-
The legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has determined that an unborn child who never has had even the ability to do any wrong, could be put to death so that his mother can play [sports]. ...
"Ah, but this young woman has more ambition than to play [sports]. Her possible ... scholarship is but the means to the end of her becoming a [health--care provider]. But what is the duty of a [health--care provider]? To save lives. Should her child die so that, possibly, she might later save other lives?
There may be physical complications to an abortion. There may be psychological complications or consequences. She said that she does not believe that abortion is wrong, so, apparently, in spite of her church attendance, there won't be spiritual consequences, at least for the present.
...
This is a capital case. It involves the question whether [the minor's] unborn child should live or die.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Parental Notification Laws
What happens when judges get control your uterus. Here are the comments of a judge denying a minor's request to get an abortion without notifying her parents:
Big Business Hearts Socialism
I've said it before -- universal health care is inevitable. And, I've said what I think the motivating factor will be -- big business will demand it.
I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. But, it will happen -- not because of a peasants' revolt, but because one sector of the economy finally recognizes that they're getting screwed over by another one.
...and, to add -- if it doesn't (I think it will), it's because the fellow travellers of the PNAC crowd, the ones who managed to ensure that the 21st century won't be dominated by American foreign policy, will ensure that we won't dominate economically either. In other words, if it doesn't happen it's because larger forces at work have destroyed the American economy.
I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. But, it will happen -- not because of a peasants' revolt, but because one sector of the economy finally recognizes that they're getting screwed over by another one.
...and, to add -- if it doesn't (I think it will), it's because the fellow travellers of the PNAC crowd, the ones who managed to ensure that the 21st century won't be dominated by American foreign policy, will ensure that we won't dominate economically either. In other words, if it doesn't happen it's because larger forces at work have destroyed the American economy.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Rotting Soul
Will anyone ever just call bullshit? There's no scenario which can possibly be conceived by mere mortals such that there was intelligence which suggested the inaugural could be a target but about which subsequent intelligence has led us to conclude were false alarms.
Tom Ridge's job for the last couple of years was to screech "Orange!" when told.
And I remember when pundits were "outraged!" over the possibility that someone would dare politicize that sacred day of 9/11.
Suckers and tools. The lot of them.
If only David Broder were still alive...
Tom Ridge's job for the last couple of years was to screech "Orange!" when told.
And I remember when pundits were "outraged!" over the possibility that someone would dare politicize that sacred day of 9/11.
Suckers and tools. The lot of them.
If only David Broder were still alive...
Only 34?
Salon gives us 34 Bush administration scandals worse than Whitewater. Of course, Whitewater wasn't actually a scandal, so it's rather like saying "34 scandals worse than no scandal at all," but somehow I imagine that point will be lost on our press.
Speaking of Whitewater, the Times has yet to address their fraudulent Whitewater reporting (in fact, current and former Timesers defend it to this day). But, hey, maybe someone will find the time to ask Jill Abramson about that at this ethics conference thingy.
And, yes, it was before her time, but last I checked Jeff Gerth was still on the payroll...
Speaking of Whitewater, the Times has yet to address their fraudulent Whitewater reporting (in fact, current and former Timesers defend it to this day). But, hey, maybe someone will find the time to ask Jill Abramson about that at this ethics conference thingy.
And, yes, it was before her time, but last I checked Jeff Gerth was still on the payroll...
Promoting a Program vs. Promoting Policies and Potential Policies
The WaPo has an article up about PR firms fearing a backlash over the Williams issue.
But, I want to draw a distinction which seems to have been greatly lacking in all of this. It's one thing federal dollars to inform people of the ins and outs of federal programs (say, telling people the facts the new Medicare drug program and telling them how to get it), yet another to tout such programs and credit dear leader for them ("president bush has given you this wonderful new Medicare program!!!!!"), and still another to promote potential policies (killing social security).
But, I want to draw a distinction which seems to have been greatly lacking in all of this. It's one thing federal dollars to inform people of the ins and outs of federal programs (say, telling people the facts the new Medicare drug program and telling them how to get it), yet another to tout such programs and credit dear leader for them ("president bush has given you this wonderful new Medicare program!!!!!"), and still another to promote potential policies (killing social security).
Mock Them Into The Ground
August adds to an earlier post writing:
I definitely agree. It's something I've said before in one way or another, though I obviously forget it at times too. One thing they have, which we don't, is a media willing to perpetuate all their bullshit. Michael Moore didn't become a object of derision and hate for a large chunk of the population because morons like the Perfesser and Hugh Hewitt ragged on him -- Michael Moore became an object of derision because people like NBC's Lisa Myers ran a well-advertised "fact-checking Farenheit 9/11" segment which amazingly didn't check a single fact. Since our equivalent of "Al Gore invented the internets!!!!" for some reason doesn't hit the mainstream, we continue to hope that maybe our more reasonable stuff will be picked up by the few decent mainstream sensible journalists (mostly at the Post, despite its flaws).
