Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

All things outside of Burning Man.
Locked
User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:12 am

This just in. A new funny, (this sort of stuff always comes out on friday nights.);


Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
Domestic Action's Legality Challenged



By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 7, 2006;


Page A01

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad.
The findings, the first nonpartisan assessment of the program's legality to date, prompted Democratic lawmakers and civil liberties advocates to repeat calls yesterday for Congress to conduct hearings on the monitoring program and attempt to halt it.
The 44-page report said that Bush probably cannot claim the broad presidential powers he has relied upon as authority to order the secret monitoring of calls made by U.S. citizens since the fall of 2001. Congress expressly intended for the government to seek warrants from a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before engaging in such surveillance when it passed legislation creating the court in 1978, the CRS report said.
The report also concluded that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force.
"It appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here," the authors of the CRS report wrote. The administration's legal justification "does not seem to be . . . well-grounded," they said.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pledged to hold hearings on the program, which was first revealed in news accounts last month, and the judges of the FISA court have demanded a classified briefing about the program, which is scheduled for Monday.
"This report contradicts the president's claim that his spying on Americans was legal," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the lawmakers who asked the CRS to research the issue. "It looks like the president's wiretapping was not only illegal, but also ensnared innocent Americans who did nothing more than place a phone call."
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president and the administration believe the program is on firm legal footing. "The national security activities described by the president were conducted in accord with the law and provide a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time," he said. A spokesman for the National Security Agency was not available for a comment yesterday.
Other administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the CRS reached some erroneous legal conclusions, erring on the side of a narrow interpretation of what constitutes military force and when the president can exercise his war powers.
Bush has said that he has broad powers in times of war and must exercise them to target not only "enemies across the world" but also "terrorists here at home." The administration has argued, starting in 2002 briefs to the FISA court, that the "war on terror" is global and indefinite, effectively removing the limits of wartime authority -- traditionally the times and places of imminent or actual battle.
Some law professors have been skeptical of the president's assertions, and several said yesterday that the report's conclusions were expected. "Ultimately, the administration's position is not persuasive," said Carl W. Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and an expert on constitutional law. "Congress has made it pretty clear it has legislated pretty comprehensively on this issue with FISA," he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "And there begins to be a pattern of unilateral executive decision making. Time and again, there's the executive acting alone without consulting the courts or Congress."
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the report makes it clear that Congress has exerted power over domestic surveillance. He urged Congress to address what he called the president's abuse of citizens' privacy rights and the larger issue of presidential power.
"These are absolutely central questions in American government: What exactly are the authorities vested in the president, and is he complying with the law?" Rotenberg said.
The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures. As they drafted FISA and created its court, the lawmakers warned then that only strong legislation, debated in public, could stop future administrations from eavesdropping.
"This evidence alone should demonstrate the inappropriateness of relying solely on executive branch discretion to safeguard civil liberties," they wrote. The lawmakers noted that Congress's intelligence committees could provide some checks and balances to protect privacy rights but that their power was limited in the face of an administration arguing that intelligence decisions must remain top secret.
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

can't sit still
Posts: 4645
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: SoCal

fucking taxes

Post by can't sit still » Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:54 pm

I guess this is as good a place as any to rant. Fucking gov is working overtime thinking up new taxes.
I just bought $5.00 of steel wire. Tacked on top of the price was a $2.50 charge for hazardous waste disposal. It's plain steel wire for gas welding. I'll melt it into various other steel pieces. There won't be anything left over. It wouldn't matter anyway, it's just steel wire like a coathanger.

They charge disposal fees for tires and then burn them for power.
They charge disposal fee for used oil and then burn it in ships.
For a while a speeding ticket was $750 in oregon until the supreme court threw it out. New York will fine you $70 for taking 2 seats in the subway,,,even if the rest of the car is empty.

Pretty soon they'll have GPS in every car to charge per mile driven. It's already done in Hong Kong.
Calif had plenty of money in the highway fund until the legislature voted to put gas-tax money in the general fund. Then they had to raise all kinds of taxes to pay for highways.
We have an expensive Dept of Energy and Homeland security. I don't see any improvements, just rationalization for ever increasing taxes.

