Mickey

Who have these religious maniacs in Iran invaded since their revolution? What military adventurism have they shown? How many times have they used chemical weapons? Obviously, no one wants Iran to have nukes or frankly, anyone else I can think of but if the choice is WW III, I'm thinking maybe we should have a national discussion about it first.

Yeah, that $@#$. It all comes down to those darn Camp David Peace Accords. We just couldn't see it then. If not for the peace between Israel and Egypt that has endured since, none of this would be happening.

I would start with a change on November 2. I would also consider the same mutual assured destruction situation that kept the US and USSR from coming to blows for around 4 decades give or take. Or we could just make stupid public threats because people always react well to that.

Lots of nations are going to have nukes, that dam has burst. North Korea and Pakistan. Frankly, I'm more comfortable with Iran having nukes than them. Who has Iran invaded lately? What military aggression has Iran exhibited?

That's right yell at me, that'll help. Forget the guy whose brilliant diplomacy has led us to the verge of world war three. Why would Iran feel they need a nuclear weapon? I wonder. It couldn't be because of that stupid freaking axis of evil speech now could it? Naaaaa. It couldn't be because we just destroyed Iraq could it? Naaaaa. Surely they understand that we mean them no harm, don't they? Teddy Roosevelt, what did he say? I remember, "Speak softly" he said. Not for this braggart of a President. "Axis of evil", "bring 'em on", mission accomplished and now this. He says that first he would try diplomacy. How in the world is diplomacy to work when he announces at the outset that we will basically go to war with them if they don't do precisely as we order them to? Think we'll be met with sweets and flowers? Is there any way we can pretend that they were connected to 9/11 or AQ? Shiites, Sunnis, they are all the same, right? Sure, Zaquarwi has been targeting Shias in Iraq but that is probably a smokescreen to cover their joint operations. Here is a thought, what if it was a World War and it was the world on one side and us and Israel on the other? Is there any calamity occuring on this guys watch that you will not excuse simply because he is a republican? How bad do things have to get?

I guess starting one war before the one at hand is done is a habit with this administration. Looks like we go into Iran next. Can you say "World War III"? Can you say "draft"? Why not? We're invincible, right? Bush says we will not let Iran have nuclear weapons. Iran is close to having one. It will be war unless Iran just ups and decides to embrace peace. That won't happen so war it is. Bush says no way Iran is allowed to have Nukes

If a man could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Try the reverse, lets say she promises to use contraception and doesn't. Is that a binding contract so that he can force termination of the pregnancy he was promised wouldn't happen? Try another situation: Take two parents who, because of fertitlity problem, have to have fertilization take place out of the womb and the embryo implanted in her womb. Lets say that she decides, after fertilization but before implantation that she doesn't want a child. Would the father have the right under this binding contract theory to forcibly implant the embryo and make her, against her will, carry the child to term? If it was a contract, it would basically be a baby selling contract. The law won't enforce such a contract. Baby selling is verboten.

You don't think he'll run in '08? Whether Bush wins or loses this time around, the Republicans have to have somebody new in 2008. Probably another Bush.

"misanthropic frat boys" and "aggressive dorks"? Garrison must spend a lot of time here.

Simple question: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over cases involving claimed violations of the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States?

Constitutional issues are not voted upon unless there is an Amendment properly brought before the states. If these issues were up to the voters, there would be no need for an independent judiciary at all. You say they exceeded their authority which is a critique of their jurisdictional limits. You then say that they misinterpreted the constitution which is an entirely different criticism which really is a complaint about the result. Had they ruled differently, there would be no complaints. Saying they made the wrong decision under the law is one thing, saying they had no right to even hear the case, period, is quite another. When you say they exceeded their jurisdiction in making the wrong decision you are essentially melding jurisdictional power and individual decisions on individual cases. If they decide right, they have jurisdiction over the case, if they decide wrong, they don't. How in the freaking world would that work? When the case is filed, you don't have a decision and until you do, you don't know if there is jurisdiction so you can't file the case and get a decision to let you know if there is jurisdiction and on and on and on. The core question is whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear cases alleging violations of the establishment clause of the Constitution. That principle was established long, long ago: From Marbury vs. Madison (1803): The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Monkeying around with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, is not "tweaking" the balance of powers.