But, nonetheless, we shouldn't forget the value of reminding people of the jokes that they really are.
-
I think there are way too many times when we actually bother to entertain these attempts from warbloggers to feel much more important about what they're doing than they actually are. I think shows like Crossfire would have survived- and thrived- if people on the left just responded to Bob Novak by saying "are you fucking kidding me?" and staring his bullshit down with supressed laughter until he ran off the stage crying. Conservatives try to implicate the left for "lowering the discourse." They're not worried about us lowering- or raising- the discourse. They're worried that we might get a clue and stop engaging them in discourse.
We've raised Ann Coulter to new heights by trying to counter her. She doesn't care. Michael Moore is delegitimized by the Right by means of sarcasm and humor. Dean was destroyed by jokes about the scream. If Crossfire opened every show with "and look what that crazy bitch said today," followed by a shot of Paul and James laughing their asses off, Ann Coulter would be the leggiest assistant corporate attorney in Accounts Recieving right now.
The right-wing bloggers don't want to hear our rebuttals. The President doesn't want to hear the Democrats' counter-proposals. History will never look back on this time and discuss how changes were made through the art of rational bipartisan discussion. But I'm damn sure history has a chance to look back on this era... and laugh.
I definitely agree. It's something I've said before in one way or another, though I obviously forget it at times too. One thing they have, which we don't, is a media willing to perpetuate all their bullshit. Michael Moore didn't become a object of derision and hate for a large chunk of the population because morons like the Perfesser and Hugh Hewitt ragged on him -- Michael Moore became an object of derision because people like NBC's Lisa Myers ran a well-advertised "fact-checking Farenheit 9/11" segment which amazingly didn't check a single fact. Since our equivalent of "Al Gore invented the internets!!!!" for some reason doesn't hit the mainstream, we continue to hope that maybe our more reasonable stuff will be picked up by the few decent mainstream sensible journalists (mostly at the Post, despite its flaws).
But, nonetheless, we shouldn't forget the value of reminding people of the jokes that they really are.
Martin Frost Hearts Bush
Yea, that's who should be running the DNC. Tim Russert is rubbing his hands with glee with the prospect. As is Karl.
...you can also watch it here (taking some of the bandwidth share).
...you can also watch it here (taking some of the bandwidth share).
More Roemer
In addition, the guy's a whiner:
I think I'm starting to understand this guy. For too long he's held had a seat at one the most media-blessed table in DC - the table of Moderate Democrats Who Can Do No Wrong.
Cut the crap. The job isn't for you. Go join the bipartisan panel to kill social security, or whatever.
-
The candidate told a gathering in St. Louis that he wanted to have "a conversation" on issues but that he is "having trouble doing this because of negative campaigning and litmus tests."
His voice rising, Roemer added, "I like a good fight. But don't put my arms behind me. Give me a chance to talk about my values. And don't litmus-test me."
...
Roemer aides said he was angry over an opposition research memo being circulated in Washington and Democratic circles that outlined his voting record, which sometimes did not follow party lines.
I think I'm starting to understand this guy. For too long he's held had a seat at one the most media-blessed table in DC - the table of Moderate Democrats Who Can Do No Wrong.
Cut the crap. The job isn't for you. Go join the bipartisan panel to kill social security, or whatever.
Tech Fun
So, a laptop committed suicide as I mentioned (won't power up at all). I wanted to pull some important data off the hard drive before sending off to repair-land, so I tried plugging the drive into an old laptop. Hardware was compatible, but wouldn't boot (presumably loaded up with all kinds of incompatible drivers). So, next I tried accessing it from DOS. But, the drive's NTFS and DOS no likey NTFS so that didn't work.
Finally, I found a little laptop-drive-to-USB port adapter online. Tune in next week to see if that works...
Finally, I found a little laptop-drive-to-USB port adapter online. Tune in next week to see if that works...
Disqualified
I haven't been following the ins and outs of the DNC Chair election process because I just haven't had it in me to follow another election. But, I think Tim Roemer and Martin Frost have pretty much disqualified themselves for the job.
Whatever the job is, it's a job for a partisan. Partisan doesn't necessarily equal mean and nasty, but it does mean someone who doesn't propogate the other side's talking points about your team.
Idiots.
Whatever the job is, it's a job for a partisan. Partisan doesn't necessarily equal mean and nasty, but it does mean someone who doesn't propogate the other side's talking points about your team.