They lie through their teeth about inflation. Gov knows what it really is. http://www.zealllc.com/2002/postal.htm
Then they spend all day dreaming up new ways to stick it to us to support more GOV.
In the middle ages, WAR was referred to as "The Sport of Kings" Now the SOBs have a war here and a war there,,,just for the purpose of funneling a ton of money to War-support industries.
We can build a fleet of billion dollar planes but we can't build a decent rail network.
It would benefit people and not benefit gov or defense enough,,,,so no go.
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:38 am

That's all nothing. Wait till Arnie becomes president.



Bwwwwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

:P
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:44 am

Yeah right, Arnie as President? With the Republicans about to get flushed out of power in the next Congressional elections thanks to all the current scandals, the odds of them having enough power to get a constitutional amendment passed is slim to none. A year ago I might have considered it as remotely possible. Certainly not now. I'm curious how far the Abramoff scandal is going to go and how many will be tainted by it. Tack on the damage that they'll get from ramming the updated Patriot Act through, then the fallout from the latest Spooks Run Amuk mess.....Arnie's chances of being the uber-terminator on the world stage are shrinking by the day.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jan 08, 2006 12:54 am

all it takes is an executive order for an amendment before Bush gets impeached and arrested and it's all good.


:lol:


This shit is just too funny. (thing is, it could actually happen.)

:x
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:00 am

Yeah he can sign an order to propose an amendment but until it's ratified it don't mean anything.

Bush has a lot of power but there are some limits to what he can circumvent before Congress reins him in.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jan 08, 2006 1:16 am

Umm, well then.....there's gonna be a few people suprised later this year to find out what secret executive orders Bush has already signed as soon as he got into office.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:39 am

DVD Burner wrote:Umm, well then.....there's gonna be a few people suprised later this year to find out what secret executive orders Bush has already signed as soon as he got into office.
Yawn. Presidents have used those E.O.'s for years. So Bush did the same thing as his predecessors...this is supposed to be shocking?

I don't mind some good old fashioned Bush bashing but if you're going to bash give everyone good stuff to read and mull over, not generic statements on the obvious.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:21 am

Quadruple Yawn to you!

I've posted this in this thread a few years back but it is not in this thread anymore along with a few other things I've previously posted in this thread. I'm sure some of my posts will be deleted again but that's neither here nor there. Truth for some seems to be unacceptable here sometimes but I still deliver it as I will post again just now:

Executive orders have been done by every President in this country but never has one been done to seal previous presidents records for almost ever as this current President has in sealing his fathers records.
ie;

Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001



Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions.

For purposes of this order:

(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.

(b) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

(c) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

Sec. 2. Constitutional and Legal Background.

(a) For a period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a Presidency, the Archivist administers records in accordance with the limitations on access imposed by section 2204 of title 44. After expiration of that period, section 2204(c) of title 44 directs that the Archivist administer Presidential records in accordance with section 552 of title 5, the Freedom of Information Act, including by withholding, as appropriate, records subject to exemptions (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8), and (b)(9) of section 552. Section 2204(c)(1) of title 44 provides that exemption (b)(5) of section 552 is not available to the Archivist as a basis for withholding records, but section 2204(c)(2) recognizes that the former President or the incumbent President may assert any constitutionally based privileges, including those ordinarily encompassed within exemption (b)(5) of section 552. The President's constitutionally based privileges subsume privileges for records that reflect: military, diplomatic, or national security secrets (the state secrets privilege); communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges); and the deliberative processes of the President or his advisors (the deliberative process privilege).

(b) In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, the Supreme Court set forth the constitutional basis for the President's privileges for confidential communications: "Unless [the President] can give his advisers some assurance of confidentiality, a President could not expect to receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends." 433 U.S. at 448-49. The Court cited the precedent of the Constitutional Convention, the records of which were "sealed for more than 30 years after the Convention." Id. at 447 n.11. Based on those precedents and principles, the Court ruled that constitutionally based privileges available to a President "survive[] the individual President's tenure." Id. at 449. The Court also held that a former President, although no longer a Government official, may assert constitutionally based privileges with respect to his Administration's Presidential records, and expressly rejected the argument that "only an incumbent President can assert the privilege of the Presidency." Id. at 448.