Are you accusing the federal courts, in the Pledge case of "taking the initiative" in fiddling with the foundations of government? I certainly understand that you don't care for the decision of the lower court at all. Lots of people disagreed with it including myself. What you are saying here though goes much further and concludes that the federal courts basically don't have the right to decide establishment clause cases. If a litigant comes forward and files a case claiming a violation of the establishment clause, what would you have them do? Either the federal courts do or don't have jurisdiction over constitutional cases. If they had jurisdiction over that case, they did nothing wrong or "activist" in hearing it. The real problem the right has is with their decision. You can't give them jurisdiction when you like the result and pull it away from them when you don't. That would be the very opposite of an independent judiciary. At its core, it is basically a matter of sour grapes. Sometimes I wonder why we fought so hard against the communists and the fascists since we seem to be trying so very hard to be like them. Dumping the judiciary branch of government is a great first step down that road.

The equivalent would be the Supreme Court decidind that the House of Representatives no longer are allowed to pass legislation on an issue under any circumstances. Please point out to me where that has ever happened. The Supreme Court is charged with being the sole judge of the constituionality of legislation. When they find a given piece of legislation to infact be unconstitutional, they are simply exercising the one power granted to their branch. Is that "legislating"? Semantincs. Whether it is "legislating" or not, it is what they do, what they are required to do. Take that power away from them, and the courts become a useless sham, a pretense of fairness. "Activist Judges" is a political catch phrase used to describe judges whose decisions you don't like. The phrase first appeared during the Civil Rights movement when "activist judges" grew a spine and put an end to "colored only" drinking fountains. Something that never would have happened if the issue were left to the courage and consciences of legislators. By the way, the Supreme Court reversed the Pledge case, let me say that nice and slow, the decision that so exercised the right was reversed by the Supreme Court. Where are the "activist judges" on this court that are so dangerous we have to come up with preemptive legislation altering the fundamental balance of power between the branches of our government? If the Supreme Court's power can be fiddled with so easily, what exactly would be the check, the balance, to the power of the congress? If they were to pass a law that required all citizens to turn in their firearms what would you do? Sure it would be unconstitutional but congress could first pass a law saying the federal courts have no jurisdiction over 2nd Amendment cases. It would be blatantly unconstitutional but that wouldn't matter. You would have no recourse but to turn in your weapon or face arrest. Do you really think it is a good idea to fiddle and tinker with the very foundations of government just to prevent some future costellation of justices on a future Supreme Court from possibly finding that "under God" in the Pledge is a violation of the Establishment Clause?

The House has voted to alter the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that it can't hear any case having to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. House of Represenatives Goes Effen Crazy Recall that the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Ct. decision regarding the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Fearing that the court may revisit the issue and possibly rule differently, the House moved to rewrite the balance of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the government by passing legislation to take this issue away from the court's jurisdiction. Mind you, they are not doing so based on any substantive theory of law, they just want to make sure that no case involving the pledge ever goes to court. This is the same kind of thing done in the Schiavo case in Florida. Legislators don't like a decision by a judge or court and so they just simply pass a new law targeted at that particular case. That ridiculousness turns the legislators into judges and congresses into courts. As to the case or cases effected, they are supplanting the courts rendering them constitutional non-entities. It was bad enough when it involved a handful of state courts in Florida but now they are seeking to turn the Supreme Court of the United States into a powerless pile of nothing. What if the court rules this law unconstitutional, what then? Do they pass a law that says the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over cases having to do with the constitutionality of laws limiting the court's jurisdiction to decide cases involving the pledge of allegiance? Multiply that times every other issue legislators would like to be able to bypass the court on and sooner or later the Supreme Court might as well not exist.

Not having cracked this whole "immortality" nut yet, I figure that the odds are pretty good that I going to die at some point no matter who gets elected. I am too old to be drafted so that issue doesn't effect me except indirectly and all those effects are good ones. Less competition if I want to trade up to a young trophy wife. Less likely to have to suffer through a rap "tune" being blasted at volumes usually reserved for jet aircraft or mortar fire. Draft shmaft, what do I care?

I don't think any one from either side seriously thinks that if their guy wins they will wake up to a new America except for maybe the fanatics. I think that most people think that "all things considered" we would be better off with one or the other, even if only slightly so. I don't think this is because we are in the thrall of evil people. This is simply what our system logically and consistently produces. People pine for a third party as if that will make a big difference. I think it would just give a choice between three mediocrities rather than two. Big whoop. The concept of "majority rules" even in a representative system like ours is going to produce a "lowest common denominator" at the top. The same system that made "The Dukes of Hazard" the No. 1 show in America is basically how we choose our leaders. I guess that is my theory of voting this year: "I voted for __________ because he is not quite as bad as the other stupefyingly clueless moron." Okay, maybe I am overstating the matter a bit but you get my drift.

