Yes, he said it, in January on ABC News: "Could be a thousand. Could be a thousand years or a million years
[in Iraq]."
TPM has the video.
Yes, this man will be a war president. Indeed, if he gets his way, every president from now to the end of the
republic will be a war president. Maybe McCain will push for a new name for the United States of America:
Wars-R-US.
Environmentalists have understood this for many years. Finally, at least some of the mainstream media and press
have begun to understand
that, all environmental considerations aside, evaluating the matter purely on a market basis, Bush is just plain
lying when he says that drilling for oil ANWR would have remedied, or will remedy, the price of gasoline, not
in the long term, but more to the point, not even in the short term:
ANALYSIS-Bush drilling plan wouldn't have eased pump prices
Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:17pm BST
By Tom Doggett
WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - The Bush administration says the United States would be less addicted to
foreign oil and fuel prices would be lower if Congress had only opened up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to drilling.
But that claim doesn't reflect the long lead time to develop the refuge's huge oil reserves, which would not be
available for several more years and initial volumes would still be small if Congress in 2002 had approved the
administration's plan to drill in ANWR, energy experts say.
President George W. Bush during his first year in office made giving energy companies access to the estimated 10
billion barrels of crude in the refuge the centerpiece of his national energy policy that sprouted from Vice
President Dick Cheney's controversial and secretive energy task force.
Let me interrupt the flow (so to speak) for a moment to say that that 10-billion-barrel estimate is an industry
estimate, not to be relied upon as scientific truth. OK, back to topic...
With gasoline prices soaring to records in recent weeks, Bush has stepped up his argument that ANWR oil is a solution.
...
"They've repeatedly blocked environmentally safe exploration in ANWR," Bush complained to reporters on Tuesday
at a Rose Garden press conference. He said oil supplies from the refuge "would likely mean lower gas prices."
The Energy Information Administration, which is the Energy Department's independent analytical arm, estimated
that if Congress had cleared Bush's ANWR drilling plan the oil would have been available to refiners in 2011,
but only at a small volume of 40,000 barrels a day -- a drop in the bucket compared with the 20.6 million
barrels the U.S. consumes daily.
Another interruption for the other salient points: there isn't enough oil in ANWR to make any substantial
difference in our supply problems, and it would not be available for years even if Congress had given the
go-ahead years ago. Back to the article...
At peak production, ANWR could have potentially added 780,000 barrels a day to U.S. crude oil output by 2020,
according to the EIA.
The extra supplies would have cut dependence on foreign oil, but only slightly. With ANWR crude, imports
would have met 60 percent of U.S. oil demand in 2020, down from 62 percent without the refuge's supplies.
All three leading presidential candidates, Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Republican John
McCain, are against oil drilling in the refuge.
...
If even John McCain won't toady to Bush about this, you know it's got to be a foolish endeavor.
Understand one thing: drilling in ANWR was never about alleviating America's energy shortage. It was, instead,
Dick Cheney's way of attempting to dominate us all, and George W. Bush's way of raising his finger in our faces
while it was done. Drilling in ANWR was and is demanded because of, not in spite of, the inevitable
environmental damage and species extinctions that would result. Environmentalists, including a hefty majority of
the American public, must be allowed no victories, even if those victories do no damage to Bush's and Cheney's
corporate cronies.
It's all about "pwning" us. Once you realize that, everything is much clearer, isn't it?
BROWNSVILLE, Texas — One of Congress' strongest border fence proponents received a hostile reception Monday in
the city that has become the epicenter of fence opposition.
Boos and hisses emanated from the audience for a congressional field hearing when Republican U.S. Rep. Tom
Tancredo of Colorado dismissed residents' concerns that the effort to build 670 miles of fencing along the U.S.-
Mexico border by year's end would damage the environment and destroy a centuries-old bond between residents on
both sides of the Rio Grande.
Late in the five-hour hearing, Tancredo returned to a comment made earlier by panelist Betty Perez, a rancher
and local activist. Perez said, "It really isn't a border to most of us who live down here."
Tancredo dismissed Perez's remarks as a "multiculturalist attitude toward borders."
As jeers rose, Tancredo added, "I suggest that you build this fence around the northern part of your city."
...
That is, Tancredo wants to fence off Brownsville, TX on Mexico's side of the fence. Oh, yeah, that's a great way
to persuade Americans to support the fence project: tell them the fence will keep them out of their own
country.
