Professor-rat's Blurty
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]

Monday, June 16th, 2008

    Time Event
    12:17a
    Time to crush the MEK
    By TwoCircles.net staff reporter,

    Ganga Sagar: In a fresh incident of communal violence, at least 40 people are reported to have been injured in Ganga Sagar island in West Bengal on 13th June. The injured included 15 policemen.

    According to reports, clashes between RSS workers and local Muslims erupted soon after a training camp organized by the Hindu extremist organization ended in the area. Reports say that RSS workers were making provocative sloganeering against Muslims and Quran. It is said that RSS and Bajrang Dal had already made preparations to cause harm to Muslims. Although RSS and other Hindu communal organizations have spread their influence in other Indian states, West Bengal has until recently been aloof from such incidents.

    President of West Bengal Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind Maulana Siddiqullah Chaudhary have indirectly accused the CPM-led state government for the violence. He said the communalists were given an opportunity to perpetrate terror against Muslims in order to augment the weakening grip of communist party on Muslim community. The CPM is apprehensive of losing mandate in coming election on this account. About 2.5 lakh Muslims reside in the island; it turns out to be 50% of the total population. CPM is anxious to attract Muslims of the state as general elections are round the corner. But RSS has become equally active here. On Thursday, there were clashes between Bengalese and Nepalese in Siliguri City injuring about 30 persons, after which the army was deployed.

    RSS, however, said that it held the training camp peacefully. They said that they feared such eventuality from the very beginning of the programme. RSS is said to be now busy in penetrating its roots in Muslim dominated border areas of West Bengal where, it claims, Bangladeshis are coming in illegally. Mohsin Ali, a local inhabitant, says RSS supporters had resorted to provocative sloganeering. On the other hand, RSS has accused the Marxist government had incited Muslims to attack RSS men. But rejecting RSS allegations, the Marxist leader and a minister in the state government Kanti Ganguli said RSS is a provoking organization.

    http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2008/jun/14/communal_violence_spread_west_bengal.html

    '...the weakening grip of communist party on Muslim community...'

    Good time for the Iraq government to assert its authority - crush the MEK. Western Marxists have yet to protest the bombing of the PKK. This is probably mainly due to the new friends of the Stalinist PKK.
    Well the MEK has exactly the same friends and they're infringing on Iraqi sovereignty. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
    12:31a
    Candidate collectables
    The RAT Institute is pleased and proud to announce its new John W. McCain dolls are now available.
    Each dolls arms are locked in place below the shoulder and each comes in its own Straight Talk bus box.
    Prices on application.
    "Barack Obama said today that he is going to fight for votes in all 50 states. Yeah. That's what he said, yeah. Meanwhile, John McCain said he's going to fight for votes in all 13 colonies." --Conan O'Brien

    "Ladies and gentlemen, our President George W. Bush is traveling in Europe and he spent the last couple of days in Italy. He went to Venice, and he thought the streets were flooded. And he said don't worry, FEMA is on the way." --David Letterman

    "Well, another defeat for President Bush today. It seems that the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay can file legal challenges to their detention. President Bush is very bitter about this. He said he may have lost, but it was a deeply divided Court that voted 5-4. It was 5-4. You know, the same vote that made him president -- 5-4." --Jay Leno
    6:24p
    Belinda angry - sore
    A BLOGGER has been charged with insulting a Singapore judge by saying she was "prostituting herself".
    In the blog, Gopalan Nair criticised a recent legal hearing at which Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, testified in a defamation case they filed against an opposition party.
    Mr Nair, 58, is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean by saying she was "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders," a court document said.
    Justice Ang presided over the hearing.
    The latest Penal Code charge replaces an initial charge which alleged Mr Nair sent the comments in an email, his lawyer Chia Ti Lik said.
    If convicted, Mr Nair, a former Singaporean lawyer now based in California, faces up to one year in prison and a SG$5000 ($3865) fine.
    Last Thursday, another charge accused him of calling Singapore judges "corrupt".
    7:47p
    Grounds to impeach
    Ground to bury

    I want accountability,
    and I expect 2008 to bring it. It had better. I am supporting Obama, but I have high expectations for what we are giving him in 2008. I want the spoils system to work, alright; but I want it to work for the people instead of the ruling elite - for a freaking change. Apparently the current group of Democrats in Washington want us to believe that they are unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Republicans don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit. by dkmich

    The Dems in Washington are the ruling elite and are trying to protect their status by not rocking the boat.
    They all fear losing their privileged lifestyles.

    Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

    by Pescadero Bill

    Complicit
    Too many of our Dems are complicit in enough illegal Bush activities that they cannot impeach.
    BushCo will make public the complicity.
    So our congressional leadership has "better things to do than impeach" for the "good of the country".
    by Jagger

    reference Andy Jackson and John Marshall
    President Jackson decided to move the Cherokees out of GA to the west to clear the way for Euro settlers. The Cherokees, believers in the system, counted on SCOTUS and John Marshall did deliver.
    However, Jackson (Old Hickory) was having none of this legal folderol and foolishness said "John Marshall has made his ruling; now let him enforce it" and sent the army to drive the Cherokees out of GA onto the infamous Trail of Tears.
    I expect GWB to do the same thing with this one; SCOTUS made their ruling so now they can enforce it.
    Or for another example, when told of the great influence and power the Pope wielded in the world, Stalin replied "How many divisions does he have?"
    You have to remember GWB is Bismarckian in his respect for the rule of law.
    by entlord1

    As was the case with the Nixon era abuses.
    And that failure to do so could leave the abuses festering, dormant, in our system.
    And look how much more effective and dangerous the virus of authoritarianism becomes with each new generation.
    Congress must reassert its power of oversight now, or consider it drastically weakened and left vulnerable to the next despotic assault.

    Contact Pelosi about impeachment: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

    by Pescadero Bill

    Practicality is what got us here ,"not the right thing at this time" side for practical reasons

    Practicality is nice...but it is GWB's brand of practicality (the ends justify the means) that got us into the mess we are now in politically, economically, in Iraq, and in the world. How about just a touch of good old American idealism once in a while. The "first citizen" needs to be treated like any other US citizen who is accused of crimes, perhaps crimes against humanity. The way we constitutionally do this is impeachment. Or...we could just let it slide (because it is impractical in the short run) and GWB and crowd could fade into their luxurious retirements and continue to increase their personal wealth by sucking the life out of our economy as private citizens. And the constitution can continue to go to hell.
    By continually ignoring the ideals that this nation was built upon many have come to believe that people like Bush and Co., an now McCain, are the best leaders for America.

    Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....James Madison

    by cloudwatcher

    How do honest elected officials win against such odds? Bush stacked the justice department, and the supreme court
    How do 'we' even convince our Repub. friends & family that this oversight is Constitutional and warranted?
    How do we convince such 'leaders' (?) as Sen. Arlen Specter & Rep. Charlie Dent of PA to do what's right instead of protecting & reinforcing the party line?
    I'm for impeachment of Bush & Cheney...but barring that, I'm for arresting them Jan 20, 2009 just as soon as Obama is sworn in....dragging them off in full view of the American public & the World and turning them over to the Hague!!
    Their crimes are International...let them face the music of the World!

    Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

    by ROADRUNNER DEM

    Again, one has to distinguish between procedural and substantive grounds for impeachment, as well as between Bush and Cheney. I'm putting this here so that you'll see it, Kagro.
    On procedural grounds -- ones that threaten the integrity of the political process, such as ignoring subpoenas, destroying evidence, etc. -- Congress should impeach forthwith. It doesn't even matter if we win. These are easy charges for the public to understand and we should be on record as being on the side of the angels. Let the Republicans endure the same of being otherwise.
    I am also for impeaching Cheney on the grounds of his declaration that he is beyond the control and supervision of Congress by dint of not falling within either branch. The only answer to that is: "no you're not, and because you won't admit it, we have no choice but to impeach you." Now, Bush will probably want to appoint McCain to replace him, but is that a bad thing for Obama? I don't think so. ( End extract )

