I have reluctantly had to enable the 'word verification' feature on Deep Thought. This has been necessitated by the number of spam robots that seem to have 'discovered' Deep Thought.
I don't like this feature on other blogs, and think it is a nuisance. However, I have had to spend more and more time scooping up spam from old posts, so the time has come to do this. I do support the first amendment, and as such I have let all posts of a different opinion remain up (except for one instance when filthy language was the trigger). However, I do not consider it an infringement on anyone's free speech rights to get rid of posts left by an automated spamming program that is trying to use my blog to sell something.
Monday, November 07, 2005
In justifying torture, Bush's first victim is logic.
In defending his request that the CIA be granted an exemption from the proposed McCain amendment banning the use of torture by American security agencies, President Bush today said that we do not torture terror suspects.
The President's diminishing credibility aside, just apply simple logic here: If we don't torture (and there is no question that we did not do it prior to the 'Gonzalez memo') then why is the administration fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Senate from passing an amendment saying the CIA can't do something the President says they aren't doing anyway?
And why all the coy deceptions then? Why did the Bush administration go so far as to use former Soviet torture camps in eastern Europe to hide the alleged activities that he denies are happening from western eyes? Of course, one has to wonder what the locals in places like Hungary and Romania think about that-- apparently no change from the way the place used to be, just the star is a different color.
And the proposed amendment is hardly a radical plan-- it simply reaffirms that we will abide by the procedures that have been in the army field manual.
As for the argument that has been put forward by proponents of torture, 'look who we're fighting,' I would simply point out that in the nearly century since the United States was a signatory to the Geneva Convention which expressly prohibits the use of torture (and which Zap Albert defined as 'quaint' when he rewrote the rules on torture) we have fought and beaten enemies much more dangerous, deadly and equally as ruthless and fanatical as al-Qaeda, including Nazism, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Communism without the need to change our rules on torture. Are proponents of using it now simply saying that the threat from al-Qaeda is more imminent than the threat we faced from these enemies?
The President's diminishing credibility aside, just apply simple logic here: If we don't torture (and there is no question that we did not do it prior to the 'Gonzalez memo') then why is the administration fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Senate from passing an amendment saying the CIA can't do something the President says they aren't doing anyway?
And why all the coy deceptions then? Why did the Bush administration go so far as to use former Soviet torture camps in eastern Europe to hide the alleged activities that he denies are happening from western eyes? Of course, one has to wonder what the locals in places like Hungary and Romania think about that-- apparently no change from the way the place used to be, just the star is a different color.
And the proposed amendment is hardly a radical plan-- it simply reaffirms that we will abide by the procedures that have been in the army field manual.
As for the argument that has been put forward by proponents of torture, 'look who we're fighting,' I would simply point out that in the nearly century since the United States was a signatory to the Geneva Convention which expressly prohibits the use of torture (and which Zap Albert defined as 'quaint' when he rewrote the rules on torture) we have fought and beaten enemies much more dangerous, deadly and equally as ruthless and fanatical as al-Qaeda, including Nazism, Imperial Japan, and Soviet Communism without the need to change our rules on torture. Are proponents of using it now simply saying that the threat from al-Qaeda is more imminent than the threat we faced from these enemies?
Saturday, November 05, 2005
I told you so, in 2001. Now we are stuck with a bad law that is being abused.
Remember the claims made by supporters of the 'Patriot Act' when it was first pushed through Congress, who claimed that people opposed to the act were paranoid, because it was only intended to make it easier for our government to spy on suspected terrorists? They claimed that if someone was not a terrorist or suspected of some tie to terrorists, there was nothing to worry about.
Well, as many suspected, an investigation by the Washington Post now confirms that those were empty words designed to get through a bill about government control of individuals under the guise of fighting terrorists.
The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow....
The Connecticut case affords a rare glimpse of an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, which marked its fourth anniversary on Oct. 26. "National security letters," created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.
The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.
So apparently, now you do not have to be a terrorist, or have anything at all to do with terrorism, but simply be an ordinary American citizen, and the FBI now has the authority to use surveillance methods that should be reserved only for spies and terrorists.
There are many dangers here. First and foremost, it involves the government making it their business to know everyone's private business. As long as there is no reason to suspect that you or I are doing something illegal (and such a search once 'probable cause' has been established has always been allowed), what we do, who we talk to, what we spend our money on, and other details like this are not the government's business.
Second, there is certainly a potential here for the FBI to learn information that could be used for personal or political blackmail, thereby allowing the agency to potentially compromise people who the FBI might find it useful to either manipulate, force out of the picture, or gain complete control over. There is no guarantee that this information won't be used in this manner, and the fact that it is being collected at all makes one think it very well may be (after all, what other use is there for keeping track of internet, phone and bank records for people with no connection to terrorism? And if they have no plans to use this information, why do they want it?)
I do also have to say this (just something I've observed, but I've heard it from enough conservatives that I'm pretty sure a lot of them think this way): As long as Bill Clinton was the President, they railed against increased Federal power (for example, opposing the terrorism bill that was passed after the OKC bombing-- and they were right, most of what was in that bill really didn't make us any safer, it just gave the government more tools to pry into your life.) But somehow, they 'trust' the Bush government to not do what the Washington Post is now reporting it is doing.
And at that, even if they WERE right to 'trust in Bush,' the stupidity and short-sightedness that pervades these conservatives who support giving Bush carte blanche to impose more and more loose interpretations on more and more laws like this is truly amazing. These expansive new laws and policies will be there to be used and abused by every single President in the future. And at least a few of them are sure to be scoundrels, if our history is any guide.
We should take the war on terror seriously, but we already had (pre-Patriot act) the authority to investigate, conduct surveillance and otherwise collect evidence against those who we had reason to believe are spies, terrorists or otherwise a threat. But the chance that if our government collects a mountain of evidence on everybody, out of all of this information, some profile somewhere will just suggest 'terrorist,' so we will suddenly catch them, is vanishingly small, but the surrender of freedom we gave up is huge, and permanent.
And, don't just limit it to the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act. The government now has, under this adminstration, the right to 1: conduct secret tribunals, including those which can sentence to death, 2: the right to torture suspects, and 3: the right to detain a U.S. citizen (not yet officially accused 'dirty bomber' Jose Padilla) indefinitely without filing any charges.
Secret surveillance of ordinary citizens. Indefinite detentions, torture, and secret tribunals that are empowered to sentence people to death. Wasn't this what we were supposed to be 'better than' during the Cold War? Josef Stalin has to be laughing at us from hell.
those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Well, as many suspected, an investigation by the Washington Post now confirms that those were empty words designed to get through a bill about government control of individuals under the guise of fighting terrorists.
The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow....
The Connecticut case affords a rare glimpse of an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, which marked its fourth anniversary on Oct. 26. "National security letters," created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.
The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.
So apparently, now you do not have to be a terrorist, or have anything at all to do with terrorism, but simply be an ordinary American citizen, and the FBI now has the authority to use surveillance methods that should be reserved only for spies and terrorists.
There are many dangers here. First and foremost, it involves the government making it their business to know everyone's private business. As long as there is no reason to suspect that you or I are doing something illegal (and such a search once 'probable cause' has been established has always been allowed), what we do, who we talk to, what we spend our money on, and other details like this are not the government's business.
Second, there is certainly a potential here for the FBI to learn information that could be used for personal or political blackmail, thereby allowing the agency to potentially compromise people who the FBI might find it useful to either manipulate, force out of the picture, or gain complete control over. There is no guarantee that this information won't be used in this manner, and the fact that it is being collected at all makes one think it very well may be (after all, what other use is there for keeping track of internet, phone and bank records for people with no connection to terrorism? And if they have no plans to use this information, why do they want it?)
I do also have to say this (just something I've observed, but I've heard it from enough conservatives that I'm pretty sure a lot of them think this way): As long as Bill Clinton was the President, they railed against increased Federal power (for example, opposing the terrorism bill that was passed after the OKC bombing-- and they were right, most of what was in that bill really didn't make us any safer, it just gave the government more tools to pry into your life.) But somehow, they 'trust' the Bush government to not do what the Washington Post is now reporting it is doing.
And at that, even if they WERE right to 'trust in Bush,' the stupidity and short-sightedness that pervades these conservatives who support giving Bush carte blanche to impose more and more loose interpretations on more and more laws like this is truly amazing. These expansive new laws and policies will be there to be used and abused by every single President in the future. And at least a few of them are sure to be scoundrels, if our history is any guide.
