Why does this not surprise me?
….A citizen of Qatar, he was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He had faced criminal charges until authorities designated him an enemy combatant and ordered him held at a naval base in South Carolina.
OK, this is where I’ve had a problem the whole time. Why would someone who has made no effort whatsoever to be protected by the rights granted by our legal system be automatically given those rights when faced with violating OUR rights? It might not be against the Qatari law to plan to kill citizens of another country. And, since this guy has remained a Qatar citizen, he is protected by the laws of Qatar. So, thig guy meanders around the US totally protected FROM our laws only so long as he doesn’t violate our laws. Then, when he does, people like Reno assume he is automatically stripped of those Qatari laws and suddenly protected by US civil laws. That’s not right. Military court might not be the best route, but I don’t believe for one second he has earned the same protections and US citizen rights as those people who have pledged to respect those rights and live under the guidance of our law.
As far as him being held "forever", he has only been held because of the continued meddling of lawyers fighting over whether or not this citizen of Qatar has suddenly become a citizen of the US against his wishes. I really think he should have been deported a long time ago. Then allowed to fight to prove his innocence to be allowed back in the US. If he even wants to.
But, it’s this incredibly liberal translation of who is entitled to rights as a US citizen that got us in the mess that was 9/11 in the first place. I don’t point the blame directly at Janet Reno. But, she was real damn close to the heart of the problem. We were letting known terrorists with plans to do very bad things wonder all over the US under Reno. Now, she’s wanting us to go right back to where we were then.
21
Nov
Well, not totally at this moment. But, I imagine now he will be.
…he plans to create a draft-Newt "wave" by building grassroots support for his health care, national security and energy independence ideas – all of which he has been peddling to corporate audiences over the past six years. "Nice people," Gingrich says of his GOP competitors. "But we’re not in the same business. They’re running for president. I’m running to change the country."
I fully expect to see a Ross Perot type campaign out of Gingrich. I really do. And, just as in the case of Perot, Gingrich could prove to be a spoiler. I don’t think Gingrich has a ghost chance of winning the Republican nomination. I do however, think he could have a huge impact as an independent. That honestly, is the route I’d prefer to see him take. He doesn’t want any strings attached, and that would be the way to do it. Perot had a chance to totally change the way US voters looked at politics, and just flat out blew it. The votes MIGHT have been there in 1992. Who’s to say that same voting base might still be looking?
I’ll put it this way, President Bush’s approval ratings are in the 30′s. The only one doing worse is Nancy Pelosi. As the figureheads of their respective parties, you’d think one or the other would have at LEAST a majority appeal.
Think about that Newt.
He said it was the first time such a vessel was seized near the coast.
So far this year, Costa Rican authorities have seized 18 tons of cocaine.
Looks like drug runners are getting a little more creative now that the Mexican border is getting dicey. It would seem to me that for 3 TONS of cocaine, they could have bought a real sub and possibly escaped notice.
20
Nov
Why do I feel like a broken record? I just posted on Charlie Rangel proposing reinstating the draft, Ted Kennedy wanting to tax businesses to death, and now, Ted Kennedy wanting to raise minimum wage.
I gave my reasons why this idea sucks a long time ago. They haven’t changed.
Fair warning here folks, the next couple of years will suck if you’re an independent business owner.
That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Congress DID have family members that were put in harm’s way because of Iraq.
Now, back in 2004, one of the things Bush was accused of, totally unsubstantiated, was that the Republicans were going to reinstate the draft because so many troops were needed all over the world. John Kerry even suggested Bush might bring back the draft publicly. At that very exact same time, Rangel’s bill was floating the halls of Congress totally ignored by those same people calling for Bush’s head. And the media completely ignored it. Now, once again, he has proposed reinstating the draft. This time, at least, some of the media has noticed.
I’m waiting for the kids at Kos to make this an issue again. The entire time people have been told to fear Republicans regarding the draft, it’s been Democrats supporting it. It has been the Republicans that have shot it down, every time. Now, thanks to folks like Kos and CBS, the Democrats are in control and the chances for the draft to be reinstated are REAL. The only thing that can stop them, again, is a veto. That veto would be from a Republican.
