Representative Raven will be taking the floor shortly.
Until then, a few words have been transferred over here for your entertainment.
Please feel free to move about the chamber.
Thank you for your patience.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Insert your own joke here....
(Originally posted 12-14-2006 and transferred here.)
'cause I'm not touching this one- too damn easy.
Veep Cheney shot a fellow hunter with buckshot over the weekend.
My heart goes out to the wounded man who had to go into surgery with a "minor heart attack" after some of the shot migrated to his heart, I wish him the speediest of recoveries with all due sincerity.
But come on people!!!!
'cause I'm not touching this one- too damn easy.
Veep Cheney shot a fellow hunter with buckshot over the weekend.
My heart goes out to the wounded man who had to go into surgery with a "minor heart attack" after some of the shot migrated to his heart, I wish him the speediest of recoveries with all due sincerity.
But come on people!!!!
Now we're just being silly...
Originally posted 12-10-2006 and transferred here.
I fear for the children of Kansas- I really do.
This article by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick is the latest in a series she's done about the Kansas Atty. General's neverending quest to punish sexual abuse. Of course, it's completey beyond him to define it.
(Sigh) What is the world coming too?
What "is" is.
I fear for the children of Kansas- I really do.
This article by Slate's Dahlia Lithwick is the latest in a series she's done about the Kansas Atty. General's neverending quest to punish sexual abuse. Of course, it's completey beyond him to define it.
(Sigh) What is the world coming too?
What "is" is.
Ladies and Gentelmen, the President...
Originally posted 2-3-2006 and transferred here.
(Disclaimer- I did not actually watch the speeches- professional political speakers have a cadence that drives me apeshit, and Georgie’s accent doesn’t help. Also, my roommate would have skinned me alive. Thank you, thank you, thank you CNN.com for transcripts!)
The thing about the State of the Union address (SOTU, hereafter), is that it’s the President’s opportunity to shine in front of Congress, the media and the people who (theoretically) elected him. For one night, the President stands before us all and tells us of his vision. The SOTU is our board meeting, the President our CEO. We’re looking for a leader, and for what to expect in the future of the company we call the USA. We want a business plan. It’s his opportunity Crow over his accomplishments. A chance to outline bold new initiatives and tell the nation that everything’s on track and looking swell.
Well, Georgie, we're glad to know we're on track and looking swell, so one out of three ain’t bad, right? Right?
Hmmm, where to start?
(As we go along, I will be periodically calling “Bush-it.” Thanks to the NY Times, Factcheck.org, CNN.com, and the Democratic response for helping me out on this one- I knew he couldn’t lie, but boy do politicians like to stretch the truth!)
The coin toss is in, so we start with Georgie’s Accomplishments.
(And, yeah, I use that term loosely.)
Throughout his speech, Georgie cites the spread of democracy in the world like he did it himself. He talks about Iraq and Afghanistan and here’s my first “Bush-it” of the evening. In the same speech (the same paragraph, even), he talks about the 122 democracies on this earth and the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan like that qualifies them to be on the list. Later on in the SOTU he goes on to talk about Iraq’s progress on the path to democracy like it’s not there. So is it, or isn’t it?
“In less than three years, [Iraq] has gone from dictatorship, to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections.” I’ll give him the dictatorship and the elections, but an occupied country is hardly what I’d call liberated or sovereign, and they’re already quibbling about amendments to said constitution. By most definitions, including Georgie’s, this is no where near to being a viable democracy. Not by a long shot. “[T]he rule of law, protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote,” is how Georgie puts it. If we pull out today, how long would rule of law last? How would minorities be protected? Georgie says we’re winning; I wanna know just who’s keeping score here?
And just because he did, let’s bring up Palestine. (I know, I know, it’s not a Bush accomplishment, per se, but these days Georgie’s calling every middle-eastern election a triumph of American-led democratization.) In a democratic election, by just about everyone’s standards, Hamas swept the board. Georgie says, “now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.” So an independent, democratically-elected, government has to play by our rules or…, what? What exactly are we going to do if they don’t renounce terrorism, if they don’t disarm? Now that they’re in power, what are the odds that they will roll over and play nice with the Israelis?
Ug! Moving on…
Domestic accomplishments: After all, this is the State of OUR Union. It would be nice if we mentioned our own country one or twice. This should go faster; it’s mostly about the numbers.
We created 4.6 million new jobs in the last two and a half years. OK, I’ll give him his 4.6 million, “raise” him the 2.6 lost during his first two and an half years, and call on “Bush-it” ‘cause a net gain of only 2 mil over his entire presidency ain’t that impressive.