(c) The Supreme Court has held that a party seeking to overcome the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records must establish at least a "demonstrated, specific need" for particular records, a standard that turns on the nature of the proceeding and the importance of the information to that proceeding. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974). Notwithstanding the constitutionally based privileges that apply to Presidential records, many former Presidents have authorized access, after what they considered an appropriate period of repose, to those records or categories of records (including otherwise privileged records) to which the former Presidents or their representatives in their discretion decided to authorize access. See Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. at 450-51.

Sec. 3. Procedure for Administering Privileged Presidential Records.

Consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and the Presidential Records Act, the Archivist shall administer Presidential records under section 2204(c) of title 44 in the following manner:

(a) At an appropriate time after the Archivist receives a request for access to Presidential records under section 2204(c)(1), the Archivist shall provide notice to the former President and the incumbent President and, as soon as practicable, shall provide the former President and the incumbent President copies of any records that the former President and the incumbent President request to review.

(b) After receiving the records he requests, the former President shall review those records as expeditiously as possible, and for no longer than 90 days for requests that are not unduly burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester during this period of review or when requested by the former President to extend the time for review.

(c) After review of the records in question, or of any other potentially privileged records reviewed by the former President, the former President shall indicate to the Archivist whether the former President requests withholding of or authorizes access to any privileged records.

(d) Concurrent with or after the former President's review of the records, the incumbent President or his designee may also review the records in question, or may utilize whatever other procedures the incumbent President deems appropriate to decide whether to concur in the former President's decision to request withholding of or authorize access to the records.


(1) When the former President has requested withholding of the records:

(i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President's decision to request withholding of records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. The Archivist shall not permit access to those records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.
(ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to request withholding of the records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. Because the former President independently retains the right to assert constitutionally based privileges, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.


(2) When the former President has authorized access to the records:

(i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the Archivist shall permit access to the records by the requester.
(ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President's decision to authorize access to the records, the incumbent President may independently order the Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.


Sec. 4. Concurrence by Incumbent President.
Absent compelling circumstances, the incumbent President will concur in the privilege decision of the former President in response to a request for access under section 2204(c)(1). When the incumbent President concurs in the decision of the former President to request withholding of records within the scope of a constitutionally based privilege, the incumbent President will support that privilege claim in any forum in which the privilege claim is challenged.

Sec. 5. Incumbent President's Right to Obtain Access.

This order does not expand or limit the incumbent President's right to obtain access to the records of a former President pursuant to section 2205(2)(B).

Sec. 6. Right of Congress and Courts to Obtain Access.

This order does not expand or limit the rights of a court, House of Congress, or authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress to obtain access to the records of a former President pursuant to section 2205(2)(A) or section 2205(2)(C). With respect to such requests, the former President shall review the records in question and, within 21 days of receiving notice from the Archivist, indicate to the Archivist his decision with respect to any privilege. The incumbent President shall indicate his decision with respect to any privilege within 21 days after the former President has indicated his decision. Those periods may be extended by the former President or the incumbent President for requests that are burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 7. No Effect on Right to Withhold Records.

This order does not limit the former President's or the incumbent President's right to withhold records on any ground supplied by the Constitution, statute, or regulation.

Sec. 8. Withholding of Privileged Records During 12-Year Period.

In the period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a Presidency during which section 2204(a) and section 2204(b) of title 44 apply, a former President or the incumbent President may request withholding of any privileged records not already protected from disclosure under section 2204. If the former President or the incumbent President so requests, the Archivist shall not permit access to any such privileged records unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 9. Establishment of Procedures.

This order is not intended to indicate whether and under what circumstances a former President should assert or waive any privilege. The order is intended to establish procedures for former and incumbent Presidents to make privilege determinations.

Sec. 10. Designation of Representative.