But it's more than that. As I learned about three decades ago while working on a research project, the people of
Brownsville have a good relationship with the people of Mexico, and they want to keep it that way. Clearly, Rep.
Tancredo has no such good relationship. I wonder how Tancredo feels about cities near the Canadian border.
Should they be fenced off, too? or is Tancredo's phobia specifically about brown-skinned people?
While we're issuing suggestions, I have one for Rep. Tancredo. It doesn't require him to employ a Mexican,
but it does require him to employ a corkscrew.
Next week, we have the opportunity to close out this race and secure the nomination for Barack -- but there's
another deadline coming up even sooner.
Financial reports for April will be filed this Wednesday at midnight. The media pundits and Washington insiders
will be watching the results and judging the strength of our campaign by the money we raise.
But what's most impressive about our movement is that our funding has come from grassroots supporters like you.
We've never accepted donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. Instead, more than 1,500,000
ordinary people have stepped up to own a piece of this campaign.
To meet this deadline and celebrate our grassroots donors, we've created a special gift.
Make a donation of $15 or more before midnight on Wednesday, April 30th, and receive a limited edition Vote
for Change car magnet:
...
OK, OK; I am impressed that the Obama campaign isn't taking PAC money. But... a car magnet?
Is it "as seen on TV"? does it slice, does it dice, does it chop, grate, grind and liquefy the
McCain juggernaut? And what does one get for "only a few dollars more"?
RNC Lawyers Warn Nets Against Airing Anti-McCain Ad
By Eric Kleefeld - April 29, 2008, 12:02AM
The Republican National Committee has developed a new method for rebutting attack ads against John McCain: Send
threatening letters to any cable networks that might run them.
RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross has notified NBC, CNN and MSNBC that he believes the new Democratic ad
attacking John McCain's "maybe a hundred" years in Iraq line is illegal on two counts: 1) It is misleading, in
that Cairncross says it distorts McCain's words, and 2) It constitutes collaboration between the Clinton and
Obama camps and the DNC in fashioning a message against McCain.
...
(See linked post for supporting links.)
Look, damn them to hell, I've seen the video of McCain saying those words probably a dozen times now. In no way
has he been misrepresented: he said exactly what is claimed, and the context just makes it worse. The new
Democratic ad
is on absolutely solid ground. McCain said it, McCain obviously meant it, and McCain's words are being
represented exactly as he said them. Yes, McCain is a damned fool to have said that; that's the GOP's problem,
not mine. In the Dem ad, the public is hearing exactly what McCain said, exactly as McCain obviously intended
it. You say you don't want America to endure a hundred years of war in Iraq? Fine: vote against McCain.
For one rare time in this election cycle, I find myself echoing DNC Chair Howard Dean. Confronted with the RNC's
threat to sue, he replied, "Let them do it." Indeed, let them do it. I'll take any free publicity of
McCain's folly that the GOP is willing to give us. McCain's "100 years" statement proves he is a dangerous
man, and the more people realize that, the better.
Anthony McCarthy (olvlzl)
of Echidne of the Snakes
has written an extended and IMHO very significant
post
regarding the nature of the battle between the scientists pushing the findings that support evolution and the
antiscientific intelligent design creationists seeking to undermine science in the public arena:
I don’t remember when it was that someone broke the news to me that Ben Stein was going to be in an
anti-evolution movie to be released this election year. “Oh, jickit”, I said, “Not the damned Darwin wars again,
already”. I’m afraid I really did say “jickit”.
But in following up on other blogs and reading things about the current go round on the issue, I think I’ve
figured out something that has puzzled me for a long time. How can the side for evolutionary science, the side
with all the scientific facts, so consistently lose the political argument. I think it is because they so
consistently mistake this for a scientific fight when it is, in fact, a political fight. You can’t fight a
political fight expecting the same rules as you use in science, or even in a criminal court. If you try to win
the evolution argument using those tools, arrogantly refusing to face the nature of the fight, you will lose and
lose badly.
...
(Emphasis mine.)
McCarthy has given us a very long post, but understanding what he offers is central to the struggle to present
our children with actual science in their science classrooms in public schools.
It is difficult to abbreviate the substance, and I urge you to read olvlzl's entire post. But here's the best
I can do to express its essence in brief...