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/15/902/56078/977/533959

    To be cont.
    8:30p
    Charlie don't surf
    Just got Charlie Wilsons war out. Not bad, not bad at all. A few niggles maybe due to a head-cold - have mercy.
    They couldn't get a real Greek for Gust? They couldn't mention Charlie was a drunk driver? They couldn't emphasize how important the Chess whiz guy was and the Stingers were?
    Oh well - read the goddam book.
    I couldn't even really enjoy the sex-angle fully due to all the honey-traps that have been laid since the seventies. Just call me a grumpy jealous old man.
    9:06p
    Layer upon layer
    Kucinich wanted & got it 'read into the record'!
    Grounds for impeachment - criminal trial- conviction - punishment - burial

    It will forever be in the Congressional record that Bush & Cheney were accused of these articles of Impeachment. If nothing else, it's there!
    I dare the (laughable) G.W.Bush Presidential Library at SMU in Texas to include these recorded charges in their tribute to a 'WAR CRIMINAL'.

    One of the worst democratic congresses ever

    Almost everyone I know feels the people they elected to swing the congress to democratic control betrayed their support when impeachment was immediately taken off the table.
    Bush likes Sarkozy's wife:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
    He can understand why Sarkozy chose that model, like she's a sedan with a lot of leg room.

    McCain: a war-loving geopolitical fantasist born when African Americans were treated as sub-humans and women could be treated as slaves. (Also a liar)

    by prestochango

    2008..... Obama better can... n.t
    Republicans don't have 60 votes, and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit.

    by dkmich

    exactly
    The Democrats are bigger traitors than W in my mind.

    by DUMBINIC

    Walk. Or chew gum.
    I'm sorry, and I'm not criticizing the poster when I say this.
    But the question is framed incorrectly. And it's the Dem leadership's fault, along with the media's acquiesence and more than a handful of bloggers.
    By basically asking, "Do you want us to investigate how we got in or do you want us to get out of Iraq?" presupposes Congress can't do both. It presumes Congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Now, I have my own view -- tempered with 5.5 years' service on the House side and more than two decades actively working the Hill as a lobbyist or observer -- but once the above question is accepted the answer is obvious.

    I was sentient during the Watergate hearings, along with Clenisgate, and recall that Congress did in fact manage to get a few things done during those episodes (whether Congressional inaction is a bug or a feature is beyond the scope of this discussion).
    But framing -- or accepting someone else's frame -- that it's an either/or situation guarantees failure.

    All of that having been said, the current Congress is accomplishing neither objective of the (improperly) framed question.

    "Someday this war's gonna end..." -- Robert Duvall as Lt. Col. Kilgore in "Apocalypse Now."

    by DCrefugee

    We drink to make other people interesting.
    Some people will surprise you if you challenge them. With 70% of the people against what this administration is doing, a smart person who wanted to be re-elected, might just vote with the people for a change.
    I heard a story about a Japanese Company that was being sued by and environmental group to change its practices. The Environmental group won and after the trial one of the lawyers for the company made a point of thanking the environmentalist. He said that there were lots of people in the company that cared deeply about pollution and their kid's future, but if they would have raised that to the company they would have been fired. The laws suit allowed them to present the case for the environmentalists along with the case for the polluters.
    I think there are a lot of Republicans, Independents and Democrats out there that agree Bush should be impeached, but until an actual investigation and trial they have to tell everyone that they wouldn't vote for impeachment. I bet a lot of Congress Critters would be delighted to vote for it but no one wants to sign on to start it. Except Dennis who doesn't have enough power to get it done.
    I really think that if impeachment is started a lot of Republicans will quietly thank the Democrats who started it. Strangely enough they love our country too and can see the political pollution caused by King George.

    Everybody eats, nobody hits.

    by upperleftedge

    The anti-impeachers don't want to be on record

    The reason we don't get farther with an impeachment vote is that the Democratic leadership in particular is opposed to it, but does not want to admit this fact on record. If it gets to a vote, they're the ones on the defensive, not the impeachers. And they're fearful that they'll be labeled as complicit in what has happened the moment the GoOPers say, "you were in on the intelligence briefings too."

    by decisivemoment

    Impeachment is more
    than how we got into Iraq. It's how this administration has lied and amassed power and privilege. This needs to be addressed or it will set precedent for decades to come.
    Congress must wrest it's own constitutional powers back from the executive branch. The executive branch is completely out of control.

    "You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies." -Yitzhak Rabin

    by juslikagrzly

    Democratic Party leaders have spent nearly a year and a half reining in their caucus on this topic, determined to show that the party is more focused on getting out of Iraq than on how the nation got into Iraq.