We should take the war on terror seriously, but we already had (pre-Patriot act) the authority to investigate, conduct surveillance and otherwise collect evidence against those who we had reason to believe are spies, terrorists or otherwise a threat. But the chance that if our government collects a mountain of evidence on everybody, out of all of this information, some profile somewhere will just suggest 'terrorist,' so we will suddenly catch them, is vanishingly small, but the surrender of freedom we gave up is huge, and permanent.
And, don't just limit it to the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act. The government now has, under this adminstration, the right to 1: conduct secret tribunals, including those which can sentence to death, 2: the right to torture suspects, and 3: the right to detain a U.S. citizen (not yet officially accused 'dirty bomber' Jose Padilla) indefinitely without filing any charges.
Secret surveillance of ordinary citizens. Indefinite detentions, torture, and secret tribunals that are empowered to sentence people to death. Wasn't this what we were supposed to be 'better than' during the Cold War? Josef Stalin has to be laughing at us from hell.
those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Friday, November 04, 2005
I guess if you scratch the mayor's car, it's concrete overshoes for sure.
I don't like graffiti. Almost all of it is ugly, certainly detracts from whatever it is on, and often is vulgar, gang-related, or otherwise offensive.
And I believe that graffiti vandals should be forced to clean up their own and other people's graffiti. It is a community service level crime.
I can even agree with those who suggest that it is worth sending a young person to jail for in some cases, particularly if it is not a first offense, or if it is a particularly egregious case (for example, suggesting a gang-related 'hit' on someone, or is covered by hate crimes laws such as painting swastikas on a synagogue).
But have someone cut off your thumb?
And what if the person suggesting this is the elected mayor of a major American city?
“In the old days in France, they had beheadings of people who commit heinous crimes,” Mayor Oscar Goodman said Wednesday on the TV show “Nevada Newsmakers.”
Goodman said the city has a beautiful highway landscaping project and “these punks come along and deface it.
“I’m saying maybe you put them on TV and cut off a thumb,” the mayor said. “That may be the right thing to do.”
Goodman also suggested whippings should be brought back for children who get into trouble.
Oh, yeah, that's just what I want, for my kids to turn on the TV and watch someone's thumb getting cut off.
Hint to mayor Goodman: There was a reason why the French got rid of the guillotine in 1981. First, it was very bloody and not befitting a civilized nation. Second, it was ineffective as a deterrent. Third, it became just as much a symbol of a part of their past that France wanted to forget as, well, Bugsy Siegel and his associates are a part of a past that Las Vegas wants to forget (or did, until they found out that there is still some money to be made by featuring Bugsy in a museum display at the Tropicana.
But even if one thought that a medieval punishment like cutting off an offenders thumb had any place in the twenty-first century, is it really justified for graffiti vandalism for crying out loud!?
If the mayor and the city of Las Vegas really thinks that graffiti vandalism is their top concern, then I have a better idea. Get the crews out immediately to clean it up. Graffiti loves company. Let one 'tag' stay up, then others will follow. Have it down in a few hours, then pretty soon the 'punks' mayor Goodman is complaining about will figure out that it just isn't worth their cash and their effort to put it up, when it is gone the next time they drive by there. And, when you catch them, put them on that clean up team. And make sure that they spend a lot more time at it than they spent putting up the original graffiti. Say, 100 hours for the first offense, then thirty days in jail with work detail on cleaning up graffiti for subsequent offenses (and there are days in Las Vegas when you absolutely DON'T want to be working outdoors, trust me on that one). And heck, put other work crew prisoners on the clean up team also. Before long, graffiti taggers will be the most unpopular people in jail because it will make so much more hot outdoor work for everyone else to do.
But leave their thumbs on.
As for myself, I and my wife enjoyed spending the first and last nights of our honeymoon in Las Vegas thirteen years ago. We have been back a couple of times since with our kids as tourists. We enjoyed going to Las Vegas as a tourist for a couple of days last summer. We saw the 'Titanic' exhibit at the Tropicana, and saw Dirk Arthur, a master magician. We took a gondola ride at the Venetian.
But as long as they have an elected mayor whose methods make one think that the mafia is still calling the shots in Vegas, I for one will choose to not spend my money there.
And I believe that graffiti vandals should be forced to clean up their own and other people's graffiti. It is a community service level crime.
I can even agree with those who suggest that it is worth sending a young person to jail for in some cases, particularly if it is not a first offense, or if it is a particularly egregious case (for example, suggesting a gang-related 'hit' on someone, or is covered by hate crimes laws such as painting swastikas on a synagogue).
But have someone cut off your thumb?
And what if the person suggesting this is the elected mayor of a major American city?
“In the old days in France, they had beheadings of people who commit heinous crimes,” Mayor Oscar Goodman said Wednesday on the TV show “Nevada Newsmakers.”
Goodman said the city has a beautiful highway landscaping project and “these punks come along and deface it.
“I’m saying maybe you put them on TV and cut off a thumb,” the mayor said. “That may be the right thing to do.”
Goodman also suggested whippings should be brought back for children who get into trouble.
Oh, yeah, that's just what I want, for my kids to turn on the TV and watch someone's thumb getting cut off.
Hint to mayor Goodman: There was a reason why the French got rid of the guillotine in 1981. First, it was very bloody and not befitting a civilized nation. Second, it was ineffective as a deterrent. Third, it became just as much a symbol of a part of their past that France wanted to forget as, well, Bugsy Siegel and his associates are a part of a past that Las Vegas wants to forget (or did, until they found out that there is still some money to be made by featuring Bugsy in a museum display at the Tropicana.
But even if one thought that a medieval punishment like cutting off an offenders thumb had any place in the twenty-first century, is it really justified for graffiti vandalism for crying out loud!?
If the mayor and the city of Las Vegas really thinks that graffiti vandalism is their top concern, then I have a better idea. Get the crews out immediately to clean it up. Graffiti loves company. Let one 'tag' stay up, then others will follow. Have it down in a few hours, then pretty soon the 'punks' mayor Goodman is complaining about will figure out that it just isn't worth their cash and their effort to put it up, when it is gone the next time they drive by there. And, when you catch them, put them on that clean up team. And make sure that they spend a lot more time at it than they spent putting up the original graffiti. Say, 100 hours for the first offense, then thirty days in jail with work detail on cleaning up graffiti for subsequent offenses (and there are days in Las Vegas when you absolutely DON'T want to be working outdoors, trust me on that one). And heck, put other work crew prisoners on the clean up team also. Before long, graffiti taggers will be the most unpopular people in jail because it will make so much more hot outdoor work for everyone else to do.
But leave their thumbs on.
As for myself, I and my wife enjoyed spending the first and last nights of our honeymoon in Las Vegas thirteen years ago. We have been back a couple of times since with our kids as tourists. We enjoyed going to Las Vegas as a tourist for a couple of days last summer. We saw the 'Titanic' exhibit at the Tropicana, and saw Dirk Arthur, a master magician. We took a gondola ride at the Venetian.
But as long as they have an elected mayor whose methods make one think that the mafia is still calling the shots in Vegas, I for one will choose to not spend my money there.
And we'll bill you later.
We all know about the belief on the part of conservatives that states should 'carry their own weight' without relying on Federal help.
And, we all know about the slow response on the part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Hurricane Katrina. So today, the other shoe dropped: FEMA sent the state of Louisiana a bill for $3.7 billion to cover the state's share of the costs for Hurricane relief.
Now, it is true that Federal law (because of a provision put in at the behest of conservatives) requires that this bill be sent, and that it represents about nine percent of the total federal expenditures in the state after Katrina. However, there was NO INDICATION that any relief from the bill will be forthcoming. And how big a bill is it?
The $3.7 billion represents just under half of the $8 billion the state spends per year and comes as the extensive flooding around New Orleans has severely undercut tax revenue. The state is in the midst of heavy cost-cutting to whittle down a projected $1 billion shortfall.
In other words, it represents nearly half of the state budget. Leaving the lower tax revenue to the state aside, it would certainly force, if paid, the state to shut down schools all over the state, close universities and end state programs to many, many people all over the state (and I am assuming here that they would choose to keep inmates locked up and emergency workers on the job; I suppose an alternative scenario would be to open the prison doors and let the emergency workers go in order to fund schools). The problem here is again, not that the bill came as required by law, but the fact that even with this shocking bill there is NO indication that the state of Louisiana will be forgiven even a part of it.