Science has a methodical approach, the rules for which are well established. It is not really possible to take
science outside that approach; if one attempts to do so, it becomes something other than science.
The ID creationists, on the other hand, have the entire scope of Karl Rove's methods available to them. And as
olvlzl emphasizes, the ID creationists know their Darwin, chapter and verse, if you'll pardon the expresson.
When the object is to reach a particular conclusion that enables a specific action in the real world... e.g.,
the establishment of predefined religious tenets as "science" for purposes of defining the public school
curriculum... political methods, including the sleaziest possible bait-and-switch techniques, the "teach the
controversy" gimmick, etc. ... are more effective than any well-formed scientific arguments based on actual
theories being pursued by actual scientists.
In other words, this battle cannot be won by scientific argument alone.
All of you, but most especially the science writers and bloggers among you, please read what olvlzl has to say.
Your children's access to the best scientific research through their science classrooms in the public schools
may well depend on your understanding these political realities.
Alternatively, do nothing, and leave your children's science education to the same kind of "she said, he said"
approach with which the mainstream media teach us politics. (Look what a fine job they do.)
April 23, 2008 FDA bans certain cattle parts from all animal feed
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. makers of pet food and all other animal feed will be prevented from using certain
materials from cattle at the greatest risk for spreading mad cow disease under a rule that regulators finalized
on Wednesday.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which oversees animal feed, said excluding high-risk materials from
cattle 30 months of age or older from all animal feed will prevent any accidental cross-contamination between
ruminant feed (intended for animals such as cattle) and non-ruminant feed or feed ingredients.
...
The measure issued today finalizes a proposed rule opened for public comment in October 2005. It goes into
effect on April 23, 2009.
The major U.S. safeguards against mad cow disease are the feed ban, a prohibition against slaughtering most
"downer" cattle -- animals too sick to walk on their own -- for human food, and a requirement for meatpackers to
remove from carcasses the brains, spinal cords and other parts most likely to contain the malformed proteins
blamed for the disease.
Mad cow disease is a fatal, brain-wasting disease believed to be spread by contaminated feed. People can
contract a human version of the disease, know as Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, or vCJD, which scientists
believe can be spread by eating contaminated parts from an infected animal.
The United States has found three cases of mad cow disease, including the first one detected in December of
2003. Soon after, U.S. beef exports were virtually halted. U.S. official have been slowly working to resume beef
shipments.
...
Damn those guvmint reg'lations anyway. Yep, them Bushies showed 'em, putting the regs up for public comment two
years after the first incident, and finally possibly putting them in place six years after that first
incident. Now that's protecting the public health!
<snark />
But this is nothing about public health, but rather the export profits of the cattle industry. Otherwise, it
might have taken the FDA even longer to act than from 2003 to 2009. By that time, it will be in the domain of
Bush's newly formed agency, the DoSEP: the Department of Someone Else's Problem.
McCain Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost
By BARRY MEIER and MARGOT WILLIAMS
Published: April 27, 2008
Given Senator John McCain’s signature stance on campaign finance reform, it was not surprising that he backed
legislation last year requiring presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets. The
law, which requires campaigns to pay charter rates when using such jets rather than cheaper first-class fares,
was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists and create a level financial playing field.
But over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain’s cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage
by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain, according to public records. For
five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show.
Mr. McCain’s campaign paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February,
records show. That amount is approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to
industry estimates.
The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate
or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in
December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-
owned planes — but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule
making.
Because that exemption remains, Mr. McCain’s campaign was able to use his wife’s corporate plane like a charter
jet while paying first-class rates, several campaign finance experts said. Several of those experts, however,
added that his campaign’s actions, while keeping with the letter of law, did not reflect its spirit.
...
But it does, I think, reflect the spirit of McCain's career as a senator: say one thing; do another. Rules are
for little people... including rules McCain became famous for advocating. McCain became known as a "maverick"
in part by advocating campaign finance laws. Right. Some "maverick" he is.
I believe that allowing the FEC to fall into dysfunction for lack of membership may prove one of the most
diabolical things the Bush administration has done in the GOP's behalf. And as for the pain of McCain in the
plane, I can only hope one or the other of the Democratic candidates' campaigns will hammer him on it, perhaps
demanding a pledge that he fly commercial airlines from now on, and that he be fined the total amount his
campaign saved by accepting free or cheap rides on his wife's jet. I'd also like a chocolate sundae with a
cherry on top, a new car and a trip to Disneyworld. Nah, forget the trip to Disneyworld. But they're all about
as likely as my fantasy that McCain will comply with all campaign finance laws. Like many high-ranking
Republicans, McCain is a damned crook.