We’ve reduced non-security discretionary spending. But that’s OK; we made it all up with interest on the security spending and the rest of the national budget!
Violent crime is at its lowest levels since the 70’s. Yea! But Georgie can’t take credit for that, the decline started during Clinton’s presidency, we’ve just continued it. Yea us!
The No Child Left Behind Act works. But only if it's properly funded, you dolt, and you haven't and likely won’t. Nor will you let anyone with an alternate plan give that a shot. Your way or the highway.
And I’m gonna call a huge “Bush-it” on Georgie’s claims that his surveillance programs have stopped terrorist plots, if only because it can’t be verified. Why you may ask; because verifying it would be a breach of national security. (Catch-22, anyone?) And while he did notify “some” members of Congress about it, exactly who they were and what they were told is so far up in the air, anyone who wants to verify it will need oxygen. And on a non-SOTU tangent, if FISA (the judge’s panel that grants national sec. wiretaps) was rubberstamping all requests that were put to it, why go around it at all? I know everyone’s hit this point, but apparently not hard enough ‘cause there’s still no answer.
There was more, but I’m too tired, so we’re moving on again.
Georgie’s Bold New Initiatives (some more borrowed and recycled than others)
I’m going to call “Bush-it” on these entire sections on general principle. It’s all fine and dandy to say you’re going to do something and then blame Congressional Democrats if you can’t pull it off. While I have high hopes for Bush’s initiatives: increase the numbers of math and science teachers, balance the budget, halve the deficit, reform social security, and most especially the Advanced Energy Initiative, (About damn time, too, US dependency on oil has increased since Georgie took office, and even more of it is imported. (60% now as opposed to 53% in Slick Willie’s last term.)) but where the hell is he gonna get the money? He proposes to cut some 140 programs that aren’t working in the hopes he can funnel that into these initiatives. (I don't buy it, does he really expect Congress to sit by and let their little pork projects fall by the wayside?) He also claims that he will make his tax cuts permanent, and they will benefit the common man. (Not going there, too damn easy.)
Even in my mathematically challenged little world, a ballooning budget plus tax cuts does not equal a halved deficit by 2009. Especially since we added to the deficit this year (and last year, and the year before that, but really, who’s counting? Oh, yeah, I am.).
And here’s where I laud the Democratic response, the party chose a guy to speak who actually managed a bi-partisan effort to balance Virginia’s budget and expand the number and quality of accredited schools. Bush couldn’t manage that even while he was Governor of Texas. (Yes, TX and VA are very different states and I know that- lemme alone, I’m ranting.) He also called “Bush-it” on the fact that the teaching initiatives and energy programs have long been staples of the Democratic canon. Hmmm, I thought those sections sounded awfully familiar....
However, I was touched that Bush mentioned making the Ryan White Act permanent, so kudos to you, but again- the funding?
I had only one WTF ?!? moment reading the entire speech. Georgie states during his health care rant, “[a]nd because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB-GYN- I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year.” Huh? How the heck do you draw that line from “a” to “q”? I’m still looking for the numbers on that one…. Anyone? Bueller? Where did White House research get this???
Overall I was highly disappointed in the SOTU, but not for the reasons you might be thinking. Yes, we see Congress bouncing up and down and clapping at all of the pre-arranged intervals. We see the obligatory (and oft-times completly random) guests scattered in the gallery. Yes, Georgie’s logic and accounting leave a bit to be desired, but they’re known quantities, well known- that’s my big problem here. Aside from the energy initiative, part of the teaching/education initiative and the Ryan White Act, there was nothing new in this speech I haven’t heard a thousand times. One of the Slate.com authors likened the SOTU address to a cut and paste of all the speeches he's done in the last year. I expect a little more in the way of innovation in the SOTU address, it's the biggest national address of the year! If you don't have anything new to add, don't add anything at all, the speech is too damn long to begin with. And I am really, REALLY sick of parts of it.
Yes, 9-11 was a tragedy and it did change the course of our nation, but maybe it’s time to find a new place from which to draw our strength. Pain and anger can’t be sustained indefinitely, we have to heal. We can’t wallow and keep picking at these scars until we bleed again. President Bush, please, we need to move on. We’re in Iraq; we won’t leave until we can safely. We’re watching Iran, we’re watching Syria, and we’re being vigilant. We are still in danger, but we remember 9-11 just find on our own, stop dragging it into all of your speeches.
