Senator Kerry is proposing more plans to enhance access to higher education. Read it here.
Democrats have been worried for quite a while that the President would use a terrorist attack of some sort as an excuse to cancel the November Elections, and it now looks like Federal Voting Officials want some guidelines for this put in place. There's just one problem -- the United States Constitution. Both Article I, Section 4 and Article II, Section 1, clause 5 specifically state that the only group that gets to set the date for national elections (particularly for President, the states can make the rules for Reps and Senators, but Congress has the right to over-rule the States in this matter) is the Congress.
My reading of that indicates that no one in the Executive Branch gets to determine that in any way, shape, or form. So unless Congress gets cracking on that, any move by the President would be specifically not allowed. Period. A strict constructionist reading of this would also indicate that the Congress can't just pass legislation to let the President choose an alternate date...
Given that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the current guidelines have so much force that they wouldn't allow additional time to actually count all the ballots cast during the 2000 election, a consistent Court would rule just that...
Oh, and for all of you out there that are still buying the line that the Constitution isn't a death pact, I respectfully disagree. I beleive the phrase used during the Revolution was, "To this we pledge our lives, our liberty, and our sacred honor." And while the Constitution of 1787 came after the Revolution, the principles it embodies are those we broke away from England over.
So Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, and Dennis Miller all think God is pulling for George W. Bush? Have these guys even read the New Testament? Who are they kidding? Did they miss the parts about caring for the poor, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, hypocrisy, or the chances of rich men getting into heaven?
Thomas Schaller explains why he thinks John Kerry should choose John Edwards as his running mate. His points are generally social and economic, which make a bit of sense because it allows the Democrats to attack Republicans on their home turf. I initially thought Edwards made a much better Presidential candidate than most of the other early contenders, and I would still rather vote for Edwards over Kerry; not that Kerry is a bad guy, but he just doesn't inspire me.
The problem with choosing Edwards is that he's not string on defense, and current polling shows Kerry leading the President on economic matters, while trailing in the macho defense/terrorism arena. That makes me think that a Wesley Clark-type candidate might be a good strategy. McCain would have been ideal, but turned down the offer seven times.
I'm wondering how important the selection of the VP really is. After all, G.H.W. Bush won with Dan Quayle on the ticket.
Maureen Dowd constructs a couple of fictitious encounters between the Founding Fathers and George W. Bush and his cronies. All of the statements are real quotes, and some are quite interesting, although there's some cherry-picking involved.
Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly recently had some graphs that showed that corporate profits were up 62%, but real income for people was done .6%. Following up on that, today's Winning Argument has some ammunition and references that show that real wages continue to drop because new jobs don't pay as much as the jobs the economy "lost" paid. It also shows that while the jobless rate isn't going up, it also isn't going down, and there are still a lot of people who no longer receive unemployment and also still haven't found replacement jobs.
So what benefit is it to us that the corporations are more profitable than ever? Who cares if big business if ok, if it doesn't translate to jobs?
Another positive reason to vote for Senator Kerry. He wants to provide $30 Billion to support R&D, startup businesses and education. Not only could this provide needed jobs, but maintaining our science and technology base is key to maintaining our national security.
Madam,
Although I have written to you in the past to express my concerns of the direction of the nation, little the Bush Administration has done to date has prompted more disgust and anger than the President's new campaign ad on his website at http://www.georgewbush.com. This ad clearly equates prominent Democrats with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party with little basis in actual fact.
In the past I have shared the President's outrage and that of other Americans when some with extreme views have compared him to Hitler or similar figures, and I expected that he and his campaign would never turn to this tactic. However, with this new campaign ad, the President has aligned himself with hate-mongers and ideologues such as Ann Coulture and Rush Limbaugh, who would not know a moral or ethical actif they bit them.
I call on you and Colorado's other Congressional Representatives to denounce this disgusting ad, and to denounce anyone else who trots out the "so-an-so is a fascist" argument in this campaign. If you choose to support the President, I will do everything in my power to campaign against you and any other elected official who accepts these smear tactics as legitimate strategies.
The new compaign ad on the President re-election campaign site in just about the most disgusting piece of mud-slinging I've every seen. In it John Kerry, Al Gore, Dick Gebhardt, and Michael Moore are equated with Hitler while they rail against the lies told to start the war in Iraq and denounce the torture at Abu Ghraib. The ad also claims that Democrats did nothing to denounce comparisons of President Bush to Hitler.
Well, Mr. President, if the shoe fits...