Of course, this is not out of line with what the Republicans in Congress and the White House have been doing since the immediate coverage of the storm died down. As I blogged on a number of earlier occasions, no-bid contracts for cleanup and rebuilding were initially given to politically well connected companies from out of the area instead of local contractors. Then President Bush began their job by suspending Davis-Bacon, allowing all those out of state contractors to avoid labor laws, which many of them used to hire undocumented aliens instead of any of the many thousands of local residents who badly needed the work. A proposal by Democrats (including me to delay the implementation of the new bankruptcy law for people in the effected zip codes was also stopped cold by Republicans (with a crucial vote against it being cast by Lousiana's junior Senator, David Vitter, who apparently sided with the credit card industry against thousands of people who he supposedly represents). Then pretty much the entire Senate (including a bunch of wrong-headed Democrats, to be honest) followed it up by refusing to divert funds from pork projects in Alaska to rebuild the Lake Pontchartrain causeway between New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish on the north side of the lake.
So, don't expect that the President will be quick to offer relief to the state. He may when he gets back from Argentina, but only because it was the lead story today in USA Today.
Now, as a liberal, I would point out that our founding fathers, who could have easily, and were under pressure to, left a 'balkanized' America consisting of thirteen independent states, all with their own government wrangling with each other, instead formed a more perfect union. Despite the problems between states and regions since then, we are all Americans, and I have no problem conceptually with paying taxes that go to rebuild Louisiana. They need it right now. The spirit of a Federal America is that we all stick together. And ironically, it is the 'blue states' who now subsidize 'red states', with for example, residents of New Jersey getting back on $.57 for every dollar in taxes that they paid to the Federal government, and voters in California getting back only $.80, while blue-turned-red New Mexico gets $1.99 per dollar in federal taxes, for example. However, it seems that the mean spiritedness of 'you're on your own, buddy' that we hear mainly from the right has overwhelmed this generosity and today it was Lousiana that was the victim.
And the state of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans? Well, today, they were forced to divert some police from their duties and put in some overtime so they could provide security when Prince Charles and Camilla came to gawk at the misery.
Glad to know that our leadership has their priorities straight.
And, we all know about the slow response on the part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Hurricane Katrina. So today, the other shoe dropped: FEMA sent the state of Louisiana a bill for $3.7 billion to cover the state's share of the costs for Hurricane relief.
Now, it is true that Federal law (because of a provision put in at the behest of conservatives) requires that this bill be sent, and that it represents about nine percent of the total federal expenditures in the state after Katrina. However, there was NO INDICATION that any relief from the bill will be forthcoming. And how big a bill is it?
The $3.7 billion represents just under half of the $8 billion the state spends per year and comes as the extensive flooding around New Orleans has severely undercut tax revenue. The state is in the midst of heavy cost-cutting to whittle down a projected $1 billion shortfall.
In other words, it represents nearly half of the state budget. Leaving the lower tax revenue to the state aside, it would certainly force, if paid, the state to shut down schools all over the state, close universities and end state programs to many, many people all over the state (and I am assuming here that they would choose to keep inmates locked up and emergency workers on the job; I suppose an alternative scenario would be to open the prison doors and let the emergency workers go in order to fund schools). The problem here is again, not that the bill came as required by law, but the fact that even with this shocking bill there is NO indication that the state of Louisiana will be forgiven even a part of it.
Of course, this is not out of line with what the Republicans in Congress and the White House have been doing since the immediate coverage of the storm died down. As I blogged on a number of earlier occasions, no-bid contracts for cleanup and rebuilding were initially given to politically well connected companies from out of the area instead of local contractors. Then President Bush began their job by suspending Davis-Bacon, allowing all those out of state contractors to avoid labor laws, which many of them used to hire undocumented aliens instead of any of the many thousands of local residents who badly needed the work. A proposal by Democrats (including me to delay the implementation of the new bankruptcy law for people in the effected zip codes was also stopped cold by Republicans (with a crucial vote against it being cast by Lousiana's junior Senator, David Vitter, who apparently sided with the credit card industry against thousands of people who he supposedly represents). Then pretty much the entire Senate (including a bunch of wrong-headed Democrats, to be honest) followed it up by refusing to divert funds from pork projects in Alaska to rebuild the Lake Pontchartrain causeway between New Orleans and St. Tammany Parish on the north side of the lake.
So, don't expect that the President will be quick to offer relief to the state. He may when he gets back from Argentina, but only because it was the lead story today in USA Today.
Now, as a liberal, I would point out that our founding fathers, who could have easily, and were under pressure to, left a 'balkanized' America consisting of thirteen independent states, all with their own government wrangling with each other, instead formed a more perfect union. Despite the problems between states and regions since then, we are all Americans, and I have no problem conceptually with paying taxes that go to rebuild Louisiana. They need it right now. The spirit of a Federal America is that we all stick together. And ironically, it is the 'blue states' who now subsidize 'red states', with for example, residents of New Jersey getting back on $.57 for every dollar in taxes that they paid to the Federal government, and voters in California getting back only $.80, while blue-turned-red New Mexico gets $1.99 per dollar in federal taxes, for example. However, it seems that the mean spiritedness of 'you're on your own, buddy' that we hear mainly from the right has overwhelmed this generosity and today it was Lousiana that was the victim.
And the state of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans? Well, today, they were forced to divert some police from their duties and put in some overtime so they could provide security when Prince Charles and Camilla came to gawk at the misery.
Glad to know that our leadership has their priorities straight.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
the Bush administration jobs program.
After the revelations of cronyism in the Bush administration, following Hurricane Katrina, you'd think that the President would hire someone who wouldn't fit this description to lead the rebuilding effort.
You might think that, but you'd be wrong.
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was assigned by the Bush administration on Tuesday to oversee the federal government's disaster-recovery efforts on the Gulf Coast.
Donald Powell, 64, a wealthy contributor to President Bush's presidential campaign, will be in charge of coordinating long-term plans to rebuild the states hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The sluggish federal response to Katrina, the first and most damaging of the two, has been widely criticized.
Prior to his becoming chair of the FDIC, he was a banker in Tennessee. While officials tried to point out how that experience and a previous stint as a University administrator qualified him for the job, it still seems that his best qualification is that, as the article says, he was a wealthy contributor to President Bush's Presidential campaign.
Maybe this explains why Michael Brown is still on the payroll at FEMA.
You might think that, but you'd be wrong.
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was assigned by the Bush administration on Tuesday to oversee the federal government's disaster-recovery efforts on the Gulf Coast.
Donald Powell, 64, a wealthy contributor to President Bush's presidential campaign, will be in charge of coordinating long-term plans to rebuild the states hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The sluggish federal response to Katrina, the first and most damaging of the two, has been widely criticized.
Prior to his becoming chair of the FDIC, he was a banker in Tennessee. While officials tried to point out how that experience and a previous stint as a University administrator qualified him for the job, it still seems that his best qualification is that, as the article says, he was a wealthy contributor to President Bush's Presidential campaign.
Maybe this explains why Michael Brown is still on the payroll at FEMA.
Another result from the Colorado election yesterday
It turns out that yesterday was a busy day in the original Rocky Mountain State. Besides pulling all of the teeth out of TABOR, voters in Denver decriminalized small amounts of marijuana.
Now, it is true that the vote is largely symbolic, given that state laws against the possession of marijuana will still be enforced.
But what it does point out, is that the voters in Denver as elsewhere are way ahead of the politicians on this issue. Very few politicians are willing to stick their necks out and say they are in favor of legalizing marijuana, but in fact most people recognize that 1) it is a drug, but no more dangerous than, say, alcohol, which is legal; 2) banning it has not kept kids from getting it, 3) keeping it illegal has helped create more violent criminals since they have a collective monopoly on the marijuana market, and 4) we spend a lot of money fighting marijuana that could be put to better use elsewhere (starting with educating young people about the effects of marijuana and other drugs).
Now, I do not use or desire that anyone I know should use any drug without a doctor's prescription. And I am aware that prolonged marijuana use will kill you the same way as tobacco-- by filling your lungs full of tars and other substances that don't belong there, until you die from emphysema, lung cancer, etc.
But there are a lot better ways to fight something that is socially undesirable besides arresting people for it.
Now, it is true that the vote is largely symbolic, given that state laws against the possession of marijuana will still be enforced.