Please stop dragging out dead Marines. You hide the flag-draped coffins so we won’t know the raw numbers of the dead, but every time you need to pull the heartstrings of the public, you drag out the name of a dead soldier. You cite his grieving (but proud) family, quote a few lines from a harried (but proud) letter from the soldier in question, and say what a tragedy it would be if they died in vain. (With waving flags and pretty pictures of the fallen hero, wherever possible.) It was effective the first couple of times you did it, now it’s exploitation.
I’m too tired right now to go into the endless nattering on Patriot Act, immigration, “human cloning in all its forms,” and “compassion” overseas. Perhaps at a later time, after all, I’m sure you’ll go over it all again, and again, and again, just like you always do.
Mr. Bush, you said something in your speech that kinda stuck with me. “Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage.” Your approval ratings are down, some of your supporters are wavering, some of your supporters are being indicted for fraud, laundering, and general corrupt acts, and more and more people are wondering why so many decisions are being made behind closed doors, without any oversight. Do you have the courage to try something truly new? To cut the budget where it can be afforded? Cutting troops in a time of war is counter-productive, especially since the high-tech (and really expensive) equipment that’s supposed to compensate for the loss is untested, or not working at all. As for Medicaid- when I see kiosks in every Wal-Mart, grocery store, and drug store promising to “explain your options,” I’m thinking that maybe the program’s a little too complex. Come tax time, I don’t see so many offers of help, and everyone does taxes. And would it kill you to admit you want to get rid of Democratic “activist judges” and replace them with your own?
Your new initiatives are hardly new, and likely not even sustainable if you can get them off the ground to begin with.
Your accomplishments aren't nearly as black and white as you'd like them to be, and you still have a long way to go on most of them.
And I don't care what kind of spin you're dealing, things aren't as on track and as swell as you'd like us to believe. So a final "Bush-it" on you.
Guess we're at 0-3, then. Pity, it promised to be such a nice game.
*If you want to Google anything here (and I reccommend you do- there's plenty out there), there’s a search bar at the top of the page. If you can prove me wrong, please do, I’ll post any verifiable corrections.
(Disclaimer- I did not actually watch the speeches- professional political speakers have a cadence that drives me apeshit, and Georgie’s accent doesn’t help. Also, my roommate would have skinned me alive. Thank you, thank you, thank you CNN.com for transcripts!)
The thing about the State of the Union address (SOTU, hereafter), is that it’s the President’s opportunity to shine in front of Congress, the media and the people who (theoretically) elected him. For one night, the President stands before us all and tells us of his vision. The SOTU is our board meeting, the President our CEO. We’re looking for a leader, and for what to expect in the future of the company we call the USA. We want a business plan. It’s his opportunity Crow over his accomplishments. A chance to outline bold new initiatives and tell the nation that everything’s on track and looking swell.
Well, Georgie, we're glad to know we're on track and looking swell, so one out of three ain’t bad, right? Right?
Hmmm, where to start?
(As we go along, I will be periodically calling “Bush-it.” Thanks to the NY Times, Factcheck.org, CNN.com, and the Democratic response for helping me out on this one- I knew he couldn’t lie, but boy do politicians like to stretch the truth!)
The coin toss is in, so we start with Georgie’s Accomplishments.
(And, yeah, I use that term loosely.)
Throughout his speech, Georgie cites the spread of democracy in the world like he did it himself. He talks about Iraq and Afghanistan and here’s my first “Bush-it” of the evening. In the same speech (the same paragraph, even), he talks about the 122 democracies on this earth and the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan like that qualifies them to be on the list. Later on in the SOTU he goes on to talk about Iraq’s progress on the path to democracy like it’s not there. So is it, or isn’t it?
“In less than three years, [Iraq] has gone from dictatorship, to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections.” I’ll give him the dictatorship and the elections, but an occupied country is hardly what I’d call liberated or sovereign, and they’re already quibbling about amendments to said constitution. By most definitions, including Georgie’s, this is no where near to being a viable democracy. Not by a long shot. “[T]he rule of law, protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote,” is how Georgie puts it. If we pull out today, how long would rule of law last? How would minorities be protected? Georgie says we’re winning; I wanna know just who’s keeping score here?
And just because he did, let’s bring up Palestine. (I know, I know, it’s not a Bush accomplishment, per se, but these days Georgie’s calling every middle-eastern election a triumph of American-led democratization.) In a democratic election, by just about everyone’s standards, Hamas swept the board. Georgie says, “now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.” So an independent, democratically-elected, government has to play by our rules or…, what? What exactly are we going to do if they don’t renounce terrorism, if they don’t disarm? Now that they’re in power, what are the odds that they will roll over and play nice with the Israelis?
Ug! Moving on…
Domestic accomplishments: After all, this is the State of OUR Union. It would be nice if we mentioned our own country one or twice. This should go faster; it’s mostly about the numbers.