    Well, of COURSE the Dem leadership doesn't want to focus on "how we got into Iraq". After all, it was a Dem-controleld Senate that voted FOR the war, and Dem leaders who continued to support it for years afterwards (and, I suspect, still do).

    They are not on our side. They never were on our side. They are not opposed to the war. They never were opposed to the war. They were still talking about succeeding in the war. And they'd not be paying even lip service to us now, if we hadn't gone out and won in the 2006 elections.

    Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

    This Congress was elected to stop bushco.

    And there has been little if any progress on that goal.
    Impeachment would be a slam dunk when the evidence could not be hidden by bushco machinations.
    This Congress has let bushco run roughshod over OUR rights, and Nancy and Steny should resign from leadership positions.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname

    historically . . . Whenever Dem Administrations have uncovered illegal domestic spying by Repug Administrations, they did NOT stop any of it -- they instead expanded it and turned it against their OWN political opponents.

    The whole sordid story is laid out in excruciating detail in the Church Committee Reports.

    It remains to be seen whether the next Democratic Adminstration does, or does not, the same thing.

    Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

    by Lenny Flank

    We're not going to get REAL Democrats

    if we don't make any noise. Voicing support for impeachment now is important, even if you don't believe it will, or should, be initiated. It establishes just how dissatisfied we are with Bush and with Dems who continue to enable him, and it sends the message that we want to keep the option to fire our Presidents, regardless of Pelosi's preemption.

    by maxzj05

    Isn't all that impeachment does.
    It also draws clear boundaries around the powers of the presidency. And it does it in a way that an electoral victory for Democrats can't do by itself.

    Is a crushing electoral victory for Democrats a national referendum on the war? On health care? On globalization? On warrantless wiretapping? On the rule of law in general? On the fate of the Supreme Court? Or on reproductive rights?

    How in the world will you ever know what a repudiation at the ballot box means?

    By contrast, we know exactly what an impeachment is about, because it's written down and voted on. You'll know exactly why Bush and/or Cheney are being impeached, and therefore exactly what kind of behavior would therefore be likely to get a future president impeached as well.
    You'll never be able to discern that from an election.

    I'd also add that responding to rather extraordinary circumstances as though it were business as usual may set a dangerous precedent in itself. When Republicans say that making these accusations is just an attempt by Democrats to "criminalize politics," what do we think observers will come to believe if we respond by saying we'll simply settle it with an election?

    Clearly we were trying to "criminalize politics" after all. Because if we were trying to separate out criminal activity from political activity, we would have impeached instead.

    Waste more of your day at The Next Hurrah.

    by Kagro X

    I believe that Richard Dreyfus
    made the best argument for the process of impeachment and that his reasoning, (which turned me from being pragmatic about it to believing it is a necessary process), is why Dennis Kucinich is pushing it now. I posted excerpts below.
    Healthcare for ALL! NOW! & OneCare at MySpace

    by SarahLee

    An impeachment and removal does not activate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ex-officer may face criminal indictments and trials for the same conduct that led to their impeachment and removal from office.

    Basically, I'm saying...enforce all the laws, dont pick & choose!

    If flagrant abuse of the Constitution, (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, wilderness voice, James Kresnik, emidesu, magicsister, ROADRUNNER DEM, maxzj05

    a document Bush swore to preserve, protect and defend, with his hand on the Bible no less, isn't important, the what prey tell, is?
    This is THE most important issue we face. It is the most important thing our Congress could do. Constitutional scholars (not all Democrats, BTW) have said that if the Founding Fathers saw what was going on now, and saw that our elected officials are sitting on their keisters doing nothing about it, they would be appalled and ashamed.
    To those who say we have better things to do, I am appalled. The Constitution is the very basis of our government and our nation. When someone pisses on it, it should make you outraged. It should make you want to "take them to the woodshed". Letting Bush and Cheney give us the finger again and again, is NOT the way to run a country. How can you condone someone blatantly shitting on our nation and its prinicples?
    Let's get with the program, people.
    IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!!

    "In a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    by MA Liberal

    ( Why can't someone just give the Chimp a blowjob? Paging Michael Jackson...)

