
World leaders who go along with this are buttnuggets. All of them, whether I otherwise like them or not. I understand not invading every two-bit country whose Supreme Leader requires portraits of himself in every home, but the only encouragement that should be coming from us is encouragement to leave.
George Bush is guilty of this himself, and its not a good thing. Pakistan's Pervaz Musharraf is the most common example, but there's another, worse one. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov is a crapsack of the first order who boils enemies alive and is generally unpleasant to be around. Fortunately for him, Uzbekistan was stragetically located when the Taliban's ass needed kicking. Though down, the Taliban are not out, which must greatly tempt Bush to close his eyes a little when the independant journalists and human rights activists suddenly go missing.
The deal struck with Karimov is a good one, and the sort of thing I can live with President's doing. (It's discussed in the Post article - the basics are he gets aid if he presents verifiable proof of democritization and general reduction in buttnuggety behavior.) The problem is Karimov doesn't want to act like a human, since opening up his country is likely to put his ass in the hotseat. And very few people in Uzbekistan have gotten the memo that murderers are victims of society who need help and love, and Karimov is likely to be in many, many pieces by the time the memo is translated in Uzbek. (Which is reasonable. Come on, how many people do you know who speak Uzbek?) The onus is on the U.S. to hold Karimov to the agreement he signed, accepting that one cost may be giving him the top bunk in Aristide's room in the Central African Republic. (However, we keep all royalties from any resulting reality show.)
If I believe Bush is letting Karimov off the hook, I am prepared to dock the man points on my Who-The-Hell-Am-I-Going-To-Vote-For Beauty Pageant Scorecard. If Karimov prefers Bush in office, Bush is doing, or is about to do, something wrong. Of course, same thing applies to Kerry vis-a-vis Kim Jong-Il, and Karimov is Double-A Ball next to the New York Yankees of Repression that Kim Jong-Steinbrenner's North Korea.
I'd be curious to know who the rest of the world's crapsacks would rather have around. Burma's Than Shwe? Turkmenistan's Niyazov? Mugabe? Castro?
OK, I can guess who Castro's pulling for.
Kerry supporters don't see the big deal about Kim Jong Il preferring their guy. (Note - the supporters are the commentators.)
Dictators want one thing - to continue dictating. They want to deal with leaders who are willing to sign off on that for various reasons. People with...more European worldviews, who understand the need to overlook the odd torture chamber or summary execution in service of a more harmonious global community.
World leaders who go along with this are buttnuggets. All of them, whether I otherwise like them or not. I understand not invading every two-bit country whose Supreme Leader requires portraits of himself in every home, but the only encouragement that should be coming from us is encouragement to leave.
George Bush is guilty of this himself, and its not a good thing. Pakistan's Pervaz Musharraf is the most common example, but there's another, worse one. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov is a crapsack of the first order who boils enemies alive and is generally unpleasant to be around. Fortunately for him, Uzbekistan was stragetically located when the Taliban's ass needed kicking. Though down, the Taliban are not out, which must greatly tempt Bush to close his eyes a little when the independant journalists and human rights activists suddenly go missing.
The deal struck with Karimov is a good one, and the sort of thing I can live with President's doing. (It's discussed in the Post article - the basics are he gets aid if he presents verifiable proof of democritization and general reduction in buttnuggety behavior.) The problem is Karimov doesn't want to act like a human, since opening up his country is likely to put his ass in the hotseat. And very few people in Uzbekistan have gotten the memo that murderers are victims of society who need help and love, and Karimov is likely to be in many, many pieces by the time the memo is translated in Uzbek. (Which is reasonable. Come on, how many people do you know who speak Uzbek?) The onus is on the U.S. to hold Karimov to the agreement he signed, accepting that one cost may be giving him the top bunk in Aristide's room in the Central African Republic. (However, we keep all royalties from any resulting reality show.)
If I believe Bush is letting Karimov off the hook, I am prepared to dock the man points on my Who-The-Hell-Am-I-Going-To-Vote-For Beauty Pageant Scorecard. If Karimov prefers Bush in office, Bush is doing, or is about to do, something wrong. Of course, same thing applies to Kerry vis-a-vis Kim Jong-Il, and Karimov is Double-A Ball next to the New York Yankees of Repression that Kim Jong-Steinbrenner's North Korea.
I'd be curious to know who the rest of the world's crapsacks would rather have around. Burma's Than Shwe? Turkmenistan's Niyazov? Mugabe? Castro?