But what it does point out, is that the voters in Denver as elsewhere are way ahead of the politicians on this issue. Very few politicians are willing to stick their necks out and say they are in favor of legalizing marijuana, but in fact most people recognize that 1) it is a drug, but no more dangerous than, say, alcohol, which is legal; 2) banning it has not kept kids from getting it, 3) keeping it illegal has helped create more violent criminals since they have a collective monopoly on the marijuana market, and 4) we spend a lot of money fighting marijuana that could be put to better use elsewhere (starting with educating young people about the effects of marijuana and other drugs).
Now, I do not use or desire that anyone I know should use any drug without a doctor's prescription. And I am aware that prolonged marijuana use will kill you the same way as tobacco-- by filling your lungs full of tars and other substances that don't belong there, until you die from emphysema, lung cancer, etc.
But there are a lot better ways to fight something that is socially undesirable besides arresting people for it.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Colorado voters take a chain saw to TABOR.
In 1992, conservatives in Colorado celebrated their biggest victory, the Taxpayer's bill of rights (TABOR) which required the state to refund all tax revenue collected beyond a stipulated amount to the taxpayers in the state.
How has it fared?
Well, after it appeared that the provision was working during the early 1990's, a period in which Colorado experienced record growth which pushed the stipulated spending limit up rapidly, as soon as growth slowed, problems appeared. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan group, once the economy slowed,
Contraction in electronics and telecommunications industries occurred rapidly in 2000 and 2001, shrinking the state economy and tax collections. Personal income grew only 2 percent from 2002 to 2003, the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was 2.8 percent. State employment shrank by 1 percent from 2002 to 2003, again the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was -0.1 percent....
The state's budget problems have been made worse by the interaction of an additional constitutional provision with the TABOR revenue limit. Voters in 2000 approved Amendment 23, which requires the General Assembly annually to increase base per pupil funding for K-12 education by inflation plus one percentage point a year through 2010, and by inflation thereafter. K-12 funding now accounts for 40 percent of the Colorado General Fund budget....
TABOR prevented the creation of a state rainy day fund through implication as well as its requirement that revenues in excess of a limit be returned to the voters. Reserves of 3 percent of the general fund are allowed, but any use must be repaid in the following fiscal year. Thus the reserve fund is more in the nature of a cash-flow reserve than a rainy-day fund.
In fact, things got so bad that Republican Governor Bill Owens, a supporter of TABOR when it first appeared, admitted that it has nearly bankrupted the state and has supported doing away with it.
So, today, despite massive spending from out of state conservative groups determined to see their crown jewel survive (Colorado is the only state with such a law, and it is touted by national conservative groups as a 'success,') the voters in that state went to the polls and voted to gut the bill. Referendum C, pushed by Owens and fiscally responsible Republicans in the legislature together with Democrats, essentially keeps the act 'in name only,' as it will allow the state to keep the money collected,
the measures would allow the state to keep $3.7 billion in Taxpayer's Bill of Rights refunds over the next five years to fund schools, roads and health.
Seems that conservative fiscal solutions are like a trip to the bar. They feel good at the time, but later on, those who vote for them (in this case the state of Colorado) wake up with a splitting headache, an empty wallet and a long way from where they want to be.
How has it fared?
Well, after it appeared that the provision was working during the early 1990's, a period in which Colorado experienced record growth which pushed the stipulated spending limit up rapidly, as soon as growth slowed, problems appeared. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan group, once the economy slowed,
Contraction in electronics and telecommunications industries occurred rapidly in 2000 and 2001, shrinking the state economy and tax collections. Personal income grew only 2 percent from 2002 to 2003, the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was 2.8 percent. State employment shrank by 1 percent from 2002 to 2003, again the sixth worst rate in the country, when the national average was -0.1 percent....
The state's budget problems have been made worse by the interaction of an additional constitutional provision with the TABOR revenue limit. Voters in 2000 approved Amendment 23, which requires the General Assembly annually to increase base per pupil funding for K-12 education by inflation plus one percentage point a year through 2010, and by inflation thereafter. K-12 funding now accounts for 40 percent of the Colorado General Fund budget....
TABOR prevented the creation of a state rainy day fund through implication as well as its requirement that revenues in excess of a limit be returned to the voters. Reserves of 3 percent of the general fund are allowed, but any use must be repaid in the following fiscal year. Thus the reserve fund is more in the nature of a cash-flow reserve than a rainy-day fund.
In fact, things got so bad that Republican Governor Bill Owens, a supporter of TABOR when it first appeared, admitted that it has nearly bankrupted the state and has supported doing away with it.
So, today, despite massive spending from out of state conservative groups determined to see their crown jewel survive (Colorado is the only state with such a law, and it is touted by national conservative groups as a 'success,') the voters in that state went to the polls and voted to gut the bill. Referendum C, pushed by Owens and fiscally responsible Republicans in the legislature together with Democrats, essentially keeps the act 'in name only,' as it will allow the state to keep the money collected,
the measures would allow the state to keep $3.7 billion in Taxpayer's Bill of Rights refunds over the next five years to fund schools, roads and health.
Seems that conservative fiscal solutions are like a trip to the bar. They feel good at the time, but later on, those who vote for them (in this case the state of Colorado) wake up with a splitting headache, an empty wallet and a long way from where they want to be.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sam the Sham
Last week, the right forced President Bush to withdraw Harriett Miers as his nominee to the Supreme Court.
And, as I predicted that day, he has nominated a radical conservative to the court. Samuel Alito, who once clerked for Antonin Scalia and shares the same general philosophy as his mentor, has been named as the replacement for Justice O'Connor.
This is the nomination that Democrats should filibuster. They did not filibuster John Roberts. They had no intention of filibustering Harriet Miers.
However, Alito, who has frequently been the lone dissenter on the circuit court he is on in Pennsylvania, is not John Roberts, who can be expected to listen to the arguments presented or Harriet Miers. He is instead an ideologue. A justice who, despite his low key approach and quiet demeanor, is likely to approach cases with a predetermined view, and unlikely to change it. As for what a few of those views are, just take a look at the record.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1991), Alito was the only dissenter in a case that, among other things, threw out a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to notify their husbands.
We have also seen that he has ruled consistently in directions that are way out of touch with the American mainstream.
In the 1997 case, Bray vs. Marriott Hotel for example, we find that
Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
So according to the majority on the court, Alito apparently explained to them that even if open racism were used to help select a candidate, it was still the perogative of the employer to do so. Hmmm. With Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, it will be possible for segregationists to employ CONSCIOUS racial bias in hiring. Any decision like that will be as bad as the Dred Scott decision, and turn the clock back to the 1950's.
And, as I predicted that day, he has nominated a radical conservative to the court. Samuel Alito, who once clerked for Antonin Scalia and shares the same general philosophy as his mentor, has been named as the replacement for Justice O'Connor.
This is the nomination that Democrats should filibuster. They did not filibuster John Roberts. They had no intention of filibustering Harriet Miers.
However, Alito, who has frequently been the lone dissenter on the circuit court he is on in Pennsylvania, is not John Roberts, who can be expected to listen to the arguments presented or Harriet Miers. He is instead an ideologue. A justice who, despite his low key approach and quiet demeanor, is likely to approach cases with a predetermined view, and unlikely to change it. As for what a few of those views are, just take a look at the record.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1991), Alito was the only dissenter in a case that, among other things, threw out a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to notify their husbands.
We have also seen that he has ruled consistently in directions that are way out of touch with the American mainstream.
In the 1997 case, Bray vs. Marriott Hotel for example, we find that
Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]
So according to the majority on the court, Alito apparently explained to them that even if open racism were used to help select a candidate, it was still the perogative of the employer to do so. Hmmm. With Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, it will be possible for segregationists to employ CONSCIOUS racial bias in hiring. Any decision like that will be as bad as the Dred Scott decision, and turn the clock back to the 1950's.
Friday, October 28, 2005
What if the city is the dealer?
It has been a catch-22 for some time now. A number of states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, and several have made it completely legal for medicinal use. But since Federal law still prohibits the production, transport or sale of marijuana, it requires someone breaking the law before even a legal medicinal user can obtain any. And not surprisingly, those who break the law are often criminals, so that even if someone who has a prescription does buy some, the chances are that their money is going directly to some local, national or international drug ring.
So this week, the city of Santa Cruz, California decided there has to be a better way for local medicinal marijuana users to get their prescriptions filled than standing on a street corners looking for dope peddlers.
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. Oct 26, 2005 — The City Council voted to create a department to coordinate the distribution of medical marijuana and vowed to fight federal drug regulators in court to establish it....