    Crime
    This needs to be framed in terms of crime. If someone holds up a bank, no one says "We shouldn't dwell on the past, let's focus on improving bank security rather than punishing the bank robber." No, we try the robber and punish him. Republicans (and Democrats who want to look as tough as Republicans) acknowledge the importance of punishment and deterrence; to do otherwise with a corrupt administration is being "soft on crime" in the highest sense of the word.
    (Mind you I'm talking framing...the GOP talks a good game about being tough on crime but aren't consistent about it, particularly with white-collar crime.)

    by LihTox

    "If you let a bully come into your garden one day, the next day he'll be up on your porch, and the day after that he'll rape your wife in your own bed." - LBJ

    I guess Pelosi feels like since we've already been raped a few times, it doesn't really matter anymore. The raping is almost over, we'll just go quietly onward and pretend like it never happened.

    by DUMBINIC

    Impeachment is a Civic Responsibility

    ..Because Dreyfus said so well, what I think Dennis Kucinich believes and explains why Dennis is pushing these articles now...

    Richard Dryfuss on "Real Time" with Bill Maher as recorded by RenaRF

    MAHER: And you think he [the President] should be impeached? I mean, what would that get you? Cheney as President?

    DREYFUS: The two reasons that one would argue against impeachment are the Vice President and the Democratic Congress. But I'm not in favor of impeachment. I am in favor of the process. And I believe that unless the society stands against certain things, they will have endorsed certain things. Like torture, leaving the Geneva Convention...

    MAHER: Right. That is well said.

    DREYFUS: ...and lying to the Congress about the reasons for war. And once the Republicans are placed in the position of having to endorse torture, you've got a bad problem on your hands. And we do not realize that this is not about impeachment - it's about the other branches of the government doing their duty so that you don't hand off to a liberal or a conservative - the President - swollen powers when no one ever turns power away. No one ever says "oh no thank you - we're not going to use that".

    And so whoever gets to be President will use the power handed to this President. And we will rue that day unless we stand in some way against that, even in a minority report. Even if we... if you lose an impeachment hearing - whoever "we" are - then at least you have a body that says we stand against these things. And unless you do that, then you're for them.

    From a CBS News report:
    Impeaching Bush Is 'Cause Worth Fighting for,' Actor Says

    "There are causes worth fighting for even if you know that you will lose," Dreyfuss said during a speech at the National Press Club. "Unless you are willing to accept torture as part of a normal American political lexicon, unless you are willing to accept that leaving the Geneva Convention is fine and dandy, if you accept the expansion of wiretapping as business as usual, the only way to express this now is to embrace the difficult and perhaps embarrassing process of impeachment."

    Noting that the process was established by the country's "founders, who we revere to check executive abuse with congressional balance," Dreyfuss said impeachment "is a statement that we refuse to endorse bad behavior."

    "If we refuse to debate the appropriateness of the process of impeachment, we endorse that behavior, and we approve the enlargement of executive power," regardless of whoever may occupy the White House in the future, he said.

    "And don't kid yourselves: No one ever gives up power, ever," Dreyfuss added.

    "Now, it is not your job as the press to impeach George Bush," the actor stated. However, people in the media should "maintain the integrity of that debate" by not dismissing the topic out of hand as partisan or unpatriotic.

    During his address on the subject of Hollywood's view of contemporary news media, Dreyfuss said he is not a cynic or a liberal, but is instead a "'libo-conservo-middle-of-the-roado,' and I have been for many years."

    "I'm deeply in love with my country," he added. "As a matter of fact, I'm deeply in love with the country that I was taught about in school, the land of the free and the home of the brave."

    [...]The actor saved his harshest tone for those who accuse critics of the government and its officials of having a more serious motive.

    "Watch me lose my sense of humor if people accuse me of treason," Dreyfuss said before mocking two of the Fox News Channel's most popular hosts. "'That's not very O'Reilly of you, Mister Smarty-Pants,' or 'What would Sean Hannity have to say about that, Mister Too-Complex-for-Your-Own-Good?'"

    However, "none of this happened because of any conspiracy," he stated. "This happened because we have not paid attention to the new rules of the electronic media."