We created 4.6 million new jobs in the last two and a half years. OK, I’ll give him his 4.6 million, “raise” him the 2.6 lost during his first two and an half years, and call on “Bush-it” ‘cause a net gain of only 2 mil over his entire presidency ain’t that impressive.
We’ve reduced non-security discretionary spending. But that’s OK; we made it all up with interest on the security spending and the rest of the national budget!
Violent crime is at its lowest levels since the 70’s. Yea! But Georgie can’t take credit for that, the decline started during Clinton’s presidency, we’ve just continued it. Yea us!
The No Child Left Behind Act works. But only if it's properly funded, you dolt, and you haven't and likely won’t. Nor will you let anyone with an alternate plan give that a shot. Your way or the highway.
And I’m gonna call a huge “Bush-it” on Georgie’s claims that his surveillance programs have stopped terrorist plots, if only because it can’t be verified. Why you may ask; because verifying it would be a breach of national security. (Catch-22, anyone?) And while he did notify “some” members of Congress about it, exactly who they were and what they were told is so far up in the air, anyone who wants to verify it will need oxygen. And on a non-SOTU tangent, if FISA (the judge’s panel that grants national sec. wiretaps) was rubberstamping all requests that were put to it, why go around it at all? I know everyone’s hit this point, but apparently not hard enough ‘cause there’s still no answer.
There was more, but I’m too tired, so we’re moving on again.
Georgie’s Bold New Initiatives (some more borrowed and recycled than others)
I’m going to call “Bush-it” on these entire sections on general principle. It’s all fine and dandy to say you’re going to do something and then blame Congressional Democrats if you can’t pull it off. While I have high hopes for Bush’s initiatives: increase the numbers of math and science teachers, balance the budget, halve the deficit, reform social security, and most especially the Advanced Energy Initiative, (About damn time, too, US dependency on oil has increased since Georgie took office, and even more of it is imported. (60% now as opposed to 53% in Slick Willie’s last term.)) but where the hell is he gonna get the money? He proposes to cut some 140 programs that aren’t working in the hopes he can funnel that into these initiatives. (I don't buy it, does he really expect Congress to sit by and let their little pork projects fall by the wayside?) He also claims that he will make his tax cuts permanent, and they will benefit the common man. (Not going there, too damn easy.)
Even in my mathematically challenged little world, a ballooning budget plus tax cuts does not equal a halved deficit by 2009. Especially since we added to the deficit this year (and last year, and the year before that, but really, who’s counting? Oh, yeah, I am.).
And here’s where I laud the Democratic response, the party chose a guy to speak who actually managed a bi-partisan effort to balance Virginia’s budget and expand the number and quality of accredited schools. Bush couldn’t manage that even while he was Governor of Texas. (Yes, TX and VA are very different states and I know that- lemme alone, I’m ranting.) He also called “Bush-it” on the fact that the teaching initiatives and energy programs have long been staples of the Democratic canon. Hmmm, I thought those sections sounded awfully familiar....
However, I was touched that Bush mentioned making the Ryan White Act permanent, so kudos to you, but again- the funding?
I had only one WTF ?!? moment reading the entire speech. Georgie states during his health care rant, “[a]nd because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB-GYN- I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year.” Huh? How the heck do you draw that line from “a” to “q”? I’m still looking for the numbers on that one…. Anyone? Bueller? Where did White House research get this???
Overall I was highly disappointed in the SOTU, but not for the reasons you might be thinking. Yes, we see Congress bouncing up and down and clapping at all of the pre-arranged intervals. We see the obligatory (and oft-times completly random) guests scattered in the gallery. Yes, Georgie’s logic and accounting leave a bit to be desired, but they’re known quantities, well known- that’s my big problem here. Aside from the energy initiative, part of the teaching/education initiative and the Ryan White Act, there was nothing new in this speech I haven’t heard a thousand times. One of the Slate.com authors likened the SOTU address to a cut and paste of all the speeches he's done in the last year. I expect a little more in the way of innovation in the SOTU address, it's the biggest national address of the year! If you don't have anything new to add, don't add anything at all, the speech is too damn long to begin with. And I am really, REALLY sick of parts of it.
Yes, 9-11 was a tragedy and it did change the course of our nation, but maybe it’s time to find a new place from which to draw our strength. Pain and anger can’t be sustained indefinitely, we have to heal. We can’t wallow and keep picking at these scars until we bleed again. President Bush, please, we need to move on. We’re in Iraq; we won’t leave until we can safely. We’re watching Iran, we’re watching Syria, and we’re being vigilant. We are still in danger, but we remember 9-11 just find on our own, stop dragging it into all of your speeches.