The City Council voted 4-2 Tuesday to create an Office of Compassionate Use, a five-member advisory board that would coordinate medical marijuana distribution within the city. User fees would fund the office, which likely would contract with pharmacies for distribution, (mayor) Rotkin said.
California law has allowed medical marijuana use since voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that the federal government can continue to prosecute users.
Now it is true that they intend to seek Federal approval for the office, and so will wait until the outcome of a case going on in San Jose challenging the federal government's right to restrict states from allowing medicinal marijuana use is known.
Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction. I have seen data which both support and refute the idea that marijuana can reduce the symptoms of diseases like glaucoma and cancer. It may be the equivalent of accupuncture-- in which the state of the mind plays more of a role in healing than anything done to the body, or it may be biochemical and actually directly promote healing. However in either case, those who suffer from these diseases and find relief from the use of marijuana should at least be allowed to alleviate their symptoms.
And, I myself would also not use medicinal marijuana even if I had a need for it because it is against the teachings of the leaders of my church. But what right have I to look into the eyes of a cancer patient wanting relief and tell them they can't have it because of a regulation? Or are we really such a heartless, crass and cruel society that we condemn them to suffer further because of an ideological position?
So this week, the city of Santa Cruz, California decided there has to be a better way for local medicinal marijuana users to get their prescriptions filled than standing on a street corners looking for dope peddlers.
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. Oct 26, 2005 — The City Council voted to create a department to coordinate the distribution of medical marijuana and vowed to fight federal drug regulators in court to establish it....
The City Council voted 4-2 Tuesday to create an Office of Compassionate Use, a five-member advisory board that would coordinate medical marijuana distribution within the city. User fees would fund the office, which likely would contract with pharmacies for distribution, (mayor) Rotkin said.
California law has allowed medical marijuana use since voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that the federal government can continue to prosecute users.
Now it is true that they intend to seek Federal approval for the office, and so will wait until the outcome of a case going on in San Jose challenging the federal government's right to restrict states from allowing medicinal marijuana use is known.
Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction. I have seen data which both support and refute the idea that marijuana can reduce the symptoms of diseases like glaucoma and cancer. It may be the equivalent of accupuncture-- in which the state of the mind plays more of a role in healing than anything done to the body, or it may be biochemical and actually directly promote healing. However in either case, those who suffer from these diseases and find relief from the use of marijuana should at least be allowed to alleviate their symptoms.
And, I myself would also not use medicinal marijuana even if I had a need for it because it is against the teachings of the leaders of my church. But what right have I to look into the eyes of a cancer patient wanting relief and tell them they can't have it because of a regulation? Or are we really such a heartless, crass and cruel society that we condemn them to suffer further because of an ideological position?
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Prepare to Fight
With the announcement by Harriet Miers that she is no longer a candidate for the Supreme Court, it seems likely that there will be a bitter partisan fight in the Senate.
I say that, because it is clear from all of the conservatives I have listened to on air both in the days leading up to today, and today, that they will insist on a strict 'constructionist' judge. And rather than face another embarrassing defeat at the hands of his own party, it seems likely that the President will bow to their demands and name one.
And therein lies the conundrum. According to the memorandum signed by the 'gang of fourteen,' the Democrats retained the right to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances. Miers did not come across as bad enough to provoke a filibuster. Neither did John Roberts. So it is clear that Democrats are willing to accept a reasonable nominee from the Bush administration.
But that is not what the right wing wants. They remember the power trip they had a few months ago when it looked like they could actually change the way the government is run, sweep away the rights of the minority in the Senate so that it would be run just as the House is, with only the majority being able to do anything, and create a situation as close to one party rule as has ever existed in America. Never mind that fact that the Founding Fathers deliberately set up the Senate to be the deliberative body and NOT be the same as the House. And they are so obsessed with the idea that they are doing it in a way that in the end will almost certainly take them down with America.
First, consider for a moment how conservatives might come to rue the day if they do in fact pass a successful 'nuclear option' (hint: in 2008, Republicans have to defend 2/3 of the Senate seats up for election, and a Democratic swing that year would almost certainly set the stage for Democrats to use the very same rules changes that Republicans are so set on imposing, directly to the frustration of conservatives-- and if a Democrat were also elected President in 2008, (s)he could then appoint the most liberal, activist judges in the world and Republicans would then have power to do absolutely nothing about it); Even if Republicans don't lose both the White House and the Senate in 2008, anyone who thinks it will never happen is foolish. But 2008 is certainly a likely year that it could happen, just looking at the numbers.
Second, Americans are already pretty upset with all of the partisan divisions. And if the conservatives force President Bush to nominate a strict constructionist, it will be hard for them to then shift the blame for the inevitable partisan battle to the Democrats, who will be able to respond back that they did not oppose either Roberts or Miers. Had Democrats blocked both of them, or even one of them, things might be different, but since they did not (and Roberts got fully half the Democrats in the Senate to vote for him), the 'powder is dry' for a filibuster in which Republicans would still shoulder the lion's share of the blame.
Third, it is not certain that a vote on the 'nuclear option' to change the rules on filibusters would even succeed. For it to, Republicans have to get fifty votes (with Dick Cheney certainly breaking the tie). Now, before the filibuster vote that didn't happen a few months ago, there were three Republicans who had publically committed to vote with the Democrats (dropping the GOP to 52 votes). But heading into an election year, with the stakes much higher (and a face on them, namely a Supreme Court nominee), and with the whole matter having been forced by Republicans when they stopped Miers, it is very likely that three or more of the remaining Republicans could be pursuaded to defect. Granted, that might not happen either. But, it might, so essentially what the far right has done is forced a situation where the President and they may have to engage in a game of 'chicken' and hope they win. But if they lose, then the President will have been totally neutered for the remainder of his term (probably the reason he DIDN'T want a fight when he nominated Miers).
In any case, I am sure that this won't be pretty. But another piece of good news is that the delay has caused Justice O'Connor to stick around where she will still be the swing vote on a lot of issues.
I say that, because it is clear from all of the conservatives I have listened to on air both in the days leading up to today, and today, that they will insist on a strict 'constructionist' judge. And rather than face another embarrassing defeat at the hands of his own party, it seems likely that the President will bow to their demands and name one.
And therein lies the conundrum. According to the memorandum signed by the 'gang of fourteen,' the Democrats retained the right to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances. Miers did not come across as bad enough to provoke a filibuster. Neither did John Roberts. So it is clear that Democrats are willing to accept a reasonable nominee from the Bush administration.
But that is not what the right wing wants. They remember the power trip they had a few months ago when it looked like they could actually change the way the government is run, sweep away the rights of the minority in the Senate so that it would be run just as the House is, with only the majority being able to do anything, and create a situation as close to one party rule as has ever existed in America. Never mind that fact that the Founding Fathers deliberately set up the Senate to be the deliberative body and NOT be the same as the House. And they are so obsessed with the idea that they are doing it in a way that in the end will almost certainly take them down with America.
First, consider for a moment how conservatives might come to rue the day if they do in fact pass a successful 'nuclear option' (hint: in 2008, Republicans have to defend 2/3 of the Senate seats up for election, and a Democratic swing that year would almost certainly set the stage for Democrats to use the very same rules changes that Republicans are so set on imposing, directly to the frustration of conservatives-- and if a Democrat were also elected President in 2008, (s)he could then appoint the most liberal, activist judges in the world and Republicans would then have power to do absolutely nothing about it); Even if Republicans don't lose both the White House and the Senate in 2008, anyone who thinks it will never happen is foolish. But 2008 is certainly a likely year that it could happen, just looking at the numbers.
Second, Americans are already pretty upset with all of the partisan divisions. And if the conservatives force President Bush to nominate a strict constructionist, it will be hard for them to then shift the blame for the inevitable partisan battle to the Democrats, who will be able to respond back that they did not oppose either Roberts or Miers. Had Democrats blocked both of them, or even one of them, things might be different, but since they did not (and Roberts got fully half the Democrats in the Senate to vote for him), the 'powder is dry' for a filibuster in which Republicans would still shoulder the lion's share of the blame.