Until you personally denounce the likes of Ann Coulture and Rush Limbaugh when they compare Joh Kerry or Al Gore to Hitler and his ilk, why should they do the same for you. With this ad, you have lined up with the extremists and shown that you only care for free speech when it is on your side.
This ad guarantees that I will not vote for any Republicans in the upcoming election that do not denounce this little bit of sleeze publicly.
I flew model rockets on occasion when I was much younger, and this threat to a wholesome hobby that enncourages kids to look more into the sciences is inexcusable. We have more to worry from the diesel and fertilizer industries than we do from model rockets.
I don't say this much, but we should support Sen. Mike Enzi's (R-Wyoming) efforts to save the hobby for future generations.
Hell, why isn't he on trial for war crimes, yet? This article claims that the head of the DoD approved the abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib even though he knew it was a violation of the Geneva Convention and U.S. laws against torture. Mr. Rumsfeld claims that they broke no laws, as does the President, as is evident from his repeated claim that his order was that POWs and other detainees were to be treated within the bounds of the law.
Of course, this duplicity is available to them due to the no infamous DOJ memo that says that the President is inherently above the law -- able to set any law that is inconvenient to him aside. This philosophy is further pushed to claim that even if the President is bound by the law, Congress has no power to regulate the military, its rules, or how prisoners are treated because that would interefe with the President's role as Commander-in-Chief. That of course reduces our systemof checks and balances to that of a petty military dictatorship, where the guy in charge of the military makes all the rules.
As a reward, the lawyer who wrote the "President is King" memo was appointed to the Federal Bench, where he will have ample opportunity to further mangle the Constitution to produce the police state that the President and his allies pine for.
People need to remember these antics during the Fall elections, because despite the DOJ's repudiation of this vision of the Imperial Presidency, the last three years have shown a clear disregard for civil liberties, role of the executive and the judiciary, and the proper distance between business and government. They've also shown a remarkable lack of ethics on a scale that makes the Grant Administration look like choir boys.
Want a really clear indicator of how hypocritical the members of the United States Supreme Court have become? Compare this week's decision in the Sierra Club attempt to get the Vice President's Energy Task Force documents to the same court's decision that a sitting President could be sued during the Clinton/Paula Jones case.
This week, Justice Kennedy says that, "the paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties," and that, "all courts should be mindful of the burdens imposed on the Executive Branch in any future proceedings." Those two statements are in direct contradiction to the Jones v. Clinton opinion, which said "If the past is any indicator, it seems unlikely that a deluge of such litigation will ever engulf the Presidency. As for the case at hand, if properly managed by the District Court, it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time." The Jones v. Clinton case also stated that the Constution enshrines the role of the courts in countering the Executive Branch, saying that, "Of greater significance, petitioner errs by presuming that interactions between the Judicial Branch and theExecutive, even quite burdensome interactions, necessarily rise to the level of constitutionally forbidden impairment of the Executive's ability to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. "[O]ur . . . system imposes upon the Branches a degree of overlapping responsibility, a duty of interdependence as well as independence the absence of which `would preclude the establishment of a Nation capable of governing itself effectively.' " Mistretta, 488 U. S., at 381 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 121). As Madison explained, separation of powers does not mean that the branches "ought to have no partial agency in, or no controul over the acts of each other." The fact that a federal court's exercise of its traditional Article III jurisdiction may significantly burden the time and attention of the Chief Executive is not sufficient to establish a violation of the Constitution." (thanks to Dennis Neiwert at Orcinus)
So here's the question: Why are Mr. Cheney's interactions with the energy robber barons protected, but Mr. Clinton's interactions with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky not? Could it be that Justice Antonin "How dare you question my integrity" Scalia gave his hunting buddy the benefit of the doubt, which he did not extend to Mr. Clinton? Is it just partisan politics (again)? Why the change?
I think maybe there's a justice that should be impeached along with Messrs. Bush and Cheney. After all, what was good for Mr. Clinton is certainly good enough for them.
Two of my favorite airlines (Delta and Frontier) also shared private passenger data with the TSA. Data that the TSA had no right to, and that the airlines were required by law to protect. This is a continuing trend where airlines and the government refuse to repsect our rights under both the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Privacy Act.
Although I really like flying Frontier, I believe I'll have to find a new airline to fly. This is becoming increasingly difficult to do, though.
Looks like California's cows have been getting a little something extra in their diet -- rocket fuel. It gives all new meaning to those "cows with attitude" California chees commercials, doesn't it?