Idiots.
Thomas Continued
Following up on this post, here's the transcript of what an Alabama state SC justice said about Clarence Thomas, sent in by a reader:
I think this somewhat different than the reporter communicated in his article, though it's ambiguous writing not deliberate deception. He's referring to the oath of office, not some general oath or commitment. And, the oath itself, arguably, is to God (on bible, so help me god, etc.).
...let me just add that while I think Thomas is off the hook in some sense, it's precisely this kind of thing which bothers me about the "ceremonial deism" defense of seemingless "harmless" mixing of religion and government (God in pledge, on money, etc...) While a reasonable person will probably conclude that all Thomas meant was that the oath of office was to God, and therefore of paramount importance to keep, there's still the implication that for these judges, even in the context of serving the state they still consider God to be the higher power, and that view has been enshrined by various forays into ceremonial deism. Now, thinking God is a higher power is not especially surprising -- He is God, after all, and if you believe in Him of course his Almightyness will trump the puny power of the state. But, in the context of being a judge, a strong intertwining of your job and your religion raises legitimate questions about what you do, as a judge, when God's law and man's law collide.
It's not about belief in God as a higher power, it's about belief that you personally are sure that you know just what God's Law is, and how He would want you to carry it out. If I had those kinds of beliefs, I'd be a bad judge, because of course God's Law (as I am certain of it) would trump man's law...
-
PARKER: ``Just moments before I placed my hand on the Holy Scripture, Justice Thomas soberly addressed me and those in attendance. He admonished us to remember that the worth of a justice should be evaluated by one thing, and by one thing alone: whether or not he is faithful to uphold his oath _ an oath which as Justice Thomas pointed out is not to the people; it's not to the state; it's not even to the Constitution, which is one to be supported, but is an oath which is to God Himself.''
I think this somewhat different than the reporter communicated in his article, though it's ambiguous writing not deliberate deception. He's referring to the oath of office, not some general oath or commitment. And, the oath itself, arguably, is to God (on bible, so help me god, etc.).
...let me just add that while I think Thomas is off the hook in some sense, it's precisely this kind of thing which bothers me about the "ceremonial deism" defense of seemingless "harmless" mixing of religion and government (God in pledge, on money, etc...) While a reasonable person will probably conclude that all Thomas meant was that the oath of office was to God, and therefore of paramount importance to keep, there's still the implication that for these judges, even in the context of serving the state they still consider God to be the higher power, and that view has been enshrined by various forays into ceremonial deism. Now, thinking God is a higher power is not especially surprising -- He is God, after all, and if you believe in Him of course his Almightyness will trump the puny power of the state. But, in the context of being a judge, a strong intertwining of your job and your religion raises legitimate questions about what you do, as a judge, when God's law and man's law collide.
It's not about belief in God as a higher power, it's about belief that you personally are sure that you know just what God's Law is, and how He would want you to carry it out. If I had those kinds of beliefs, I'd be a bad judge, because of course God's Law (as I am certain of it) would trump man's law...
Bobo's World
Actually it's a twofer. Bobo's world AND department of utterly incorrect and misleading headlines:
This isn't specifically about gay clients, it's about umarried clients, gay, straight, man-on-dog, whatever.
(tip thanks to int argc)
-
Gay clients challenge domestic violence charges
The Associated Press
CLEVELAND - Some attorneys are attempting to use Ohio's new gay marriage amendment to defend unmarried clients against domestic violence charges.
The constitutional amendment, which took effect on Dec. 1, denies legal status to unmarried couples.
In at least two cases last week, the Cuyahoga County public defender's office has asked a judge to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants, arguing that the charges violate the amendment by affording marriage-like legal status to unmarried victims who live with the people accused of attacking them.
This isn't specifically about gay clients, it's about umarried clients, gay, straight, man-on-dog, whatever.
(tip thanks to int argc)
Sucking
After hearing about this story of "liberal bias" I emailed the student and asked for a copy of his essay, which I never got, as I was curious. Here it is. James Joyner wastes time explaining why it sucks.
As for the accusation that the professor told the student to seek "psychological treatment" -- well, my guess that if that happened it was not in response to the essay itself but as a response to the post-grade complaining in the office or other patterns of behavior. Professors can be jerks, but dispensing advice to get mental health help is generally a place one stays away from.
(via pandagon)
As for the accusation that the professor told the student to seek "psychological treatment" -- well, my guess that if that happened it was not in response to the essay itself but as a response to the post-grade complaining in the office or other patterns of behavior. Professors can be jerks, but dispensing advice to get mental health help is generally a place one stays away from.
(via pandagon)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)