Third, it is not certain that a vote on the 'nuclear option' to change the rules on filibusters would even succeed. For it to, Republicans have to get fifty votes (with Dick Cheney certainly breaking the tie). Now, before the filibuster vote that didn't happen a few months ago, there were three Republicans who had publically committed to vote with the Democrats (dropping the GOP to 52 votes). But heading into an election year, with the stakes much higher (and a face on them, namely a Supreme Court nominee), and with the whole matter having been forced by Republicans when they stopped Miers, it is very likely that three or more of the remaining Republicans could be pursuaded to defect. Granted, that might not happen either. But, it might, so essentially what the far right has done is forced a situation where the President and they may have to engage in a game of 'chicken' and hope they win. But if they lose, then the President will have been totally neutered for the remainder of his term (probably the reason he DIDN'T want a fight when he nominated Miers).
In any case, I am sure that this won't be pretty. But another piece of good news is that the delay has caused Justice O'Connor to stick around where she will still be the swing vote on a lot of issues.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
You don't get 'buyer's remorse' if you don't think you bought a Lemon.
According to the latest CNN/USA Today poll, if an election were held this November (as opposed to last November) President Bush would be headed to a very significant defeat. Fifty five percent of respondents indicated that if the election were this year, they would vote for John Kerry or whoever else the Democrats were running, while only thirty-nine percent would vote for the President. He had forty-two percent approval in the poll, so even some people who approve of the job he is doing are at least undecided about whether they would vote for him.
One number that can be extrapolated from this fairly easily is that of those people who voted for President Bush one year ago, fully a quarter are not sure that they would vote for him again-- and about half of those would in fact not, and would vote for John Kerry.
Now granted, it is not the election year and people can say whatever they want, but keep in mind that seven years ago, President Clinton, dogged by the Monica scandal and incessant Republican attacks on his foreign policy in his handling of the Kosovo war, had approval ratings well over sixty percent. True, those attacks rang hollow (hint: total U.S. deaths in the Kosovo conflict: zero, largely because we didn't go in without a postwar plan) but it is hard not to see that President Bush is doing much more poorly by comparison.
One number that can be extrapolated from this fairly easily is that of those people who voted for President Bush one year ago, fully a quarter are not sure that they would vote for him again-- and about half of those would in fact not, and would vote for John Kerry.
Now granted, it is not the election year and people can say whatever they want, but keep in mind that seven years ago, President Clinton, dogged by the Monica scandal and incessant Republican attacks on his foreign policy in his handling of the Kosovo war, had approval ratings well over sixty percent. True, those attacks rang hollow (hint: total U.S. deaths in the Kosovo conflict: zero, largely because we didn't go in without a postwar plan) but it is hard not to see that President Bush is doing much more poorly by comparison.
The Researcher Made me Do it.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, anything that has been invented can be manipulated.
And inventing a device that makes people walk by remote control, against their will is no different.
True, the invention is now envisioned only to make theme park rides and video games more interesting. And also true, right now it is a rather clumsy device, still in its experimental stages and which requires the test subject to put the helmet on their head in the first place.
However, it is hard to imagine that after a decade or two of refinement, such a device wouldn't have much enhanced capability, perhaps replacing the helmet with a directed beam of energy, and refinements allowing the person at the controls to direct all of the subject's movements, not just the legs and feet. Certainly, this would prove tempting to people with evil motives. Criminals such as robbers and child molesters would be obvious examples, but perhaps of more concern in terms of the future of society itself is that if we don't now take action to limit our government's ability to control virtually every aspect of one's private and public life, the day when we are physically manipulated by someone, perhaps even hundreds of miles away with a joystick cannot be any longer considered the stuff of science fiction.
And inventing a device that makes people walk by remote control, against their will is no different.
True, the invention is now envisioned only to make theme park rides and video games more interesting. And also true, right now it is a rather clumsy device, still in its experimental stages and which requires the test subject to put the helmet on their head in the first place.
However, it is hard to imagine that after a decade or two of refinement, such a device wouldn't have much enhanced capability, perhaps replacing the helmet with a directed beam of energy, and refinements allowing the person at the controls to direct all of the subject's movements, not just the legs and feet. Certainly, this would prove tempting to people with evil motives. Criminals such as robbers and child molesters would be obvious examples, but perhaps of more concern in terms of the future of society itself is that if we don't now take action to limit our government's ability to control virtually every aspect of one's private and public life, the day when we are physically manipulated by someone, perhaps even hundreds of miles away with a joystick cannot be any longer considered the stuff of science fiction.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Just sell it Over the Counter.
The Arizona Daily Star reported that a rape victim in Tucson recently tried to get a prescription filled for 'Plan B,' the so-called 'morning after pill' but
While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.
When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.
"I was so shocked," said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. "I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this."
In fact, I don't understand why anyone would turn down giving this pill to a rape victim. Forcing someone who has been the victim of a violent sexual assault to carry the child who is the product of that assault is the equivalent of raping them again, every day.
And it's not like denying this pill will prevent rape victims from getting abortions. In fact, having it available would almost certainly put a lot of abortion clinics out of business.
Every time I read stories like this (or the one last year when the woman who had been raped in Texas was lectured about her sexual behavior by an Eckerd pharmacist) it makes me question why the Bush administration has dragged their feet on making it available, despite all the study that has been done in America and overseas saying that it is safe enough, over the counter.
If you sell it over the counter, then the whole issue of pharmacists deciding they know better than a rape victim what she should do about it, will be moot.
While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.
When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.
"I was so shocked," said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. "I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this."
In fact, I don't understand why anyone would turn down giving this pill to a rape victim. Forcing someone who has been the victim of a violent sexual assault to carry the child who is the product of that assault is the equivalent of raping them again, every day.
And it's not like denying this pill will prevent rape victims from getting abortions. In fact, having it available would almost certainly put a lot of abortion clinics out of business.
Every time I read stories like this (or the one last year when the woman who had been raped in Texas was lectured about her sexual behavior by an Eckerd pharmacist) it makes me question why the Bush administration has dragged their feet on making it available, despite all the study that has been done in America and overseas saying that it is safe enough, over the counter.
If you sell it over the counter, then the whole issue of pharmacists deciding they know better than a rape victim what she should do about it, will be moot.
Time to put the cards on the table.
Credit to Buzzflash
and as reported on CBS News, apparently sealed indictments will be coming tomorrow.
The Washington Note reports that
1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.
So much for those conservatives who claimed that there had been 'no law broken, no indictments.'
and as reported on CBS News, apparently sealed indictments will be coming tomorrow.
The Washington Note reports that
1. 1-5 indictments are being issued. The source feels that it will be towards the higher end.
2. The targets of indictment have already received their letters.
3. The indictments will be sealed indictments and "filed" tomorrow.
4. A press conference is being scheduled for Thursday.
So much for those conservatives who claimed that there had been 'no law broken, no indictments.'
Monday, October 24, 2005
One Senator's 'technicality' is another's 'high crime.' Oops, same Senator, different year.
Even while the President has called the investigation into the Plame leak, 'serious,' some of his Republican allies have started taking shots at Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Of course, this has always been part of their defense, to attack anyone who dare question them. This is why the whole Plame issue has come up in the first place.
Over the weekend, Republicans launched a pre-emptive strike against possible charges for perjury.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas derided any potential perjury charge as a "technicality," and suggested Fitzgerald may be trying to show that "two years' of investigation was not a waste of time and dollars."
Other Republicans with close ties to the White House suggested that Fitzgerald was looking at perjury and obstruction charges because he was having trouble proving that officials knowingly leaked the identity of a covert operative.
So now Senator Hutchison thinks that perjury (lying under sworn oath) is a 'technicality.' If that is true, then why did she vote to remove the President of the United States from office in January 1999 on an article of impeachment that accused him of committing perjury?
I guess it's only a technicality of Karl Rove is lying under oath, about matters of national security. But if Bill Clinton is lying under oath, about sex, then it is the most serious matter to come before the Senate in over a century, since the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial in 1868.
Of course, this has always been part of their defense, to attack anyone who dare question them. This is why the whole Plame issue has come up in the first place.
Over the weekend, Republicans launched a pre-emptive strike against possible charges for perjury.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas derided any potential perjury charge as a "technicality," and suggested Fitzgerald may be trying to show that "two years' of investigation was not a waste of time and dollars."
Other Republicans with close ties to the White House suggested that Fitzgerald was looking at perjury and obstruction charges because he was having trouble proving that officials knowingly leaked the identity of a covert operative.
So now Senator Hutchison thinks that perjury (lying under sworn oath) is a 'technicality.' If that is true, then why did she vote to remove the President of the United States from office in January 1999 on an article of impeachment that accused him of committing perjury?