This appeared at a large supermarket around Rodeo time a year ago. I'm not sure one should call it a sign,
though perhaps the appearance of anything as ridiculous as this is a sign of the end of all things...
... and won't deny the possibility of Huckabee as his
veep candidate:
April 25, 2008, 11:14PM McCain, Huckabee avoid VP questions
But the likely nominee said the former governor would be 'a great asset'
By MAEVE RESTON
Los Angeles Times
LITTLE ROCK, ARK. — John McCain and Mike Huckabee always acted more like friends than rivals when they ran
against one another in the Republican presidential primaries.
Their camaraderie was on full display as they campaigned together here Friday, sharing barbecued ribs while
batting away questions from reporters about whether they might be running mates in the fall.
...
McCain refused to say whether Huckabee was on his list of potential vice presidential candidates: "We're
not talking about any names," the Arizona senator said.
But McCain said he believed Huckabee could help him carry some of the Southern states and be "a great asset"
to his campaign. "Governor Huckabee established a reputation throughout the nation with his victories,"
McCain said, adding he hoped Huckabee could fit in some time on the campaign trail while writing a book this
fall.
...
Oh, yeah. Mike Huckabee, an elderly heartbeat away from the presidency, a presidency in which he would surely
pursue freedom and theocracy, just as our nation's founders intended... <snark />
Scalia On Bush v. Gore: Get Over It!
Supreme Court Justice Tells 60 Minutes It’s Nonsense To Say The Decision Was Politically Motivated
April 24, 2008
(CBS) People who believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision giving the 2000 presidential election to George W.
Bush was politically motivated should just get over it, says Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia denies that the controversial decision was political and discusses other aspects of his public and
private life in a remarkably candid interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, this Sunday, April 27,
at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"I say nonsense," Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v.
Bush was based on politics and not justice. "Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the
case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that
wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two," he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the
Supreme Court of Florida’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the
courts. "It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who
said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts,'" says Scalia. "What are we supposed to say -- 'Not important
enough?'" he jokes.
...
For his sake and for mine... I shall take great care never to be in the same room with that mother-raping son of
an asswipe.
McCain Criticized for Slur
He says he'll keep using term for ex-captors in Vietnam
C.W. Nevius, Marc Sandalow, John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writers
Friday, February 18, 2000
(02-18) 04:00 PDT Greenville, S.C. -- Editor's Note: This article was published on Feb. 18, 2000. In January
2008, at least two national web sites posted links to it. As a result, it appeared in the list of SFGate's Most
Read articles.
Arizona Sen. John McCain refused to apologize yesterday for his use of a racial slur to condemn the North
Vietnamese prison guards who tortured and held him captive during the war.
"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus.
"I will hate them as long as I live."
McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent five years in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp, was questioned about the
language because of a story last month in the Nation magazine reporting his continued use of the slur.
...
I can understand McCain's anger at his captors. But the vast majority of Vietnamese people were not his captors.
Indeed, more than a few are now his fellow American citizens, and many of the rest amicably do business with the
United States. But McCain has made it clear that he has no intention of making that distinction: he will hate
them as long as he lives, and use an ethnic slur to prove his hatred.
As far as I'm concerned, McCain has a First Amendment right to say whatever he pleases... but no one who uses
racial slurs as part of daily speech, in public or in private, has any business being President of the United
States.
If, as they say,
"insanity
is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
(Einstein, Franklin or Rita Mae Brown, take your choice),
this
is insanity, packed full and running over:
Six Suspects Will Be Tried a Third Time in Sears Plot
By CARMEN GENTILE
Published: April 24, 2008
MIAMI — Federal prosecutors said Wednesday that they would try for a third time to convict six men accused of
conspiring to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago and join the ranks of Al Qaeda.
Judge Joan A. Lenard said the next trial would proceed in “the late fall or early winter.”
In the previous trials, government lawyers contended that the men — Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Burson
Augustine, Rotschild Augustine, Naudimar Herrera and Stanley G. Phanor — wanted to wage a “ground war” against
American citizens and had pledged their loyalty for Islamic extremism to F.B.I. informants posing as members of
Al Qaeda.