Seriously, this is a direct result of not properly enforcing the Clean Water Act, which is in the process of being gutted by the Bush Administration -- along with most of our other environmental laws. I fully understand that the impetus behind stripping out environmental protection is that the big-business folks don't want to spend the money to do things right, and that the rapture-oriented conservative Christians of the George W. Bush and John Ashcroft mold think it isn't important because the end of world is nigh, but I would think that keeping this stuff out of our water would just be common sense. Why get sick before the "End Times" arrive because we couldn't be bothered to take reasonable precautions?
That, and I'm pretty sure that when God gave Adam dominion over the beasts of the fields, he didn't mean poison them. Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'm not being flip here. The interpretation of that passage can be (and has been) used to justify animal cruelty, mindless polluting, and hunting/fishing various species to extinction. Surely the Creator did not intend for us to despoil and pillage the planet.
So I have this question: does anyone out there know if "dominion" could be translated as "stewardship" or anything else in ancient Hebrew, Latin, or Greek? There are most definitely other disputes in translating bits of Genesis (the most glaring is the translation of "rib" when God creates Eve. Some sources say that it could also be translated as "soul", which is an entirely different animal.)
Mr. Lay will soon be indicted. It took them long enough, especially compared to the Martha Stewart case. It leaves me wondering if this is just damage control to keep it from being a campaign issue.
This link has a letter frm L. Scott Turow to Amy Tan with positivie reasons to support John Kerry, which may help those us in the Anyone But Bush crowd feel better about our choices.
So much for restoring honor and dignity to the White House. Alberto Gonzales testified before the Grand Jury investigating the Valerie Plame case, which may be why the President and Vice President sought outside counsel in the matter. It sounds to me like the current administration has even less a moral compass than the last one.
Check out this story. Based on the profusion of organic molecules floating about, I would wager that we aren't alone in the universe. I still don't believe that extra-terrestrial life has been visiting us, though.
If college tuition has jumped 35% since the President took office (mostly due to state budget issues brought on by the recession), why is he cutting $550 million from Federal Financial Aid to students? I though eductaion was supposed to be important to our beloved leader...
I thought these were the guys who went to war to promote Democracy in the Middle East? Why not promote it at home?
Pro-life groups are starting to protest programs where Trick-or-Treaters raise money for UNICEF in an attempt to help children in third world countries because some idiot who wants to end U.S. involvement in the U.N. decided that by linking UNICEF to NGOs that work in the women's health arena (and may or may not provide advice about birth control or abortions) he could use their aggressive tactics to achieve his own ends.
Even if some UNICEF money helped groups promoting birth control, the Pro-Life (anti-abortion) groups need to look at the big picture. Encouraging the births of more children in poverty-stricken third world nations helps no one, and reducing the funds UNICEF gathers to help children that are in desparate need over this issue is definitely not a Christian act.
Lets look at the big picture for a change people.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, we've heard the incessant refrain that Islamist terrorists like al-Qaeda hate us because they either despise our way of life, or that they're jealous of it. Unfortunately, this simple-minded rhetoric wasn't even a good enough explanation for the Marxist-Leninist terrorism of the 1960's - 1980's, which was based in the belief that mankind could only be saved from itself by the forcible adoption of Soviet-style Communism.
The driving forces behind Islamist terrorism is also not as simple as the President and his cronies would have us believe. Of course, they also dismiss any attempt to understanding the source of Islamist action against the United States is a form of appeasement a la Chamberlain of the 1930's. This is merely an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
There are three core issues driving al-Qaeda and similar groups. The first two issues are old news for most Middle East observers: the United States' mindless support for Israel and the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. The third core issue is much more recent; the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The biggest failure of U.S. diplomacy is in not finding a way to smooth over these issues with Islamist militants. Of course, this might require changes to American foreign policy and be seen as giving in to terrorists.
That doesn't mean that some of these issues shouldn't be revisited, though. In the first case, American policy toward Israel needs to be rationalized. The emotional pleas that it is an American duty to support Israel as a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust must be seen for what they are: emotions that prevent us from adopting an objective policy to find a solution that both ensures the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and provides a similar Palestinian homeland that is also a sovereign state. What inflames the anger of Islamists (and other Arabs) is the one sided approach that the United States has adopted for the past fifty years.
Similarly, the justification for maintaining American troops in Saudi Arabia near Muslim holy sites should be examined using cost-benefits analysis. If the cause of al-Qaeda action against U.S. interests around the world is the presence of our troops in the Kingdom, we need to evaluate whether the cost of those attacks is justified by the force projection capabilities we get from stationing forces in Saudi Arabia. If an objective anlysis says that it is critical to our national security to maintain those forces, we must accept that we will be the target of al-Qaeda attacks and respond accordingly.