The former President may designate a representative (or series or group of alternative representatives, as the former President in his discretion may determine) to act on his behalf for purposes of the Presidential Records Act and this order. Upon the death or disability of a former President, the former President's designated representative shall act on his behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges. In the absence of any designated representative after the former President's death or disability, the family of the former President may designate a representative (or series or group of alternative representa-tives, as they in their discretion may determine) to act on the former President's behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges.

Sec. 11. Vice Presidential Records.

(a) Pursuant to section 2207 of title 44 of the United States Code, the Presidential Records Act applies to the executive records of the Vice President. Subject to subsections (b) and (c), this order shall also apply with respect to any such records that are subject to any constitutionally based privilege that the former Vice President may be entitled to invoke, but in the administration of this order with respect to such records, references in this order to a former President shall be deemed also to be references to the relevant former Vice President.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not be deemed to authorize a Vice President or former Vice President to invoke any constitutional privilege of a President or former President except as authorized by that President or former President.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant, limit, or otherwise affect any privilege of a President, Vice President, former President, or former Vice President.

Sec. 12. Judicial Review.

This order is intended to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party, other than a former President or his designated representative, against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

Sec. 13. Revocation.

Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989, is revoked.


GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 1, 2001.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:28 am

Also,

Might I suggest if what I post or say is a problem with anyone, please just plonk me with your Ignore option.

I have no problems with that and will not be insulted or offended.


I myself enjoy intelligent robust debates on all levels. :D
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:09 am

A good read, and some historical perspectives on art, truth, and politics.


http://nobelprize.org/literature/laurea ... ure-e.html

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:13 am

So let me get this straight:

Ayman al-Zawahiri was thought to be dead when a CIA drone flying over Pakistan dropped a bomb on what was thought to be him. Turns out it's not and instead 17 people were subsequently killed.


You think there are friends and family of the 17 mistakenly killed folks there in Pakistan that are pretty upset with the U.S. of A.?

Way to go America.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sat Jan 14, 2006 5:34 am

Ok,

This is not my original post.

WTF is up with posting pics on eplaya. I used to be the master of posting pics. did the code change so much that you cannot post pics on eplaya anymore?


This really sucks.

It worked in preview and not after the submit.

What up wit dat?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:05 am

well i definitely did not think this thing of the CIA and Pakistan was gonna be this big.

I really thought it was gonna blow over like the passed 2 mistaken bombings the CIA did last year.

Glad some light is being shed on the situation.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:58 am

Happy Birthday Joel!
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
cowboyangel
Posts: 6987
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm

Post by cowboyangel » Sun Jan 15, 2006 5:57 pm

Happy Birthday to my favorite conservative!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981

User avatar
Davoid
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:34 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Davoid » Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:03 am

DVD Burner wrote: (b)(8), and (b)(9) of section 552.
Man, you know there's some secret shit going on if they have that in there.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:52 am

See,

Now there's some one with a sence of humor. :lol:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Post by joel the ornery » Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:02 am

Bob Herbert wrote:January 16, 2006

Judicial Gag Rule

A casual newspaper reader or television viewer might have gotten the impression that the major problem with last week's Supreme Court confirmation hearings was that some senators on the Judiciary Committee talked too much. The truth, of course, is that the nominee, Samuel Alito, talked far too little.

Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat with designs on the presidency, was singled out for criticism. Senator Biden is unquestionably loquacious. We might as well stipulate that. But he's also a smart guy. And an occasion as important - even solemn - as a Senate inquiry into the fitness of a man to sit on the Supreme Court is as good a time as any for us to worry a little less about style points and a lot more about the substantive matters at hand.

When the president of the United States, who is abusing his power every which way he can, chooses for the Supreme Court an extreme right-winger who is all but mesmerized by the power elite, it would behoove us to pay closer attention to the substance of what Senator Biden and others are saying.

"The whole point here," said Mr. Biden, in an interview on the "Today" show, "is that nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about important issues."

The "real issue," he said, is whether the public has a right to know how Supreme Court nominees view certain crucially important matters, including matters involving threats to life and limb, or that ultimately might determine whether we will continue to live in a reasonably free society.