Defense lawyers asserted that their clients had been goaded into making radical remarks and vows of allegiance
by the informants. Testimony in the trials revealed that an F.B.I. search of the group’s headquarters in the
Liberty City neighborhood of Miami yielded no weapons or evidence of preparation for a large-scale attack.
In his appeal for a third trial, the prosecutor Richard Gregorie recalled how Mr. Batiste had been heard in
taped conversations saying he “wanted to kill all the devils,” a reference to Americans, prosecutors say. “The
United States has decided it is necessary to proceed one more time,” Mr. Gregorie said.
...
Prof. Jonathan Turley of George Washington Law School, a critic of the Bush administration’s handling of
terrorism-related cases, said that by seeking a new trial the government was hoping to justify “previous
headlines” about evidence — including wiretaps and informant reports — presented by Attorney General Alberto R.
Gonzales after the suspects’ arrest in June 2006.
“These are the types of prosecutors Las Vegas is built on,” Mr. Turley said. “They keep returning to the table
with the same losing hand.”
Couldn't they just give us the money a third trial would cost, and let us protect ourselves against these
apparently incompetent idiots? These guys didn't have even so much as a shoe bomb, probably because they can't
tie their shoelaces. (Please note that one of the original seven has already been acquitted.)
The trial will take place shortly before the elections. Given the weakness of the case, and the propensity of
some jurors to vote to convict anybody of anything, I predict a third hung jury. But the trial will surely
serve a political purpose for the GOP... if a judge doesn't immediately toss it out with a summary judgment
or a directed verdict. I cannot imagine that a prosecutor would voluntarily take on a third trial in the case;
there must have been pressure from above, and this has to be yet another instance of the Bushist
administration's politicization of justice.
In this interview on ABC News (via
MSNBC),
Hillary Clinton seems to be warming up to sing along with John McCain: "Bomb bomb bomb..." (topic begins about
2:30 into the conversation):
MSNBC's transcript of the relevant passage:
QUESTION: …Does massive retaliation mean you would go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s
supposed to suggest?
CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be.
And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand
that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of
development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might
foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible
thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from
doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.
Yikes. No context, no conditions, no carefully qualified assertion, no discussion of what happened to cause Iran
to nuke Israel, no discussion of how Iran was, improbably, allowed to get to the point at which it had the
capacity to nuke Israel. However much Hillary is a supporter of Israel (as am I, on many issues, with some
significant reservations), this is the kind of question best avoided altogether. Where are her famous
circumlocution skills? Was Hillary suckered here? Good grief!
By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 23, 2008; Page A01
LONDON, April 22 -- More than 100 million people are being driven deeper into poverty by a "silent tsunami" of
sharply rising food prices, which have sparked riots around the world and threaten U.N.-backed feeding
programs for 20 million children, the top U.N. food official said Tuesday.
"This is the new face of hunger -- the millions of people who were not in the urgent hunger category six
months ago but now are," Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program (WFP), said at a
London news conference. "The world's misery index is rising."
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hosting Sheeran and other private and government experts at his 10 Downing Street
offices, said the growing food crisis has pushed prices to their highest levels since 1945 and rivals the
current global financial turmoil as a threat to world stability.
"Hunger is a moral challenge to each one of us as global citizens, but it is also a threat to the political and
economic stability of poor nations around the world," Brown said, adding that 25,000 people a day are dying
of conditions linked to hunger.
...
Prices for basic food supplies such as rice, wheat and corn have skyrocketed in recent months, driven by a
complex set of factors including sharply rising fuel prices, droughts in key food-producing countries,
ballooning demand in emerging nations such as China and India, and the diversion of some crops to produce
biofuels.
...
Holding up the kind of plastic cup that the WFP uses to feed millions of children, Sheeran told reporters that
the price of a metric ton of rice in parts of Asia had risen from $460 to $1,000 in less than two months.
...
(Emphasis mine.)
Oh, yeah... the coincidence of the minimums of rather ordinary cycles, coupled with the raw greed of
"compassionate conservatism" at its finest, now globalized via the energy markets, yields starvation at a rate
not seen since W.W. II. No exemptions for the so-called first world: don't think for a moment that our turn
won't come.