OK, I can guess who Castro's pulling for.
Ouch!
John Kerry's campaign is getting favorable reviews in North Korea.
This is not hyperbole. This is not "an assault on John Kerry's patriotism." It is a fact. The most brutal dictator on Planet Earth is pulling for John Kerry.
A few caveats. I do not, for one second, believe that John Kerry has sought the support of Kim Jong-Il. I do not believe he wants it. I believe Kerry will find the idea of being supported by Kim Jong-Il repellant. I believe that John Kerry finds Kim Jong-Il every bit as repellant as George Bush does. Kerry is not a dumb man, and there is no way he does not know what goes on there.
That said, let's be clear about Jong-Il. He wants one thing out of the United States. He wants us to allow him to continue to loot North Korea and treat its people like cattle. He wants to pass on his system to a successor of his choosing, who will run the place the same way. And he wants us to pay for it.
He believes he will not be able to get such a deal from George Bush. He believes he will be able to get this deal from Kerry. To me, that alone is enough to settle my vote.
Kerry doesn't have to convince Kim Jong-Il that his presidency would be bad for Kim's continued repression. But any serious candidate should make a true effort to convince the rest of us.
John Kerry's campaign is getting favorable reviews in North Korea.
This is not hyperbole. This is not "an assault on John Kerry's patriotism." It is a fact. The most brutal dictator on Planet Earth is pulling for John Kerry.
A few caveats. I do not, for one second, believe that John Kerry has sought the support of Kim Jong-Il. I do not believe he wants it. I believe Kerry will find the idea of being supported by Kim Jong-Il repellant. I believe that John Kerry finds Kim Jong-Il every bit as repellant as George Bush does. Kerry is not a dumb man, and there is no way he does not know what goes on there.
That said, let's be clear about Jong-Il. He wants one thing out of the United States. He wants us to allow him to continue to loot North Korea and treat its people like cattle. He wants to pass on his system to a successor of his choosing, who will run the place the same way. And he wants us to pay for it.
He believes he will not be able to get such a deal from George Bush. He believes he will be able to get this deal from Kerry. To me, that alone is enough to settle my vote.
Kerry doesn't have to convince Kim Jong-Il that his presidency would be bad for Kim's continued repression. But any serious candidate should make a true effort to convince the rest of us.
Bush Administration Set Aside War, Economy To Pursue Real Agenda...
The real agenda, being, of course silencing Howard Stern.
Rob takes a good shot at this. Go read, then return. I'll wait.
I've always been amused by the minor nuisances who truly believe that they are genuine threats to the established order, and that said order is actively campaigning to silence them. There are people who genuinely believe that the government is monitoring the Indymedias of the world to decide who to ship to Guantanamo. (For the record, I do believe the government monitors these sites. They do so for laughs.)
I'm reminded of a great episode of Dharma and Greg. (No, seriously). Larry, Dharma's hippy father, decides to steal his FBI file so the Man couldn't get him. He was sure they considered him a danger to their repressive society. Problem was, they hadn't considered him at all. He had no FBI file. To humor him, they made one up and arranged to let him steal it.
Lot of Larrys in the world today. All convinced the Man will do anything to silence them. Some of them have talk shows. Some of them just have blogs.
The real agenda, being, of course silencing Howard Stern.
Rob takes a good shot at this. Go read, then return. I'll wait.
I've always been amused by the minor nuisances who truly believe that they are genuine threats to the established order, and that said order is actively campaigning to silence them. There are people who genuinely believe that the government is monitoring the Indymedias of the world to decide who to ship to Guantanamo. (For the record, I do believe the government monitors these sites. They do so for laughs.)
I'm reminded of a great episode of Dharma and Greg. (No, seriously). Larry, Dharma's hippy father, decides to steal his FBI file so the Man couldn't get him. He was sure they considered him a danger to their repressive society. Problem was, they hadn't considered him at all. He had no FBI file. To humor him, they made one up and arranged to let him steal it.
Lot of Larrys in the world today. All convinced the Man will do anything to silence them. Some of them have talk shows. Some of them just have blogs.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
OK, I'm going to say this very slowly now...
In response to China getting snippy over Congress listening to a Hong Kong Democracy Activist.