    To restore true American values, the actor called for children to be taught "the tools of debate and dissent," as well as a return to the principle of civility, which he called "the oxygen that democracies require else they become poisoned and die, as this democracy will.

    Healthcare for ALL! NOW! & OneCare at MySpace
    9:17p
    Bushmeat
    Tenderloin
    Removing executive immunity is a productive use of the Congress's time.
    Failing to impeach means I and other attorney's who believe in the rule of law, cannot in good conscience support the Democratic Party in November.
    Failing to impeach means failing to stand for the rule of law.
    I worked for Conyers for five years. What becomes of his legacy? The man who impeached Nixon, defended Clinton, and let Bush get away with it.

    Contact the House Judiciary Committee and demand impeachment. (202) 225 - 3951.

    by angry liberaltarian

    Progressives and a Democratic Congress

    The Democrats are wrong on FISA, health care reform, funding of the war, income distribution and inequality, impeachment, funding for the military, foreign policy, Israel and Palestine and a myriad of other issues. The pretense that supporting "progressive (progressive is always undefined and therefore has no useable content or meaning)Democrats" will somehow make a difference is an illusion fostered by those whose basic allegiance is to the corporate dominated state. The Democrtaic Party pretensions to a progessive agenda is credible only in comparison to the reactionary nonsense offered by the Republicans.

    by SilkTreeLover

    Time and the Constitution
    This is a completely spurious issue. It should be titled do any Democrats beside Kucinich and Wexler believe in the rule of law and the constitution. Because, quite simply, that's the issue. Either the constitution is still in force or it is nothing but an occasional talking point for America.

    by alan2a

    Productive use?
    There would be nothing more productive that the present House of Representatives could do than institute impeachment proceedings against GWB. The present Democratic leadership, by trying to spread the myth of an either/or situation, are simply shirking their responsibilities. The idea that all the problems caused by Bush, Cheney et al, will be solved with the election of a Democraticv president and a larger Democratic majority is a weak attempt by Pelosi, Hoyer and their allies to justify their failure to uphold their oaths of office. "We might lose the election!" And the world might end tonight, too! "There aren't enough vote!" There weren't at the beginning of the Nixon impeachment hearings either; but there certainly were at the end - Nixon resigned rather than face trial and be impeached; not indicted, impeached! And he would still have beem liable for any criminal charges his activities may have merited.
    The Republican members of the House would be forced to either agree to investigate the impeachment charges or appear to condone the illegal acts of a rogue president. How's that going to hurt Democrats in November? The three main points of corruption of justice (DoJ scandals), lying about Iraq/misuse of intelligence and illegal wiretapping alone would provide enough damaging information against the present administration to sway all but the most die-hard of Republicans. How is that going to hurt the Democrats' chances in November?
    There is also the added advantage that, during the investigations, the President is constitutionally barred from issuing pardons to anyone involved in the impeachment proceedings. GWB might stonewall, but there are a lot of people that aren't covered by Executive Privilege who can be brought before the investigating committee. And the testimony from those people can then be used before a judge to force the White House to disgorge even more information relating to the crimes and misdemeanors GWB is charged with.
    Either the Democratic leadership of the House believe that laws apply to everyone, including the President, or they don't. Anything else is simply an attempt to justify their own cowardice.

    by Doug Stamate

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/15/902/56078/977/533959
    10:00p
    I need a prison lover with a Schlo hand
    Zeroing in on the Schloz?

    From the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.):

    Justice Department lawyers have filed a grand-jury referral stemming from the 2006 U.S. attorneys scandal, according to people familiar with the probe, a move indicating that the yearlong investigation may be entering a new phase.

    The grand-jury referral, the first time the probe has moved beyond the investigative phase, relates to allegations of political meddling in the Justice Department's civil-rights division, these people say. Specifically, it focuses on possible perjury by Bradley Schlozman, who served a year as interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo.
    ...
    It wasn't clear which of Mr. Schlozman's comments prosecutors are focusing on. He has declined to be interviewed by investigators since leaving the department. One possibility focuses on Mr. Schlozman's 2007 testimony to Congress, one part of which he later retracted.

    You can watch the Schlozman testimony in question here and read his "clarification" of his testimony here.