I went into two grocery stores today and bought exactly what was on my list, not one item more. It rather takes
the fun out of shopping, but at least I came home with enough to eat, unlike many people around the world, and
I didn't have to fight anyone for the food I did buy. Actually, I omitted one cheese that was on my list, a very
ordinary cheddar, a staple in my household, because it has more than doubled in price in the past few months. I
don't expect that cheese to be the last such item I have to cross off my list of staple foods.
Have a nice day!
(H/T Fallenmonk,
who has just returned to my side of the pond.)
You knew this was coming; you just didn't know when, or in what product line.
Information Week:
MSN Music Files Won't Play On New Devices After August
Microsoft's decision effectively places an expiration date of about three to five years on song libraries that
MSN Music customers thought they had purchased for life.
By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
April 23, 2008 02:01 PM
In a move that's sure to draw fire from opponents of digital rights management technologies and anger customers,
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) said it will disable consumers' ability to play songs purchased and downloaded from its
defunct MSN Music service on new devices after Aug. 30.
"As of August 31st, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you
purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers," Microsoft said in an e-mail that was
sent Tuesday to former MSN Music customers.
That means consumers who purchased songs from MSN Music and who want to port their library to a new device -- in
case of, say, a hardware failure or desire to upgrade -- won't be able to do so after the end of August.
Given the life of today's computer hardware and mobile devices, Microsoft's decision effectively places an
expiration date of about three to five years on song libraries that MSN Music customers thought they had
purchased for life.
Microsoft did not provide a reason for the decision.
...
What's next? "surprise" expirations on Win XP licenses? compulsory upgrades of MS Office if you want to keep
opening your .doc and .xls files? Oh, the stupidity, it burns...
This is a photo of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in a case in which a man returning to the U.S. in
2005 was ordered to turn on his laptop and hand it to Customs agents, who unceremoniously searched its contents,
no warrant, no probable cause, nothing, just on a whim. They found some pictures they claimed were child
pornography, and that was that. Despite rulings by a lower court that the search was illegal, the Ninth Circuit
reversed, saying in effect that searching the content of a laptop was no different from searching a wallet or
purse, papers found in pockets, etc.
In a Monday ruling, the judges considered an appeal from one Michael Arnold. Arnold was 43 when he returned to
the US from the Philippines in July 2005, and he showed up at LAX with a laptop, separate hard drive, flash
drive, and six compact discs. A Customs and Border Patrol agent asked Arnold to fire up the machine, then
decided to take a look through two folders on the machine's desktop, labeled "Kodak Pictures" and "Kodak
Memories." Why the officer did this is not clear, but he found a picture "that depicted two nude women." Further
searching turned up images that appeared to be child pornography, and Arnold's computer was seized.
A court case followed in which Arnold argued that the results of this search should not be allowed, as they were
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. A district court bought Arnold's argument that a laptop was different
from normal closed containers like luggage, which are routinely examined by border agents without particular
cause. Arnold claimed that a laptop was more like "home" and "the human mind" than a typical closed container
and that searching it required a reason. The district court agreed.
But the Ninth Circuit took the district court's logic out behind the woodshed and thrashed it with a willow
switch. The judges noted that precedent already allows searches of 1) briefcases and luggage, 2) a purse,
wallet, or pocket, 3) papers found in pockets, and 4) pictures, films, and other graphic material. In fact, the
Supreme Court allows border agents wide latitude, only drawing the line at searching the "alimentary canal" of a
suspect without reasonable suspicion (seriously).
...
(For the record, there was a
similar ruling
in 2006, also by the Ninth Circuit, also allegedly involving child pornography.)
One can deplore child pornography, as I do, and nonetheless deplore the arbitrary search of the entire content
of someone's computer with no probable cause. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" has not merely been violated... it has been
gutted.
Have I mentioned lately that I despise these people?
I'm sure I've told this jury-duty story before; bear with me if you've heard it. I was on a panel from which
a jury was to be selected for a drug-related case. It was clear during voir dire that the case
hinged on a deposition by an anonymous jailhouse informant. The defense attorney asked one elderly woman who
seemed to think that was not relevant, "But don't you believe in the Bill of Rights?" The woman unhesitatingly
replied, "I believe in the Bill of Rights... except for drugs." When asked, I responded something about the
accused's right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The elderly woman was selected for the jury;
I was not.