Attention, People's Republic of China. The United States is a democracy. By this, I mean that the people who set our policies have to run for actual elections where they could actually lose. (Good gerrymandering reduces this risk considerably, but it's still there. Oh, yes.) To avoid this, (the losing, I mean), public officials tend to listen to all sorts of ideas and suggestions from anyone who thinks they have something to say. Granted, it would be more convenient to first decide what to do, then round up everyone who thinks otherwise and work them to deaths in labor camps. However, this would not go over well with the people who vote in those elections we talked about earlier.
One of the things we like is, in fact, democracy. We like the idea that we can vote out crappy leaders. You, being crappy leaders yourselves, are against this idea, and we can respect that. You are welcome to stop by Congress anytime and pitch your No-Getting-Rid-Of-Crappy-Leaders platform. We will listen. (Note - when you make your pitch, make lots of eye contact with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). She's a good bet to be open to your argument.)
Anyhoo, my point is, we'll listen. But to listen to you, we have to listen to them, and frankly, Mr. Lee's Get-Rid-Of-Crappy-Leaders agenda is one that resonates with many of our elected officials. We're sorry that you find our listening to him upsetting, but we hope you understand that our system requires it.
If you continue to remain upset, perhaps one of our many fine filmmakers would be willing to make a film about how great the No-Getting-Rid-Of-Crappy-Leaders system has worked.
Best of luck to you, and thank you for understanding.
In response to China getting snippy over Congress listening to a Hong Kong Democracy Activist.
Attention, People's Republic of China. The United States is a democracy. By this, I mean that the people who set our policies have to run for actual elections where they could actually lose. (Good gerrymandering reduces this risk considerably, but it's still there. Oh, yes.) To avoid this, (the losing, I mean), public officials tend to listen to all sorts of ideas and suggestions from anyone who thinks they have something to say. Granted, it would be more convenient to first decide what to do, then round up everyone who thinks otherwise and work them to deaths in labor camps. However, this would not go over well with the people who vote in those elections we talked about earlier.
One of the things we like is, in fact, democracy. We like the idea that we can vote out crappy leaders. You, being crappy leaders yourselves, are against this idea, and we can respect that. You are welcome to stop by Congress anytime and pitch your No-Getting-Rid-Of-Crappy-Leaders platform. We will listen. (Note - when you make your pitch, make lots of eye contact with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA). She's a good bet to be open to your argument.)
Anyhoo, my point is, we'll listen. But to listen to you, we have to listen to them, and frankly, Mr. Lee's Get-Rid-Of-Crappy-Leaders agenda is one that resonates with many of our elected officials. We're sorry that you find our listening to him upsetting, but we hope you understand that our system requires it.
If you continue to remain upset, perhaps one of our many fine filmmakers would be willing to make a film about how great the No-Getting-Rid-Of-Crappy-Leaders system has worked.
Best of luck to you, and thank you for understanding.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
It's still good...
Always grateful to those who turn my rambling monologues into dialogues, I hereby resolve to visit David and do the same from time to time.
Always grateful to those who turn my rambling monologues into dialogues, I hereby resolve to visit David and do the same from time to time.
Sometimes, it's fun to be a lawyer
OK, I've been a prosecutor in one form or another for the better part of five years, and I have never seen or heard of a defense like this one.
"MIDDLETOWN, Connecticut (AP) -- A woman charged with causing a fatal car crash in 1999 says that she couldn't have been behind the wheel because she was performing a sex act on the driver at the time.
Heather Specyalski, 33, was charged with second-degree manslaughter in the crash that killed businessman Neil Esposito. Prosecutors allege that she was driving Esposito's Mercedes-Benz convertible when it veered off the road and hit several trees.
But Specyalski claims that Esposito was driving, and she was performing oral sex on him at the time, said her attorney, Jeremiah Donovan. He noted that Esposito's pants were down when he was thrown from the car."
Here's my question - if the defense fails, will that be because they blew it?
OK, I've been a prosecutor in one form or another for the better part of five years, and I have never seen or heard of a defense like this one.
"MIDDLETOWN, Connecticut (AP) -- A woman charged with causing a fatal car crash in 1999 says that she couldn't have been behind the wheel because she was performing a sex act on the driver at the time.
Heather Specyalski, 33, was charged with second-degree manslaughter in the crash that killed businessman Neil Esposito. Prosecutors allege that she was driving Esposito's Mercedes-Benz convertible when it veered off the road and hit several trees.
But Specyalski claims that Esposito was driving, and she was performing oral sex on him at the time, said her attorney, Jeremiah Donovan. He noted that Esposito's pants were down when he was thrown from the car."
Here's my question - if the defense fails, will that be because they blew it?