I guess it's only a technicality of Karl Rove is lying under oath, about matters of national security. But if Bill Clinton is lying under oath, about sex, then it is the most serious matter to come before the Senate in over a century, since the Andrew Johnson impeachment trial in 1868.
Prince Richard the Lying-hearted.
Maybe, Karl Rove isn't the guy the White House is trying to deflect the Plame probe from reaching.
Maybe, it's Vice President Cheney.
Maybe, it's Vice President Cheney.
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update (III)
I promised to keep on top of this story as the trial continues.
In the continuing saga of the new Scopes trial (blogged on previously here, here, and here.
The Defense opened their testimony this week. They called their star witness: Lehigh University Biochemistry Professor Michael Behe.
Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."
Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force. He then goes on to advocate that teaching of 'Intelligent Design.'
There are several problems with this line of reasoning.
First, it is a given that we don't completely understand evolution (we learn more every day, especially with new DNA sequencing techniques that allow us to determine, for example, exactly where different species diverged from a common ancestor.) In fact, there are many things in science that we don't understand. That is what science is-- an organized inquiry into the unknown, in order to explain what is apparently unexplained by what we know now. So why not Intelligent Design as an explanation? In fact, there is no reason why not IF it is subjected to the same process of testing as all other scientific theories, including evolution, are subjected to on a daily basis. Professor Behe is welcome to propose the hypothesis, based as he says, on the complexities of life that there is an intelligent design in life, but in order to teach it as science, he must first design an experiment to test it. And Professor Behe knows that. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978, and like all doctoral candidates, was required to conduct and report on research using the scientific method-- testing a hypothesis to determine if his research results were valid or not.
The second flaw is that, even if he is right that some processes can't be explained by evolution (and he is right that evolution does not entirely explain everything that we observe now), this does not in itself serve to indicate that intelligent design is the answer. For example, there were quirks and inconsistencies observed in Newtonian mechanics as early as a hundred years after he published 'Principia.' With the development of more advanced methods of observation and of Quantum physics these inconstencies grew from being minor curiosities to matters of serious concern. Did this mean that Newton was wrong? Did it mean that in fact the old theories of Ptolemy were resurrected? Did it mean that some unseen intelligence was in fact manipulating the motion of objects by some invisible force other than gravity? No, it meant that there was more that needed to be explained. In 1905, an experiment was conducted to test whether an answer to the inconstencies suggested in the writings of a former postal clerk (who had failed physics) named Albert Einstein could explain the apparent contradiction. So the problem is that even if we accept that there may be something else at work besides evolution, this in itself does not favor intelligent design over the general field of other possible explanations (including explanations not yet considered-- no one in Newton's time could possibly have considered Quantum mechanical explanations because the equipment needed to observe it had not yet been invented).
As for Dr. Behe's colleagues in the biology department at Lehigh,
Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which means he can express his views without the threat of losing his job.
Now, I support tenure, including for Dr. Behe, because one role of universities IS to push the limits on thought. And he certainly has a right to his opinion, and to express it in the classroom. However, there is a big difference between his freedom to advocate as he wishes in his classroom and the Dover school board's attempt to mandate that a particular opinion be taught in their classrooms.
The experiment that proved Einstein right was this: Einstein suggested that matter was a form of energy, so that energy (such as light) would be affected in the same way as matter by the force of gravity. During an eclipse of the sun visible from South Africa, if Einstein were correct, the sun's gravity would bend the incoming light from stars. Of course while the sun is out, the starry field behind it is invisible, but during the eclipse, they would be visible. If Einstein were correct, they would be visible, but those near the occluded sun would appear closer to it than they should. In fact, this was observed. And it was only after this that Einstein's theory was considered scientifically valid, because it had been borne out by experimental observation. Can we ask that 'Intelligent Design' be held to a lower standard than Einstein?
In the continuing saga of the new Scopes trial (blogged on previously here, here, and here.
The Defense opened their testimony this week. They called their star witness: Lehigh University Biochemistry Professor Michael Behe.
Behe, whose work includes a 1996 best-seller called "Darwin's Black Box," said students should be taught evolution because it's widely used in science and that "any well-educated student should understand it."
Behe, however, argues that evolution cannot fully explain the biological complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force. He then goes on to advocate that teaching of 'Intelligent Design.'
There are several problems with this line of reasoning.
First, it is a given that we don't completely understand evolution (we learn more every day, especially with new DNA sequencing techniques that allow us to determine, for example, exactly where different species diverged from a common ancestor.) In fact, there are many things in science that we don't understand. That is what science is-- an organized inquiry into the unknown, in order to explain what is apparently unexplained by what we know now. So why not Intelligent Design as an explanation? In fact, there is no reason why not IF it is subjected to the same process of testing as all other scientific theories, including evolution, are subjected to on a daily basis. Professor Behe is welcome to propose the hypothesis, based as he says, on the complexities of life that there is an intelligent design in life, but in order to teach it as science, he must first design an experiment to test it. And Professor Behe knows that. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978, and like all doctoral candidates, was required to conduct and report on research using the scientific method-- testing a hypothesis to determine if his research results were valid or not.
The second flaw is that, even if he is right that some processes can't be explained by evolution (and he is right that evolution does not entirely explain everything that we observe now), this does not in itself serve to indicate that intelligent design is the answer. For example, there were quirks and inconsistencies observed in Newtonian mechanics as early as a hundred years after he published 'Principia.' With the development of more advanced methods of observation and of Quantum physics these inconstencies grew from being minor curiosities to matters of serious concern. Did this mean that Newton was wrong? Did it mean that in fact the old theories of Ptolemy were resurrected? Did it mean that some unseen intelligence was in fact manipulating the motion of objects by some invisible force other than gravity? No, it meant that there was more that needed to be explained. In 1905, an experiment was conducted to test whether an answer to the inconstencies suggested in the writings of a former postal clerk (who had failed physics) named Albert Einstein could explain the apparent contradiction. So the problem is that even if we accept that there may be something else at work besides evolution, this in itself does not favor intelligent design over the general field of other possible explanations (including explanations not yet considered-- no one in Newton's time could possibly have considered Quantum mechanical explanations because the equipment needed to observe it had not yet been invented).
As for Dr. Behe's colleagues in the biology department at Lehigh,
Lehigh's biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its Web site that says the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory." He earned tenure at Lehigh before becoming a proponent, which means he can express his views without the threat of losing his job.
Now, I support tenure, including for Dr. Behe, because one role of universities IS to push the limits on thought. And he certainly has a right to his opinion, and to express it in the classroom. However, there is a big difference between his freedom to advocate as he wishes in his classroom and the Dover school board's attempt to mandate that a particular opinion be taught in their classrooms.
The experiment that proved Einstein right was this: Einstein suggested that matter was a form of energy, so that energy (such as light) would be affected in the same way as matter by the force of gravity. During an eclipse of the sun visible from South Africa, if Einstein were correct, the sun's gravity would bend the incoming light from stars. Of course while the sun is out, the starry field behind it is invisible, but during the eclipse, they would be visible. If Einstein were correct, they would be visible, but those near the occluded sun would appear closer to it than they should. In fact, this was observed. And it was only after this that Einstein's theory was considered scientifically valid, because it had been borne out by experimental observation. Can we ask that 'Intelligent Design' be held to a lower standard than Einstein?
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Not your parents' 'cycle.'
Today, Tropical storm Alpha, the twenty-second named storm of the year formed. At 11 PM Eastern time it had top sustained winds of 50 mph (a storm is named when it reaches tropical storm force, top sustained winds of 39 mph. A category I hurricane begins at 74 nmph). It is threatening the Dominican Republic although it is not considered likely to threaten the United States. The reason the storm is named Alpha (the first letter of the Greek alphabet) is because the National Hurricane Center ran all the way through its list of names, the first time that has ever happened (there are no storms with names beginning with letters q,u,x,y or z because of a shortage of names beginning with those letters).
Of course, as we have been hearing for years, global warming models have predicted more and bigger Atlantic hurricanes. And those who continue to deny the reality of global warming (meaning they choose not to look at photographic or other evidence) will claim that this is part of a 'cycle.'
Well, a 'cycle' means to repeat what has been observed in the past. So not worse than in the past. Not a bunch of new records. But we had them. Not only with Alpha being number 22, but with Wilma being the record twelfth actual hurricane of the year and breaking a record with its central pressure reading 882 mb, the lowest ever recorded. In fact, three of the seven lowest pressure readings were taken this year, with Katrina and Rita also making the list at one time in their journey. The proximate cause of all this is for the reason why global warming models predicted bigger hurricanes: record high water surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic ocean. And of course, NASA climatologists are saying that 2005 is on track to be the warmest year ever for the planet.