The President, after meeting with Allawi, the appointed Prime Minister of the government installed in Iraq by US troops, said: "If we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations" Bush-Allawi Does anyone seriously think that being in Iraq prevents terrorists attacks elsewhere? Does anyone remember Madrid? Sorry but the terrorists are perfectly able to plot and plan attacks in Iraq as well as other places and the fact that we are there does not prevent them from attacking elsewhere. It just doesn't. All 9-11 took was some planning, some volunteers and some box cutters. I am certain that AQ has no shortage of people willing to volunteer for suicidal missions. I also am quite sure that our presence in Iraq has not dried up the world's supply of box cutters or junk cars capable of being packed with explosives any 10 year old with access to the internet could concoct in his basement. As for planning, AQ seems plenty able to do that despite our presence in Iraq. As I recall, OBL and Zarqawi and others are not in custody and the administration itself has said many times that getting them wouldn't prevent AQ from motoring on. I don't think they are in imminent danger of running out of planners. If Timothy Mcvey, an idiot if there ever was one, can plan an attack that takes out a federal building, something tells me that planners is not a problem for terrorists. There may be many good reasons to be in Iraq and I am not even trying to start yet another debate on whether that war is or continues to be a good idea. This statement is just stupid beyond belief. I agree more and more with the author of Imperial Hubris, the reason AQ is attacking allies (ie Spain) and people in Iraq is a tactical and strategic decision on their part and has little to do with our having reduced them to those options. What I am less sure of is his conclusion that AQ is waiting to see how the election turns out. If Kerry wins, they will stick with their strategy of not attacking us on our own soil and see what he does. If Bush wins, they will conclude that we are not going to alter the middle east policies which have angered them and since, knowing what is coming our way we knowingly re-elected Bush, they are justified in killing American civilians/voters again. That is the authors opinion/prediction/speculation and I am not at all sure I agree with him.

A good point to remember while we try to nurse secular democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq where the vast majority of the people are not interested in either a secular government or democracy.

Moore isn't press. He is an advocate so he has license to present his view and all evidence to support it while ignoring evidence to the contrary. That is for advocates on the other side to present. That is what Limbaugh and the rest do. Although they do pretend to tell the truth, they don't pretend to be balanced or unbiased. That is not an apology for Moore or Limbaugh. It is more an indictment of those who take what they say as unbiased truth, usually it is neither. The newspaper however has a responsibility to be unbiased and present as accurate a picture as possible. A point I have tried to make many times here (remember the "Laura Bush killed a guy" thread?) is that you can be absolutely truthful and yet still mislead to the point of lying. The story had most of the facts right and probably quoted people accurately yet it was still misleading to the point of deception. The anti-moore people were only referred to as having "attended the protest" which makes it sound like they attended the event but actually, they did not. The statement that some questions accused him of being a traitor was factually incorrect but only by a hair. It was a question and it was about him being accused of being a traitor. It wasn't however an accusation by those who attended but an invitation by them for Moore to disprove that scurrilous charge. A simple complaint that the paper stick to just the facts is not really enough. They can stick to the facts and still present an unbalanced picture of an event.