Please stop dragging out dead Marines. You hide the flag-draped coffins so we won’t know the raw numbers of the dead, but every time you need to pull the heartstrings of the public, you drag out the name of a dead soldier. You cite his grieving (but proud) family, quote a few lines from a harried (but proud) letter from the soldier in question, and say what a tragedy it would be if they died in vain. (With waving flags and pretty pictures of the fallen hero, wherever possible.) It was effective the first couple of times you did it, now it’s exploitation.
I’m too tired right now to go into the endless nattering on Patriot Act, immigration, “human cloning in all its forms,” and “compassion” overseas. Perhaps at a later time, after all, I’m sure you’ll go over it all again, and again, and again, just like you always do.
Mr. Bush, you said something in your speech that kinda stuck with me. “Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage.” Your approval ratings are down, some of your supporters are wavering, some of your supporters are being indicted for fraud, laundering, and general corrupt acts, and more and more people are wondering why so many decisions are being made behind closed doors, without any oversight. Do you have the courage to try something truly new? To cut the budget where it can be afforded? Cutting troops in a time of war is counter-productive, especially since the high-tech (and really expensive) equipment that’s supposed to compensate for the loss is untested, or not working at all. As for Medicaid- when I see kiosks in every Wal-Mart, grocery store, and drug store promising to “explain your options,” I’m thinking that maybe the program’s a little too complex. Come tax time, I don’t see so many offers of help, and everyone does taxes. And would it kill you to admit you want to get rid of Democratic “activist judges” and replace them with your own?
Your new initiatives are hardly new, and likely not even sustainable if you can get them off the ground to begin with.
Your accomplishments aren't nearly as black and white as you'd like them to be, and you still have a long way to go on most of them.
And I don't care what kind of spin you're dealing, things aren't as on track and as swell as you'd like us to believe. So a final "Bush-it" on you.
Guess we're at 0-3, then. Pity, it promised to be such a nice game.
*If you want to Google anything here (and I reccommend you do- there's plenty out there), there’s a search bar at the top of the page. If you can prove me wrong, please do, I’ll post any verifiable corrections.
Big Brother go home....
Originally posted 12-20-2005 and transferred here.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little tempory safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, In Freedom
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20spy.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th
-Administration cites war vote in spying case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/opinion/20tue1.html?th&emc=th
-The fog of false choices.
http://www.slate.com/id/2132811/
-The secrets they keep.
http://www.slate.com/id/2132983/
-Uncivil liberties.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little tempory safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, In Freedom
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20spy.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th
-Administration cites war vote in spying case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/opinion/20tue1.html?th&emc=th
-The fog of false choices.
http://www.slate.com/id/2132811/
-The secrets they keep.
http://www.slate.com/id/2132983/
-Uncivil liberties.
He's back!
Originally posted 12-19-2005 and transferred here.
Awww, Georgie, we missed ya!
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap12-19-052732.asp?t=apnew&vts=
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun1.html?th&emc=th
121920050708
Check it out- Georgie's got his little buddy Al saying congress OK'd domestic wire-tapping as a part of the measures that were passed in the wake of 9-11.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those measures for use of military force? The NSA 1) isn't an arm of the military, and 2) if the tapping was only to occur if one of the two (or more) parties involved had "ties" to al Qaida and was out of the country, who determined the connection? If the CIA can't properly deal with its own intelligence (or lack thereof), we're supposed to believe Georgie can?
Pardon me while I go beat my head against a post.
But it appears that it's Congress to the rescue. (yea?) Prominent members from both sides of the aisle are looking into hearings, so there will certainly be more to this story. Woo-hoo!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/index.html
Awww, Georgie, we missed ya!
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap12-19-052732.asp?t=apnew&vts=
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/opinion/18sun1.html?th&emc=th
121920050708
Check it out- Georgie's got his little buddy Al saying congress OK'd domestic wire-tapping as a part of the measures that were passed in the wake of 9-11.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't those measures for use of military force? The NSA 1) isn't an arm of the military, and 2) if the tapping was only to occur if one of the two (or more) parties involved had "ties" to al Qaida and was out of the country, who determined the connection? If the CIA can't properly deal with its own intelligence (or lack thereof), we're supposed to believe Georgie can?
Pardon me while I go beat my head against a post.
But it appears that it's Congress to the rescue. (yea?) Prominent members from both sides of the aisle are looking into hearings, so there will certainly be more to this story. Woo-hoo!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/index.html
Here's the other shoe...
Originally posted 12-16-2005 and transferred here.