My point is that it's not just "except for drugs." Pick your exception: "except for terrorism," "except for
child pornography," "except for organized crime," "except for capital murder," etc. etc. Anyone who is willing
to cut an exception to the Bill of Rights for the sake of obtaining a conviction in a particular kind of case
has fundamentally forsaken an important aspect of his or her American heritage.
(Word order in one phrase corrected for clarity after initial posting.)
Take a look at the picture on the right (we'll postpone questions about how far right) and you'll have to admit
that's a mighty angry man. Is the picture photoshopped? Probably not, but if you think it may be, please read
McCain: A Question of Temperament
by WaPo's Michael Leahy. It's rather long, but for full effect, read all of it. Leahy cites perhaps a dozen
instances of McCain's loss of control toward his Senate colleagues... shouting, pushing, shoving, poking;
everyone says he hasn't resorted to fisticuffs, but the fact that everyone emphasizes that leads one to wonder
why it has to be said every time.
Every president gets angry. It's not hard to find examples in the record of both Democratic and Republican
presidents who vent once in a while. Even
violence between high public officials
has a long tradition. But the more extreme incidents occurred before the President of the United States had the
raw power to order actions that could literally destroy all life on Earth. The necessity of a "presidential"
temperament in the face of international challenges has transformed from an admirable trait in a president to a
characteristic essential for the survival of life on Earth.
And I'm pretty sure McCain is the only presidential candidate who has sung, "Bomb bomb bomb... bomb bomb Iran."
This man is temperamentally unsuited to the presidency. I happen to believe he is also drastically
underqualified and far too old, but the temperament is what truly scares me. Lately I've read an assortment of
self-proclaimed Democrats who say, "if {Hillary|Obama} isn't the nominee, I won't vote for {Obama|Hillary} ...
I'll vote for McCain instead." OK, go ahead, but first, be sure you've restocked your Cold War fallout shelter.
(H/T Half Empty,
whose own post is very much worth reading, and Carl Whitmarsh, who alerted me to the post and the WaPo article
via CEWDEM's indispensable email list.)
That's what I'm doing today, and perhaps more than just today. My attitude toward politics is almost... not
quite... as bad as possible, so it's probably just as well I don't blog about it at the moment.
This moss was in Memorial Park, Houston, in January.
I wrote this in 1998, back before I had a political web site, but somehow it seems appropriate again these days,
about that other George, the one who used to be a Democrat and worked for Bill Clinton. A warning: this one is a
bit rougher than most doggerel I've written in recent years...
King George the Turd
We Democrats are not unkind,
Nor is it even small of us
To say that we've been rogered blind
By Georgie Steponallofus.
His facile words for ABC
May not yet be the fall of us,
But seldom do we much agree
With Mister Steponallofus.
He's paid to bite the hand that fed,
And we object... the gall of us!
With Sam and Cokie he's in bed,
Is pundit Steponallofus.
He has us by the little hairs,
His grasp has got each ball of us;
Disloyal? ask him if he cares,
This turncoat Steponallofus.
Imagine him, then, in the can,
Direct beneath the stall of us;
And we've been fed a ton of bran
To dump on Steponallofus.
And one fine day he'll surely hear
The "up-against-the-wall" of us;
To that glad hour I raise my beer:
No more he'll Steponallofus!
This sign is on the Brays Bayou hike 'n' bike trail, at the entrance to an extremely steep underpass. As I
interpret the sign, the cylinder is the base of a pillar supporting the street and obstructing the path, and
the bands are "cyclers" wrapped forever around the pillar because they didn't heed the warning. Don't ask about
the arrow.
This underpass is one of the most dangerous spots along the trail if bicycles happen to meet there. Nothing can
be done about it, other than keeping one's eyes open, because the pillars cannot be moved and the trail
cannot be widened.
Stella, not feeling her best these days, is comforted by both the ladies, Princess Samantha on the royal pillow,
and Just Plain Tabitha on Stella's lap. Those two seem to understand when Stella needs extra attention...
Meanwhile, as I prepare this post, I'm snacking on a very intense
Emmenthaler cheese,
experiencing strong memories from almost 30 years ago of Emmenthaler gebacken...
breaded, deep-fried cheese that I occasionally ate in Austria. I doubt the cats would appreciate the stuff, but
perhaps if Stella ate some, it would cure what ails her. Unfortunately, at the moment, because of an infected
throat, she cannot swallow solids, and her diet is entirely liquid. Only time and the ladies will cure her. Let
us all hope for her speedy recovery.