Actually, the EC doesn't provide, necessarily, a "clear and decisive way to pick a winner" when the election is close. Depending on how the numbers and the votes come out, a tie in the EC is not impossible at all. Such an election would obviously be a close one. Further, it is possible, again depending on the numbers, for a candidate to get pretty well pasted in the popular vote and still win in the EC. A candidate could win big in a bunch of small states and lose by a handful in some large states (Florida would be a good example) and end up with a substantial lead in the general vote and yet lose handily in the EC. I know, it seems unlikely but the whole situation faced in Florida in 2000 was thought to be pretty unlikey too before it happened. What is mathematically possible is possible. There are scenarios where the EC would seem to reinforce democratic principles but there are also scenarios where it could and would operate in derogation of those principles. State interests have receded and when it comes to national elections, people vote not based on their state loyalties or addresses but by their politics, conservative or liberal. The current winner-take-all rules in most states means that significant minorities in those states have their votes pretty much ignored. The EC itself dilutes the votes of those living in larger states and inflates those in smaller states. These are not just numbers, there is a real effect on people's lives. Republicans in NY are not numerous enough apparently to put the state in play in presidential elections even though I am sure there are way more Republicans in NY than in, say, Arkansas or Nevada. If you are George Bush and you have to decide between shutting down a base in NY or one in a swing state like Arkansas or Nevada, who do you think is going to keep their base and who is going to lose theirs? If you have a choice on where to put a large government project such as a research facility or maybe a super-collider, where are you going to put it? NY or Nevada? This isn't just a large state/small state issue. If you are a small state and you aren't a swing state, you are even more shafted than NY. If you are a large state and a swing state to boot, you get the best of both worlds, ie Florida and once upon a time, Texas. The idea that small states will get run over by large states is more paranoia based on American society circa 1863 than on present day concerns. Any democratic government that consistently permits a minority to hold sway over a majority is a system that contains the seeds of its own destruction. The fact of whether winner-takes-all rules or the EC is good, bad or indifferent really may not matter in the long run. The reality is that they virtually disenfranchise such a large number of people that eventually, those people are just not going to take it anymore. One man, one vote, one election, one tally, one nation, indivisible.

I have no desire to ignite yet another post-a-thon regarding Michael Moore. I have avoided those quite nicely so far and hope to keep my streak intact. The board has stuck its collective hands in the blender and hit "puree" enough times on that issue already. However, I attended Moore's presentation in Syracuse last night and there is an interesting angle to it that has nothing to do with the politics and everything to do whith how the press operates. My sister is a big fan of Moore and her roommate is a "ticket broker" so she was able to get some tickets to his presentation which was part of the Univerity's symposium series on American Humor. Next up in the series is Wanda Sykes who is a standup often seen in "Curb Your Enthusiasm". I haven't seen Moore's movie yet, for no particular reason. I went to have some fun with my sister, to hear what this controversial figure had to say and to ogle University coeds who were there in abundance. I'll let you speculate as to which was the dominant motivating factor in my going to the event. Originally Moore was to speak at the student center, a simple auditorium setting. So many people wanted to attend however that they had to move the event to the Carrier Dome and expand it to 10,000 tickets. It sold out immediately and there were people trying to buy tickets from scalpers all over the place. Clearly, lots of people wanted to see Moore and not because they hate him but because they either agree with his politics or at least wanted to hear what he had to say. There were tons of anti-Bush and anti-war demonstrators outside the Dome which we had to circle to get to our gate. There was a contingent of anti-Moore protesters as well, I counted 4 of them. Not exactly a significant presence to say the least. Moore was welcomed with a standing ovation and his presentation was interrupted with applause, cheers and a few more standing ovations throughout the evening. There was, however, one heckler up in the cheap seats on the third level who occasionally shouted such inspiring barbs as "You're ugly", "What about your money?" and "liar". Moore ignored him or didn't hear him most of the time and a few other times mocked him out the way stand-ups usually handle hecklers. Moore bested him to the point of embarassment. No big deal. 10,000 people and only one heckler. I expected much worse given how controversial Moore supposedly is but that wasn't the case. I counted 4 protesters outside and one heckler inside. Not much controversey there. I spoke to my Dad this morning because we were all excited that my sister made the papers. She ended up getting on stage to meet Moore and participating in a trivia contest orchestrated by Moore, Americans vs. Canadians. It was pretty funny and my sister was elated that she got to meet Moore. My Dad said he listened to some conservative radio show last night when he was driving back from Watertown and they mentioned Moore's appearance in Syracuse. The host claimed that Moore got a hostile reception from the crowd and that he was booed frequently. That simply never happened, total and complete BS. The paper this morning was even worse. It had two photos, one of Moore and one of the anti-Moore demonstrators outside (the article claimed there were "about 30"). Those demonstrators had two signs and both made it in the story. All 4 of those protesters were quoted in the story even though they didn't actually get in the event and didn't even hear Moore speak. None of the anti-war and anti-Bush protesters were photographed, quoted or even mentioned. Moore was given questions on cards taken from the audience. One of those cards asked him "What do you say to people who claim you are a traitor?" Referring to those questions, the paper said "Some [the questions] accused him of being un-American and a traitor." WTF? That isn't what happened. The way they wrote it made it sound as if the audience thought he was a traitor rather than the audience wanting him to address that ridiculous charge being made by his enemies. They only quoted two people who were pro Moore, my sister included and that was just because she won a twelve pack of toilet paper in the trivia contest. There were basically 10,000 pro-Moore or neutral people at that event and the paper gives most of the press to the handful of anti-Moore people who didn't even attend the event they were covering. They apparently think it is "fair" to give equal time to both sides even if that is a distortion of what actually happened. An accurate report would have had about 2,500 quotes from pro-Moore attendees for every one of the anti-Moore people being quoted. Since that wasn't practical, the way to handle it would have been to simply mention that the reception for Moore was overwhelmingly positive from the sold out crowd although there were a handful of demonstars outside and one heckler among the 10,000 people cheering Moore inside. Even if you think Moore is the biggest yahoo to ever point a camera and say "action!", you have to find this kind of media coverage disturbing. I don't think it is really bias in favor of conservatives. Not at all. They are biased in favor of a juicier story and if that means distorting things to make it more interesting, so be it. Maybe that is why you so often hear the complaint of media bias on both sides of the aisle. At one time or the other, both sides get screwed by the press who really has no agenda other than to attract viewers and if that means hyping, distorting or practically making it up on the spot, that is what they do. I am not suggesting that this is an earth shattering revelation of any sort. It is just another example of what the press too often does but this time, I don't have to wonder what the truth is, I was there.