We can't torture 'em, but if we do the testimony's admissible in court!
Yea!
http://www.slate.com/id/2132572/
We can't torture 'em, but if we do the testimony's admissible in court!
Yea!
http://www.slate.com/id/2132572/
Investing in ice skates; or, waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Originally posted 12-16-05
OK- where is Georgie, and who is this guy?
Now he's OK-ing Sen. McCain's Anti Torture bill.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/index.html
Granted the Senate and House had to bloody his nose a little to get him to do it, but still.... I'd hate to have to start liking the guy.
Actually, this is one of those issues that ethicists and legal eagles (and those of us with former aspirations to both) love to chew over, spit out in disgust and chew over again. Even I still have a metaphorical hand on that fence. While I whole-heartedly, and unreservedly support any legislation that will make torture illegal (or at least get us back in line with the Geneva Conventions), you can't help but wonder about that one case in a thousand. Ain't rampant paranoia a hoot?
And I'm not the only one wondering about that. Michel Kinsley of Slate.com wrote a pretty good piece hearkening back to that wonderful ethics-class debate of "What if you were alone with Hitler in his cradle- would you kill him?" and coming up on what I tend to think of as the "Didn't I just see that on '24'?" scenario of a lone terrorist having vital information on an imminent attack. I had a class spend two whole class periods discussing and arguing the Hitler question alone- I didn't sleep well that entire week, and the professors flat-out refused to let us even bring up the other issue. Here's Kinsley's article for those of you who like chasing links 'round the net:
http://www.slate.com/id/2132195/
OK- where is Georgie, and who is this guy?
Now he's OK-ing Sen. McCain's Anti Torture bill.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/index.html
Granted the Senate and House had to bloody his nose a little to get him to do it, but still.... I'd hate to have to start liking the guy.
Actually, this is one of those issues that ethicists and legal eagles (and those of us with former aspirations to both) love to chew over, spit out in disgust and chew over again. Even I still have a metaphorical hand on that fence. While I whole-heartedly, and unreservedly support any legislation that will make torture illegal (or at least get us back in line with the Geneva Conventions), you can't help but wonder about that one case in a thousand. Ain't rampant paranoia a hoot?
And I'm not the only one wondering about that. Michel Kinsley of Slate.com wrote a pretty good piece hearkening back to that wonderful ethics-class debate of "What if you were alone with Hitler in his cradle- would you kill him?" and coming up on what I tend to think of as the "Didn't I just see that on '24'?" scenario of a lone terrorist having vital information on an imminent attack. I had a class spend two whole class periods discussing and arguing the Hitler question alone- I didn't sleep well that entire week, and the professors flat-out refused to let us even bring up the other issue. Here's Kinsley's article for those of you who like chasing links 'round the net:
http://www.slate.com/id/2132195/
Hmm, Hell got a little colder. Not frozen over, but still...
Originally posted 12-14-05 and transferred here.
Georgie finally did it- sort of. He finally admitted some responsibility for going to war with faulty intelligence. Of course he bracketed the comment with the usual line of we were right to go, we're right to stay, and we're going to stay until we're done. But it's the first time I've "heard" him take any responsibility. (Unless someone can correct-me and please do if you have an example, I'd like to read it.)
The link in the title goes to the CNN.com transcript of the speech, but the following are a few excerpts that stuck out at me, complete with my own sketched-out initial impressions:
B:"In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
Me: So rumors will do just fine? Where do you even begin to draw this line in the first place? And wasn't that the problem with the intelligence to go to war in the first place- too many rumors and too many mis-drawn conclusions?
B:"When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities."
Me: Remember my "Random thoughts" post about "political oopsies"? Granted that was more of a reaction to the Libby-Cheney-Plame debacle, but this kinda applies as well. Pseudo-kudos to Georgie's advisors for getting the guy to take responsibility, but does he have give it in this back-handed manner? Yes, other governments jumped on the WMD bandwagon, but some of them have since expressed sorrow and regret at the mistake, while still remaining resolute to "stay the course." Taken in context with the rest of the speech, this is almost like he's saying "I was responsible, the info was wrong, but I don't care."
B: "This is an enemy without conscience. And again, such enemy, there is only one effective response. We will never back down, we will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory."
Me: And neither will they- that's the problem with a "war on terrorism". How do you define your victory when there's no one border that contains your enemies? Do we call it when we've chased all the terrorists out of Iraq and into neighboring countries? Do we follow them if that's what happens? Here's an interesting take on that conundrum: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/morton.victory/index.html
B: "It used to be that after American troops cleared the terrorists out of a city and moved on to the next mission, there weren't enough forces -- Iraqi forces -- to hold the area. We found that after we left, the terrorists would re-enter the city, intimidate local leaders and police and eventually retake control.