( The likelihood the majority of Democrats would support such a politically suicidal bill Rangel has proposed is nil IMO. But, it was less than that one month ago. )
18
Nov
Study finds Web isn’t teeming with sex ANALYSIS SHOWS ABOUT 1 PERCENT OF ALL PAGES HAVE ADULT CONTENT
That’s the conclusion the San Jose Mercury News comes to regarding an argument the ACLU presented in federal court last week regarding their challenge to the Child Online Protection Act President Clinton signed into law in 1998. It has been in court since then. The guts of the ACLU argument is:
“One of the things we think came out of the government’s study is that the chance of running into graphic content on the Web when filters are on is extremely low,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.
What planet does she live on? The planet I live on is a lot different. Using Google, if you search for these terms, you’ll get these responses:
- Spongebob – 1,360,000
- cartoon -91,900,000
- Little Einstein – 59,800
- Jimmy Neutron – 1,160,000
- Scooby Doo – 2,730,000
Big numbers huh? Well, try these on for size:
- Pussy – 42,600,000
- sex – 31,900,000
- fuck – 103,000,000
- lesbian – 86,900,000
- transexual – 297,000
- homosexual- 17,800,000
- gang bang – 2,180,000
- teen sex – 2,210,000
- porn – 84,900,000
- voyeur – 20,500,000
- whore – 20,200,000
It’s about eight times more likely a kid will find something about “fuck” than “Spongebob”. Toss in all the other terms, and you’re talking porn SWAMPING kid topics by a long shot. In fact, if you Google “cartoon”, chances are profoundly more than 1% that some of those cartoons will be porn.
These results actually were derived by Phillip Stark at the University of Californa-Berkeley. He does state that there are many equivocating circumstances for him to come to that conclusion ( ie, filter are in use ). Bottom line, I think his conclusion is total BS and if the same research had been done in rural America, it would have come to a totally different conclusion.
The question I have, is what does someone living in the most liberal city in the United States, employed by probably the most liberal university in the United States, even consider to be porn? I mean, would an openly lesbian page, with pictures, on Myspace, be considered “porn”? Think I’m stretching things? You can cruise the lesbian pages on Myspace, with pictures, for HOURS. That’s just one non-porn site. How many porn flicks do you think exist on these video servers? All they ask is that you “say” your legal age, and poof, all the porn you want is there. Do they consider Youtube and the others porn sites? Are viruses and re-directs Google-able? Did they count the amount of porn on newsgroups? I’ll bet not.
And, more importantly, why did the government use someone who would most likely be so biased to support their argument in the first place?
And, lastly, if these results are the result of using filters, what is the ACLU’s point in arguing against the Child Online Protection Act in the first place? If censorship is OK by one entity ( the provider ), why is not OK by another ( the government )? Seems to me my rights are being intruded upon equally in both situations.
I don’t even think these filters work. The best protection in my opinion is to sit very close to your kids when they’re cruising anyway or expect them to be exposed to it whether they want to be or not.
Bottom line, there’s more porn for free, without age verification, than anything else. Porn is what drove the internet to what it is today. To now make some bizarre claim that it’s not much of an issue is amazing. For a judge to blindly accept that statement to me is incredulous. The Child Online Protection Act needs to be passed not so much as some catch-all protection for children, but, more importantly to me, a means to prosecute those that intentionally lure kids to porn by means of re-directs and similarly named sites such as whitehouse.com did at one time.
With the wisdom of the voters of the US, and especially those that think that voting for someone purely on national party issues ( ie, a split government ), we give you the new found resolution to that pesky culture of corruption issue.
The Democrats, at approximately one week into their not-yet assumed responsibility of being in charge to solve all those pesky Republican culture of corruption issues, seem to be, so far, just internalizing all those issues they fought against. Immediately following the election some people assumed would stop all the bickering, Jack Murtha and Steny Hoyer are locked in a battle for, get this, the #2 position of Democrat House.
That Jack is such a classy guy. The problem as I perceive it is Murtha’s history has several very questionable ethics issues for Murtha. Pelosi, the Speaker, has harped on the "culture of corruption" issue as if it’s purely a Republican thing and William Jefferson is just a blip.
However, Murtha was involved in ABSCAM, he just wasn’t prosecuted. The reason he wasn’t prosecuted was he didn’t accept the money outright. And, what kept him in hot water was his comment that he wasn’t interested, "at this time". Didn’t set too well with some people. They investigated him, the vote went down party lines, and Murtha BARELY escaped. In 2005 Murtha again was in the middle of an ethical mess when a bill he helped write included monies earmarked for at least TEN companies that had one thing in common, Jack Murtha’s brother. Where was the Rolling Stone on that issue? One company receives one million dollars related to a Republican Congressman and the New York Times, CNN, and Rolling Stone are all over it. 10 companies receive $20,000,000 and none of those rags cares. Why do you suppose that is?