It was the Washington Times and the leak was by an administration official. This incredible breach of security was actually accomplished by the President's people. I will hold my breath as I wait for the avalanche of criticism from conservatives here for the administration's role in leaking this information. The author of Imperial Hubris (a CIA officer with over 20 years experience battling Islamic terrorism who is no democrat) discusses these types of leaks in detail, especially this one. Here is the info: "However, on Sept. 22, 2001, just 11 days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Washington Times reported that on Sept. 10, U.S. intelligence agencies had "detected discussions between Osama bin Laden's lieutenants of an impending 'big attack.' " The information was attributed then to a "senior administration official," who said the intercept was not discovered until days after Sept. 11. The paper reported the information was disclosed by the senior official to explain why President Bush had "increasingly pointed the finger of blame at [Osama] bin Laden in the days following" the attacks. It helped the White House explain why it had so quickly reached the conclusion that bin Laden was involved." Bush Administration Leaks Critical Info on Terrorist Communication Intercepts The author of Imperial Hubris points out that criticizing the press for these leaks is just silly. There will always be a media outlet willing to publish the info be it a domestic of foreign one. The real key to stopping the leaks are the people who are doing the leaking.

I heard a high muckety-muck (its a technical term) on NPR this morning talking about why you have these variations that seem so contradictory and as he explained it, you easily get varying results based on the polling method. The "likely voter" designation is pretty key. They ask the respondent a number of questions and based on the results and their own subjective criteria, they designate that person as a "likely voter" or simply a "registered voter". That determines whether that person's opinions are reflected in the "likely voter" poll or not. If you ask a series of questions on something that isn't going so well, Iraq perhaps, and then at the end of that series ask if they disapprove of the job the President is doing you will more likely get a negative response. The opposite result is achieved if you instead ask a series on something that is going well and then ask the general question on the President's performance. The likely voter thing is an important variable that I think is where a lot of polls may end up with egg on their faces. Most formulas are based on that voter's prior voting history. Many people lie on that one, saying they voted when they didn't. Further, there are reasons to suggest that turnout may be much higher this year than in years past, especially in Florida. For example, people living abroad have applied for absentee ballots in record numbers this year (As of July 9, 2004, 340,000 Federal Post Card Applications for absentee ballots were sent in response to requests from voters abroad. That's 90,000 more than the number of requests for the entire 2000 presidential election.) If people living overseas that usually haven't voted are suddenly interesting in doing so, isn't that an indication that others who usually don't vote might do so this year?

Right, so you didn't minimize what happened at Abu Ghraib with that line about women's undies leaving out the stuff about rape, sodomy and beatings? As for the comparison you claim to have been making, kind of stating the obvious don't you think? Is there anyone claiming that sodomy, beatings and rape were as bad as beheadings? I am not aware of anyone making that argument. You also complained about the press and compared their reaction to the beheadings. Why compare us to them at all? I for one am not going to measure our actions by their standards, "We aren't as barbaric as they are" is not really saying very much but if you think it is important to point that out, have at it. Would you at least agree that when the United States Army rapes, beats and sodomizes prisoners, it is shocking and that barbarians being barbarours is no surprise?