This undermined the gains of our military, it thwarted our efforts to help Iraqis rebuild, and led local residents to lose confidence in the process and in their leaders."
Me: Ya think? And it only took what, over a year for us notice this was happening? Yup- here's a quote, "Our troops liberated Najaf in 2003. Yet about a year later, the city fell under the sway of radical and violent militia."
There's a lot about this speech that bothers me, but some of it is encouraging. It seems that Georgie is actually taking the time to listen to his nay-sayers, instead of ignoring them outright or attacking their patriotism. (Bottomed-out approval ratings will do that, I guess.) In more of his recent speeches, he's actually taken the time to answer some of the endless questions he's been asked. And while his answers aren't wholly satisfying, at least to me, he is finally engaging in the debate.
And for the record (in case anyone cares) I don't like that we went in using faulty intelligence as a prop, but the regime was horrible (and there are many others as bad or worse out there) and needed to be dealt with. I HATE that we went in almost half-assed and misjudged everything from the strength of the insurgents, the weakness of the existing infrastructure, and the number of soldiers it would take to take and hold positions. It is getting better (slowly), but only after how long? As cheesy as the comparisons to the WWII mobilizations are, there are points to be made. And I have to (grudgingly) agree with one point Georgie makes- while a firm withdrawal date would be heavenly, it's not practically possible.
Georgie finally did it- sort of. He finally admitted some responsibility for going to war with faulty intelligence. Of course he bracketed the comment with the usual line of we were right to go, we're right to stay, and we're going to stay until we're done. But it's the first time I've "heard" him take any responsibility. (Unless someone can correct-me and please do if you have an example, I'd like to read it.)
The link in the title goes to the CNN.com transcript of the speech, but the following are a few excerpts that stuck out at me, complete with my own sketched-out initial impressions:
B:"In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
Me: So rumors will do just fine? Where do you even begin to draw this line in the first place? And wasn't that the problem with the intelligence to go to war in the first place- too many rumors and too many mis-drawn conclusions?
B:"When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities."
Me: Remember my "Random thoughts" post about "political oopsies"? Granted that was more of a reaction to the Libby-Cheney-Plame debacle, but this kinda applies as well. Pseudo-kudos to Georgie's advisors for getting the guy to take responsibility, but does he have give it in this back-handed manner? Yes, other governments jumped on the WMD bandwagon, but some of them have since expressed sorrow and regret at the mistake, while still remaining resolute to "stay the course." Taken in context with the rest of the speech, this is almost like he's saying "I was responsible, the info was wrong, but I don't care."
B: "This is an enemy without conscience. And again, such enemy, there is only one effective response. We will never back down, we will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory."
Me: And neither will they- that's the problem with a "war on terrorism". How do you define your victory when there's no one border that contains your enemies? Do we call it when we've chased all the terrorists out of Iraq and into neighboring countries? Do we follow them if that's what happens? Here's an interesting take on that conundrum: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/morton.victory/index.html
B: "It used to be that after American troops cleared the terrorists out of a city and moved on to the next mission, there weren't enough forces -- Iraqi forces -- to hold the area. We found that after we left, the terrorists would re-enter the city, intimidate local leaders and police and eventually retake control.
This undermined the gains of our military, it thwarted our efforts to help Iraqis rebuild, and led local residents to lose confidence in the process and in their leaders."
Me: Ya think? And it only took what, over a year for us notice this was happening? Yup- here's a quote, "Our troops liberated Najaf in 2003. Yet about a year later, the city fell under the sway of radical and violent militia."
There's a lot about this speech that bothers me, but some of it is encouraging. It seems that Georgie is actually taking the time to listen to his nay-sayers, instead of ignoring them outright or attacking their patriotism. (Bottomed-out approval ratings will do that, I guess.) In more of his recent speeches, he's actually taken the time to answer some of the endless questions he's been asked. And while his answers aren't wholly satisfying, at least to me, he is finally engaging in the debate.
And for the record (in case anyone cares) I don't like that we went in using faulty intelligence as a prop, but the regime was horrible (and there are many others as bad or worse out there) and needed to be dealt with. I HATE that we went in almost half-assed and misjudged everything from the strength of the insurgents, the weakness of the existing infrastructure, and the number of soldiers it would take to take and hold positions. It is getting better (slowly), but only after how long? As cheesy as the comparisons to the WWII mobilizations are, there are points to be made. And I have to (grudgingly) agree with one point Georgie makes- while a firm withdrawal date would be heavenly, it's not practically possible.