But, I digress, Nancy Pelosi has assured the country, via all major media, that the culture of corruption is limited exclusively to the Republican Party. That someone with such a tainted background as Jack Murtha would never survive in the Democrat Party. So, who ya wanna guess Nancy Pelosi has endorsed in this rancorous debate over the #2 position? Why, Jack Murtha of course. And, of course, the New York Times, CNN, and Rolling Stone are more than happy with that.
That folks, is what you get with your "divided government" as an only test of why a candidate should be elected. People accused Bush/Rumsfeld of wanting to be Big Brother, now you’re seeing it in action. If media asks no questions, the politicians will never tell lies. That folks, IS Big Brother. Not one media source has asked Pelosi why she endorsed Murtha while persecuting people like Delay, who actually was investigated LESS than Murtha, as her example of the "culture of corruption". Murtha IS the culture of corruption the same as Delay was. Pelosi now endorses that culture of corruption and not one media source could care less.
Do you all feel better now?
Other articles:
- Tom McClusky has more on this posted on The Hill.
- Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post
- John Fund has even more stuff on Murtha on OpinionJournal.
Diane Sawyer was interviewing Barack Obama yesterday and asked an intriguing question to him, are we more racist or sexist? Obama dodged the question, not terribly effectively, by stating each individual makes their own decision. I don’t believe that to be true. Sawyer has taken some heat for even asking the question. I don’t believe that to be fair. It’s a fair question to ask. However, it’s not terribly fair to dump that on an actively campaigning politician. If I were Obama, I would have dodged it like a bullet as well. I think I would have suggested she consult a sociologist rather than someone who stands to risk getting burned answering the question sincerely.
But, the question is intriguing to me. Not so much because of it’s blatantly obvious answer, but because it pits two human traits against each other. Every single human on this planet is racist to some degree. Every single human is sexist to some degree. It’s a human trait that predates politics. To put it most simply, we feel most comfortable with people most like us. People develope biases to protect themselves from perceived threats. If a person is bitten by a bull terrier, they develope a protective mechanism against all bull terriers even though a beagle might be as likely to bite them. It’s a natural thing. When people perceive social threats to their lifestyle ( comfort zone ), they generalize those threats even though the vast majority may not pose the same risk. Because of this, I think forty years ago Obama’s race would have been a lot more of an issue than it is today. I would bet that if a person of Middle Eastern decent and strong cultural appearance ran against Obama, Obama would cream them. Americans sort of have an issue with anyone that looks like Osama Bin Laden. The gender bias I really don’t think is that big of an issue these days. It’s there, but it’s a lot more subtle. The majority of voters in the US are women, the minority of voters, men, can enjoy a woman. So, it’s not a fear factor thing so much. Where gender WOULD play an issue IMO is if the male ran as a conservative, since, the general bias is women are more liberal ( see Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton ). In that case, the males, would have the inherent gender bias reinforced by the social bias. In other words, there’s no comfort zone at all for the average white male.
The bigger question IMO, is not so much whether we are more racist than sexist, but whether Obama can break out of the black liberal bias, especially against a white liberal female. He would have the curse of being male appealing to female voters, black appealing to white voters, AND liberal appealing to conservative voters. And, if he pulls that off to any degree at all, he wouldn’t be black enough for black voters ( see Colin Powell ).
So, it’s not really a simple comparison of race vs gender as Sawyer put it. But I do appreciate her putting it out there.
’08 may be the year we elect a minority or a woman as President. However, it will be because the men running aren’t men enough to the male voters, which is a whole other bias in itself.
The Democrats haven’t even officially taken over the government yet, but they are already tossing out anything Republican as fast as they can. Along with that, I guess we can totally dismiss Bush’s "conservative compassionism":
Its not just committees our influence within the House Democratic caucus will grow enormously, Mr. Rangel said in an interview.
To that end, he sketched out an expansive federal agenda: Teaming up with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on gun control, passing new tax incentives for urban job programs, and redirecting federal money to New York in return for the outsize tax collections that the federal government makes here.
Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi? Mr. Rangel said.
Now, Rangel has a point to some degree, New York does pay out more than they receive in federal tax dollars. But, seems like I remember a vague campaign promise from someone not too long ago:
I would think if Rangel were sincere in his pre-November promises, rather than screwing Mississippi for the sake of New York City, he’d just cut that spending out completely. But, he’s not, he’s already figuring out how he can spend it himself.
I think we can safely assume the Democrat calls for a balanced budget have been effectively abandoned. I serioudly doubt you’ll hear one single Democrat say anything about "reckless spending" from this point on as well.
I am still waiting to see if Rangel endorses Ted Kennedy’s tax increase.
Don’t fret things too much tho, it has to get through the Senate, AND Bush still has his veto power left. So, I’d LOVE to see Bush veto Rangel’s pork-barrel wet-dream and force him to explain it to the public in light of Rangel’s demands for a balanced budget.
A LOT of demands have been made over the last five years, I want to see Pelosi/Reid balance all those demands with the greed that’s already eaten up Rangel. And, I’m still waiting for Pelosi to address that culture of corruption that is within her own party that is William Jefferson.
A lot of people are reading things into this week’s elections. Some people claimed these elections are nothing but a national referendum on Bush and/or the Republicans. As such, I posted my “anticipated results” from the elections a few days ago. I’m still sticking with those “predictions” post-election. Now, here’s what happens when “national” expectations are thrust on individual elections:
Tuesday’s election results certainly sent a powerful message to President Bush about his policy on Iraq – but on the scientific front, there was also a strong message sent in support of embryonic stem cell research. And Gail Pressberg, one of the authors of an upcoming book on the stem cell debate, says that message just might reverberate in the Oval Office as well.
“One has to wonder what his attitude will be now,” Pressberg told me today.
Now, the caveat here is, correct me if I’m wrong, but not one of those candidates endorsed EMBRYONIC stem cell research. They endorsed “expanding” stem cell research. The catch here is that Bush is the ONLY president to ever EXPAND stem cell research. The ONLY one. So, I’m gonna tell you the headlines for next year now. The new Senate will pass legislation EXPANDING stem cell research, which Bush will sign because he’s ALWAYS supported stem cell research to some degree. They will not allow EMBRYONIC stem cell research as there’s too much political negativity attached to it. In simpler terms, nothing will have changed.
The media will have a field day with headlines citing how Bush has ditched his religious convictions, his ethics, and everything else and caved in to political pressure from the Democrats on this subject. All the while, nothing will have changed.
The reason nothing will have changed is threefold.
-
The legislation to expand stem cell funding IS ALREADY IN PLACE. IF this truly was a deciding factor by voters in those races, they were duped. Which isn’t hard to do. Rather than using the internet to actually research topics, I have found most people advocating an issue choose to use it to reinforce their bias on the issue. Nothing will get done, and people will be happy with that because it’s the Democrats getting nothing done instead of the Republicans.
-
My experience here is that the people advocating EMBRYONIC stem cell research were the same people advocating spit government ( as long it leans Democrat ). The problem we have now is that the government is not only split, it’s a balanced split. What you will see happening for the most part will be basically nothing getting done for two years as Bush knows he can veto anything he wants and there is absolutely nothing either chamber can do about it. Nothing. Expanding stem cell research is already on the books. EMBRYONIC research is not. EMBRYONIC research is what gets conservatives worked up and united. The Democrats’ hold on the Senate is dangerously tenuous. They lose one seat in ’08, it’s lost. The very last thing they are going to do is unite the neo-conservative base that basically didn’t show up at all last Tuesday. Proposing legislation that would do just that and have no chance of getting signed is not something I think Pelosi or the Senate leader are stupid enough to do. So, look for NOTHING TO HAPPEN while they try to take credit for legislation that’s already passed.
-
And, all politics IS local. Most of the pro-stem cell candidates won by hairs. They’re not indiviudally going to intentionally unite the conservatives in Missouri or anywhere else. They didn’t support embryonic stem cell research, they supported what Bush has supported, just putting more money in it. They can get by with that, but if Pelosi puts embryonic stem cell research on the table, those hairs they won by are gone.
So, I stand by my original assumption, Michael J. Fox put the screws to stem cell research. How long is Fox going to let McCaskill off the hook when nothing gets done by the Democrats?