Executions to resume after ruling
By KELLEY SHANNON – 2 hours ago
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding lethal injection sent a shudder through death row
Wednesday, and prosecutors and governors around the country said they would move forward with carrying out death
sentences as quickly as the courts can set execution dates.
"It's just terrible," said Paris Powell, a convicted killer at the Oklahoma State Prison in McAlester. He added:
"It's like the air has just been let out of a balloon. There's disbelief that the ruling came so quickly, but it
goes further than just right now. It's now official that the death penalty is here to stay forever, really."
The ruling came after what amounted to a seven-month moratorium on executions in the U.S., as states awaited a
ruling from the high court. In the case from Kentucky, death penalty foes argued unsuccessfully that the widely
used three-drug cocktail can cause excruciating pain in violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual
punishment.
In Texas, easily the No. 1 death penalty state, 40 condemned convicts who had all but exhausted their appeals
had been awaiting the outcome of the case, said University of Houston law professor David Dow, who represents
death row inmates. Texas has 357 inmates on death row.
...
Mr. Powell's excited and understandable response notwithstanding, let us be clear on what this ruling says and
what it does not say. The ruling does not say that "the death penalty is here to stay forever." It says
that the use of the three-drug cocktail used in performing executions in most states does not violate the Eighth
Amendment rights of the condemned person not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
The trend of opposition to the death penalty in many states in the U.S., as revealed in several polls,
continues, and I am confident the debate is not over. That said, many states had effectively a moratorium on
executions pending the outcome of this case: there will be a metaphorical bloodbath for a while, especially here
in Harris County, TX, the capital punishment capital of the nation.
Let me offer a couple of observations...
This was not a typical liberal/conservative split in the Supreme Court. The ruling was 7-2, with separate
concurring opinions offering different reasoning, including, improbably, Justice Stevens.
And everyone please note that the typical three-drug cocktail is banned in most states for use by veterinarians
in putting down animals... because of increasing evidence the cocktail causes a cruelly painful death.
It's OK for humans, though. No contradiction there; oh, no.
ABC Restricts Debate Clips to 30 Seconds; Cable Channels May Cite ‘Fair Use’
By Brian Stelter
Maybe Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton can sum up their policy differences in 30 seconds or less
on Wednesday night.
They will have to if they are going to get their points across well on networks other than ABC, which is
sponsoring the hotly anticipated Democratic debate that evening. According to the usage guidelines circulated by
ABC, other news organizations are only allowed to excerpt half a minute from the broadcast.
That means choosing only one 30-second clip to use on television and the Web between 11 p.m. Wednesday and 5
a.m. Thursday.
ABC defends the restrictions as being “very reasonable.” After all, ABC is footing the bill to stage the debate
at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
“We have an obligation to our West Coast affiliates to not make chunks of the debate available until their
viewers have had a chance to see them,” an ABC spokesman said.
...
Remember when the airwaves were regulated by the FCC to serve the public good? Remember when news departments
were not cost centers required to show a profit? Remember when some broadcasters gave a good damn about
democracy? OK; you can forget all those things now: they're history. A Mouse chewed through the documented
obligations of the broadcast media to serve the public interest.
Click any permalink below to go to the original article on a previous page.
Click a comment link below to add a comment to the original article.
Your comment will be noticed, by the YDD at least:
HaloScan has a page allowing me to view recent comments, no matter which post they refer to.
Some very recent posts may be included in their entirety.
Better the occasional faults of a government that lives
in a spirit of charity than the constant omissions of a
government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
- FDR
I belong to the Democratic Party wing of the Democratic Party.
- Paul Wellstone
I am a Democrat without prefix, without suffix, and without apology.
- Sam Rayburn
This is a photo of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in a case in which a man returning to the U.S. in
2005 was ordered to turn on his laptop and hand it to Customs agents, who unceremoniously searched its contents,
no warrant, no probable cause, nothing, just on a whim. They found some pictures they claimed were child
pornography, and that was that. Despite rulings by a lower court that the search was illegal, the Ninth Circuit
reversed, saying in effect that searching the content of a laptop was no different from searching a wallet or
purse, papers found in pockets, etc.
Take a look at the picture on the right (we'll postpone questions about how far right) and you'll have to admit
that's a mighty angry man. Is the picture photoshopped? Probably not, but if you think it may be, please read