Highly Insulted by a "Higher Authority"
Originally posted 11-15-2005, transferred here.
"If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help, because he might not be there." - Pat Robertson on the ousting of the Dover, PA school board in the last election.
Sometimes I wonder if God is just hiding under a rock somewhere, shaking his head, and wondering why His children seem willing to insult, threaten, and belittle each other in His name. Forget the hubris involved in claiming that your word is God's Word, this is just getting stupid.
If God wanted religious theories thought in schools, we would have lost the Revolutionary War, or the framers of the Constitution would have instituted a national religion, or we would have been struck down when Darwin opened his big mouth. Just because parents are too lazy to insist their children learn religious instruction in church, where, let's face it, the people teaching it would have a little more cred than an art teacher drafted into the science department, or too lazy to teach it to their children themselves, doesn't mean that schools have to pick up the slack. And if little Johnny and Jenny come back home from school crying that teacher is teaching different things than Pastor Paul, feel free to refer them to me.
One of the wisest pieces of educational theory I have EVER heard was mounted on the wall of my high school choir room: "When we study religious music it is not to teach you what you should believe, but what others in the world believe." And if you can't accept what others may believe, and think just because yours is the majority religion you have the right to enforce its teaching in a public arena, than you can go be a good little Nazi somewhere else.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T is not a song, and if you think I should go to hell, than I say, "after you."
And please, don't point out that intelligent Design is a scientific theory unless you're willing to admit that the "Designer" in question could be the little green men from a galaxy far, far, away. You can "prove" one as easily as the other.
And I'm not saying that ID has no place in schools, just not in a science class. If these parents really, really want this taught in public schools- lobby to make it an elective. Comparative Creation Theory 101, or Judeo-Christian traditions in Modern Science. Heck, the latter can include topics on the abortion debate, stem cell research, and assisted suicide. We can teach children to listen and debate topics without resorting to "I'm right, you're wrong and you're going to hell."
The link in the title is to the Washington Post article that sums up Mr. Robertson's latest tirade, and yes, while I don't agree with a thing the man says I do defend his right to say it. It's always nice to be reminded why I believe what I believe, even if I have to be offended in order for that to happen.
The link below is to an interesting article by William Saletan, posted on Slate.com. Mr. Saletan covers a lot of the scientific/religious debate in today's politics.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130282/?nav=tap3
"If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help, because he might not be there." - Pat Robertson on the ousting of the Dover, PA school board in the last election.
Sometimes I wonder if God is just hiding under a rock somewhere, shaking his head, and wondering why His children seem willing to insult, threaten, and belittle each other in His name. Forget the hubris involved in claiming that your word is God's Word, this is just getting stupid.
If God wanted religious theories thought in schools, we would have lost the Revolutionary War, or the framers of the Constitution would have instituted a national religion, or we would have been struck down when Darwin opened his big mouth. Just because parents are too lazy to insist their children learn religious instruction in church, where, let's face it, the people teaching it would have a little more cred than an art teacher drafted into the science department, or too lazy to teach it to their children themselves, doesn't mean that schools have to pick up the slack. And if little Johnny and Jenny come back home from school crying that teacher is teaching different things than Pastor Paul, feel free to refer them to me.
One of the wisest pieces of educational theory I have EVER heard was mounted on the wall of my high school choir room: "When we study religious music it is not to teach you what you should believe, but what others in the world believe." And if you can't accept what others may believe, and think just because yours is the majority religion you have the right to enforce its teaching in a public arena, than you can go be a good little Nazi somewhere else.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T is not a song, and if you think I should go to hell, than I say, "after you."
And please, don't point out that intelligent Design is a scientific theory unless you're willing to admit that the "Designer" in question could be the little green men from a galaxy far, far, away. You can "prove" one as easily as the other.
And I'm not saying that ID has no place in schools, just not in a science class. If these parents really, really want this taught in public schools- lobby to make it an elective. Comparative Creation Theory 101, or Judeo-Christian traditions in Modern Science. Heck, the latter can include topics on the abortion debate, stem cell research, and assisted suicide. We can teach children to listen and debate topics without resorting to "I'm right, you're wrong and you're going to hell."
The link in the title is to the Washington Post article that sums up Mr. Robertson's latest tirade, and yes, while I don't agree with a thing the man says I do defend his right to say it. It's always nice to be reminded why I believe what I believe, even if I have to be offended in order for that to happen.
The link below is to an interesting article by William Saletan, posted on Slate.com. Mr. Saletan covers a lot of the scientific/religious debate in today's politics.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130282/?nav=tap3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