The third core source of Islamist anger ar the United States is undoubtedly the invasion of Iraq and our occupation, particularly given that the reasons given (i.e. Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda or the presence of WMDs). Further problems arise from our treatment of prisoners, disbanding of the Iraqi Army, and civilian deaths from air strikes or during protests. The place is a mess. We need to fix it and get out.
If there really is evidence linking al-Qaeda to Iraq and Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Cheney needs to provide it to the 9/11 commission. Otherwise he's just blowing hot air. We need proof, Mr. Cheney.
Every once in awhile a piece of legislation comes down the pike that shows exactly how much control over our government certain industry groups have. And this time I'm not talking about the Vice President and Haliburton. I'm referring to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who is planning on introducing a bill that would ban file-sharing, Replay TV, VCRs, DVD Recorders, and pretty much any other electronic media device that could potentially be used to violate copyright by someone, somewhere.
This nasty little measure would overturn the famous Betamax case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that VCRs were legal because they could be used for so many things that didn't infringe on copyright. The MPAA didn't and Television industry didn't like the ruling then, and they still don't like it, especially considering the time-shifting capabilities of Tivo and other Digital Video Recording devices.
It seems that RIAA and the MPAA have gotten Senator Hatch firmly in their pockets, as this isn't the first radical attempt to expand copyright protections that he has advanced. The last one was a suggestion that RIAA be empowered to remotely destroy the computers of anyone they suspected of sharing copyrighted material -- without recourse to the legal system or much proof.
Leaving aside the normal copyright issues of "Fair Use", length of copyright, or the ethics/legality of file sharing, this whole concept is assinine. If we start banning things because they might help someone break the law, we'll soon be left with nothing. Let's start a list of potential enabling/inducing devices:
1. Guns
2. Cars
3. Alcohol
4. Computers
5. Cell phones/pagers/walkie talkies
6. Flash lights
7. Radar detectors
8. GPS systems
9. Airplanes
10. Model rockets (wait, they already did that)
11. Household cleansers
12. Fertilizer
13. Charcoal
14. Matches
15. Gasoline
I'm sure I coudl go on and on with items to ban.
The issue here is that we have a Senator who under the guise of protecting children from "exploitation" is doing the bidding of large industry groups who have lots of money, not his constituents. He's also attempting to overturn a court decision with legislation. In this case, I would say it should fall under the portion of the U.S. Constitution forbidding ex post facto laws or bill of attainder, as this would ban devices that have already been declared legal and might be used to punish people who have sold those devices in the past...
I think it's time to investigate Mr. Hatch's finances and campaign contributions to see what he's getting from the MPAA and RIAA for pushing this agenda, which is clearly contrary to public needs or wishes.
Special thanks and Kudos for the Christian Science Monitor for their special Readings in Democracy selections. This archive contains parts of the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's letters from the Birmingham Jail.
This will like end up a permanent addition to the links area, but please check it our before then. These documents remind us where we came from and where we shuld be going to.
Vote Smart is a non-profit dedicated to p[roviding accurate and timely information about candidates and ballot measure for the 2004 election. If you have questions about where the candidates stand on the issues and want a different take than what you get from more traditional sources, check them out.
Check out this site, which contains all of the facts about specific campaign issues. The actual points are pretty familiar, but the site has citations for all of its claims.
The politicization of science as a discipline is sort of a pet peeve of mine, as readers of my earlier posts regarding Science as Dogma know pretty well. The past few weeks this issue has continued to rear its ugly head as various groups of scientists have fought to raise awareness of Bush Administration of reports on everything from global warming to acceptable arsenic levels.
This time the Union of Concerned Scientists is arguing that the continued politicization of science is hurting America's standing around the world, and that we run the risk of hurting ourselves in the long-term in the same fashion as Stalin's Soviet Union.
Riddle me this, Batman: Why do cheap-labor conservatives think it's a bad idea to pay for Medicaid, food-stamps, Head Start, and day-care services for the poor, but it's a great idea to give a company with $9 Billion in profits (on $200 Billion in Revenue) a Billion dollars in corporate welfare?
I'm not sure that fattening the coffers of WalMart at taxpayer exepnse is in the interest of the nation. I can think of all sort of things to do with $1 Billion - health care, education, child care, public health, defense spending, transportation, etc...
I guess the people who support the war in Iraq to defend freedom and spread Democracy only think Free Speech applies to those that agree with them. The rest of us should be careful, because the wackos have moved up to assault.
I used to think that most Americans believed in the First Amendment as Holy Writ; the past few months have proven me wrong.