    --David Kurtz

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
    10:43p
    Habeus corpus
    Friday, June 13, 2008 - Hornberger’s Blog Index
    A Stunning Rebuke to Tyranny
    by Jacob G. Hornberger
    Yesterday, in a stunning rebuke of President Bush, the Pentagon, and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the cancellation of habeas corpus for foreigners accused of terrorism. The Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush nullified the provision in the Military Commissions Act that purported to remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear habeas corpus cases for the detainees at the Pentagon’s prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
    First and foremost, keep in mind why the president and the Pentagon set up their prison camp and “judicial” system in Cuba: To avoid the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the federal judiciary that the Constitution established.
    It is impossible to overstate the significance of that motivation, for it reflects how much the president and the Pentagon hate the principles set forth in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. After all, why else would they try to avoid the application of such principles? If they were proud of the principles in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wouldn’t they want to extend such principles rather than try to avoid them? - MORE ON

    http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-13.asp

    Managing to capture a constituency that blends right-wing libertarians and left-wing civil libertarians.
    Aye there's the rub! The plays the thing...the play where we dare to catch the king.
    11:27p
    Micromanagement
    About the same time that Nietzsche started using his typewriter, an earnest young man named Frederick Winslow Taylor carried a stopwatch into the Midvale Steel plant in Philadelphia and began a historic series of experiments aimed at improving the efficiency of the plant’s machinists. With the approval of Midvale’s owners, he recruited a group of factory hands, set them to work on various metalworking machines, and recorded and timed their every movement as well as the operations of the machines. By breaking down every job into a sequence of small, discrete steps and then testing different ways of performing each one, Taylor created a set of precise instructions—an “algorithm,” we might say today—for how each worker should work. Midvale’s employees grumbled about the strict new regime, claiming that it turned them into little more than automatons, but the factory’s productivity soared.
    More than a hundred years after the invention of the steam engine, the Industrial Revolution had at last found its philosophy and its philosopher. Taylor’s tight industrial choreography—his “system,” as he liked to call it—was embraced by manufacturers throughout the country and, in time, around the world. Seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output, factory owners used time-and-motion studies to organize their work and configure the jobs of their workers. The goal, as Taylor defined it in his celebrated 1911 treatise, The Principles of Scientific Management, was to identify and adopt, for every job, the “one best method” of work and thereby to effect “the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.” Once his system was applied to all acts of manual labor, Taylor assured his followers, it would bring about a restructuring not only of industry but of society, creating a utopia of perfect efficiency. “In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future the system must be first.”
    Taylor’s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of Marxist-Leninism.
    11:58p
    Left hand drinking - an infantile disorder
    The nanny state has apparently spoken. I went to bed last night feeling happy after a night out with friends. I wake up in the morning to news that I am a binge drinker because I indulged in more than three litres of wine.
    If you had fourteen cans of beer last night, join the club. You are a binge drinker. That is according to the boffins at the National Health and Medical Research Council who have reportedly drafted new guidelines on safe drinking for Australians. While the Council is refusing to confirm reports in the Fairfax media until the release of its final report next month, perhaps the Council could do with some community feedback on their apparent eagerness to label so many of us binge-drinkers.
    Yes, binge-drinking is a problem. Yes, alcohol driven violence is a problem. But surely that means addressing these real problems rather than conflating the issue of alcohol abuse by setting consumption limits at ridiculous levels. Health bureaucrats, whatever their well-intentioned beef, be it setting down eating and drinking guidelines for pregnant women or these latest drinking rules for the rest of us, always seem to frame their rules for the lowest common denominator brain. They treat us all like a bunch of feather-brained numskulls incapable of making sensible decisions about just about anything to do with our lifestyle. Now, we apparently have to endure being labelled a “binge-drinker” if we exceed 40 drinks during a pleasant evening out with fellow alcoholics.
    There is another label that comes to mind. It applies to this kind of bureaucratic overreach. It’s called infantilisation. Reducing us to the status of children, they set down rules that end up neutering our ability to take personal responsibility for our actions. Like moves to ban the advertising of fast food, this is just another step by Big Brother to interfere in our choices by applying scary labels of binge-drinking to behavior that many of us would regard as norbal.

    << Previous Day 2008/06/16
    [Calendar]
    Next Day >>

About Blurty.com