That's a pretty tall order of records (following last year's unprecedented spate of hurricanes to rake Florida.) So the whole 'cycle' argument starts to look more like a spiral out of control.
Of course I did get a chuckle out of one right wing talk show I tuned into last night. The host couldn't deny global warming, so he claimed that the Martian icecaps are melting faster, that Venus is getting hotter, that Jupiter is suddenly reflecting more light, and that Pluto is apparently giving off more ice from its surface (indicating an increase in solar energy) now (of course if this last one were true, it would be almost impossible to measure reliably from an earth based platform, but I digress). If true, this would mean that the sun is getting hotter. Now, I have not heard these 'fact's before (and I keep up with scientific literature), so I would blow it off as the ramblings of another nutcake on the right desperate to preserve a position that has more and more evidence stacked up against it all the time (and if it IS true, then 1: Lord Help Us and 2: Why wouldn't it immediately become the top international priority), but then I realized that it is the typical conservative mode of operation:
If something isn't working according to how your ideology claims it should, then blame it on the Democrats in Congress (doesn't matter that they don't actually have the ability to prevent much of anything right now, blame them anyway). If that doesn't work, then blame Clinton. If that doesn't work, then blame Carter. If that won't fly, then blame FDR. And if that isn't good enough, then blame the SUN!
Of course, as we have been hearing for years, global warming models have predicted more and bigger Atlantic hurricanes. And those who continue to deny the reality of global warming (meaning they choose not to look at photographic or other evidence) will claim that this is part of a 'cycle.'
Well, a 'cycle' means to repeat what has been observed in the past. So not worse than in the past. Not a bunch of new records. But we had them. Not only with Alpha being number 22, but with Wilma being the record twelfth actual hurricane of the year and breaking a record with its central pressure reading 882 mb, the lowest ever recorded. In fact, three of the seven lowest pressure readings were taken this year, with Katrina and Rita also making the list at one time in their journey. The proximate cause of all this is for the reason why global warming models predicted bigger hurricanes: record high water surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic ocean. And of course, NASA climatologists are saying that 2005 is on track to be the warmest year ever for the planet.
That's a pretty tall order of records (following last year's unprecedented spate of hurricanes to rake Florida.) So the whole 'cycle' argument starts to look more like a spiral out of control.
Of course I did get a chuckle out of one right wing talk show I tuned into last night. The host couldn't deny global warming, so he claimed that the Martian icecaps are melting faster, that Venus is getting hotter, that Jupiter is suddenly reflecting more light, and that Pluto is apparently giving off more ice from its surface (indicating an increase in solar energy) now (of course if this last one were true, it would be almost impossible to measure reliably from an earth based platform, but I digress). If true, this would mean that the sun is getting hotter. Now, I have not heard these 'fact's before (and I keep up with scientific literature), so I would blow it off as the ramblings of another nutcake on the right desperate to preserve a position that has more and more evidence stacked up against it all the time (and if it IS true, then 1: Lord Help Us and 2: Why wouldn't it immediately become the top international priority), but then I realized that it is the typical conservative mode of operation:
If something isn't working according to how your ideology claims it should, then blame it on the Democrats in Congress (doesn't matter that they don't actually have the ability to prevent much of anything right now, blame them anyway). If that doesn't work, then blame Clinton. If that doesn't work, then blame Carter. If that won't fly, then blame FDR. And if that isn't good enough, then blame the SUN!
Allan Affeldt for Mayor of Winslow, AZ
I have blogged occasionally on more local issues. I have even blogged in support (or rather more in opposition) to one of the mayoral candidates in New York.
However, if anyone who resides in Winslow (which I technically do not, but go to every day for work, and often go to with or without my family to go shopping, etc.) is reading this, I would like to comment on the local mayoral and city council recalls.
In the mayoral recall, I support Allan Affeldt. Hands down. I know Allan, and he has not only done a great deal to revitalize the community in Winslow, but he is a very progressive, concerned individual of the type we need more of in elected office. Allan also has the vitality to move Winslow forward while preserving the fundamental nature of the community. Jim Boles has been mayor for eleven years. During that time, he has worked deals under the table and behind closed doors (for example, in the case of the WalMart supercenter, the issue isn't whether it will be built or not-- when it was put on the ballot a majority of the citizenry supported it-- but the fact that even though a lot of people on the street knew it was coming years ago, it was denied at the highest levels until it was no longer possible to deny it.) He got rid of the fire truck that could reach a two story fire without leasing a replacement, and again without telling anyone, so that when a couple of two story buildings burned (including the one with the 'corner' mural) all the fire department could do was to watch it burn.
Also, while Mr. Boles is (like Allan Affelt) a registered Democrat, one gets the feeling it is not from conviction, but simply because Winslow is a Democratic town. Mr. Boles has endorsed and helped raise funds Jake Flake and Rick Renzi, so in his case party registration is clearly just a matter of convenience. And that is a lot like Mr. Boles. He is not a man driven by principal, but by a man driven by, well, Jim Boles. I even know people who have had him over to their house who have told me the same thing. I know Allan to be a man of personal integrity and guided by principle, and in his case, principles which I share.
In the council race, I support maintaining Judy Howell over Stephanie Lugo. I don't know much about Ms. Lugo, but I can tell you that what has been out of the open over the past few years has largely been due to Judy Howell. She is often on the losing end of 6-1 votes in the council, but hers is a voice that needs to be there. I have had the opportunity to talk to Ms. Howell. She is a woman of strong opinions, and we don't always agree about everything, but I don't doubt her sincerity. Hopefully Winslow will soon have a mayor who has an open door policy and we won't need a 'bomb-thrower' on the city council. But until that day occurs, Ms. Howell needs to remain, if for no other reason, than to stir the pot enough to bring the gunk on the bottom up for a periodic airing.
You can read the opening statements made by the candidates at the candidates' forum the other night right here. The rest of their answers will be published on Oct. 26.
However, if anyone who resides in Winslow (which I technically do not, but go to every day for work, and often go to with or without my family to go shopping, etc.) is reading this, I would like to comment on the local mayoral and city council recalls.
In the mayoral recall, I support Allan Affeldt. Hands down. I know Allan, and he has not only done a great deal to revitalize the community in Winslow, but he is a very progressive, concerned individual of the type we need more of in elected office. Allan also has the vitality to move Winslow forward while preserving the fundamental nature of the community. Jim Boles has been mayor for eleven years. During that time, he has worked deals under the table and behind closed doors (for example, in the case of the WalMart supercenter, the issue isn't whether it will be built or not-- when it was put on the ballot a majority of the citizenry supported it-- but the fact that even though a lot of people on the street knew it was coming years ago, it was denied at the highest levels until it was no longer possible to deny it.) He got rid of the fire truck that could reach a two story fire without leasing a replacement, and again without telling anyone, so that when a couple of two story buildings burned (including the one with the 'corner' mural) all the fire department could do was to watch it burn.
Also, while Mr. Boles is (like Allan Affelt) a registered Democrat, one gets the feeling it is not from conviction, but simply because Winslow is a Democratic town. Mr. Boles has endorsed and helped raise funds Jake Flake and Rick Renzi, so in his case party registration is clearly just a matter of convenience. And that is a lot like Mr. Boles. He is not a man driven by principal, but by a man driven by, well, Jim Boles. I even know people who have had him over to their house who have told me the same thing. I know Allan to be a man of personal integrity and guided by principle, and in his case, principles which I share.
In the council race, I support maintaining Judy Howell over Stephanie Lugo. I don't know much about Ms. Lugo, but I can tell you that what has been out of the open over the past few years has largely been due to Judy Howell. She is often on the losing end of 6-1 votes in the council, but hers is a voice that needs to be there. I have had the opportunity to talk to Ms. Howell. She is a woman of strong opinions, and we don't always agree about everything, but I don't doubt her sincerity. Hopefully Winslow will soon have a mayor who has an open door policy and we won't need a 'bomb-thrower' on the city council. But until that day occurs, Ms. Howell needs to remain, if for no other reason, than to stir the pot enough to bring the gunk on the bottom up for a periodic airing.
You can read the opening statements made by the candidates at the candidates' forum the other night right here. The rest of their answers will be published on Oct. 26.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