For example, Senator Biden asked: "Do the people have a right to know whether or not President Bush is able to go to war in Iran without Congressional approval, which his administration argues? That's a pretty basic subject. Do they have that right?

"Well, it seems to me a judge before us should say, 'Well, I think the Constitution says he does or he doesn't,' as opposed to saying, 'Well, he's bound by the Constitution,' which begs the question."

The confirmation hearings have become farcical, an obnoxious hide-and-seek ritual in which the administration's ultimate goal is to have the public know as little as possible - as opposed to as much as possible - about individuals being appointed to the most powerful court in the land. That's the opposite of the way a democracy should work.

Mr. Alito is on his way toward confirmation. He will probably vote to reverse Roe v. Wade. He will not be a champion of voting rights for minorities, or a bulwark against racial and gender discrimination. If his record is any indication, and we have very little else to go on, he will almost always side with the powerful interests, whether in government or the great corporations, against the little guy.

I can understand why the Republican Party - the party of Bush, Cheney, Frist, Abramoff and DeLay - would want such a man. But why the general public would want him is beyond me.

Sam Alito is the kind of guy who, rather than lend a helping hand, would slam the trap door on less-privileged individuals seeking opportunities similar to those he enjoyed. Nor is he trustworthy. I don't believe his story that he couldn't remember belonging to the bigoted group Concerned Alumni of Princeton, given the fact that he was happy enough in 1985 to tout his membership in the group on his application for a promotion in the Reagan Justice Department.

After Mr. Alito is confirmed, President Bush and Dick Cheney will pat their new justice on the back and help him into his judicial robes, wishing him well. He'll then get high-fives and warm embraces from his ideological soul mates, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. The Supreme Court will have tilted even more dangerously to the right and, in my view, the rights and protections of ordinary citizens - the little guys - will be in even graver peril.

The great post-World War II advances in civil rights and civil liberties, and the protection of ordinary citizens against the depredations of the rich and powerful, would never have happened without the courageous efforts of the enlightened justices who served on the Supreme Court in that era. They would surely never have happened with the likes of Alito, Thomas and Scalia making the important calls.

It will take many years to reverse this dismal tide. You might keep that in mind the next time you're considering whether to vote - or for whom to vote - in a presidential election.
Bob Herbert needs a sense of humor.

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:05 am

I think we`re all going to need a sense of humor
if we don`t start spanking the administration back
into it`s place.
Democracy and Autocracy make a dangerous and bitter concoction.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:16 am

Interesting.

CNN has been banned from reporting in Iran.

So now does this mean that we need to get our media news about Iran from FOX?

CNN journalists banned from Iran



The Farsi word for "technology" was mistranslated as "weapons"
Journalists from CNN have been banned from working in Iran because of a mistranslation of the president's comments, the culture ministry says.
CNN had violated "professional ethics", the Irna news agency quoted the ministry as saying.

CNN issued a correction after it translated the president as saying Iran had a right to use nuclear "weapons" rather than nuclear "technology".

CNN does not have a bureau in Tehran but gets permits to cover assignments.

Its chief international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, is currently in the country.

Broken seals

The US-based news network had carried a live translation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's press conference on Saturday.

Any revision in the decision depends on the performance of CNN in future

Iranian culture ministry


Its translation quoted the president as saying: "We believe all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons", and that the West should not "deprive us to have nuclear weapons".

Iran says the Farsi word for technology was translated as weapons.

The Iranian culture ministry issued a statement on Monday saying: "Taking into account CNN's actions contrary to professional ethics in the past years and their distortion of the president's comments during his press conference on Saturday... no journalists from CNN will be authorised to come to Iran."

It continued: "Any revision in the decision depends on the performance of CNN in future."

CNN has yet to respond to the move and a call to its Atlanta headquarters was not immediately returned.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for producing energy, not weapons

Leading Western nations are currently trying to persuade Russia and China to support a hard line on Iran's nuclear programme in a closed-door meeting in London.

Last week Iran broke the seals on three nuclear facilities, ending a two-year moratorium on atomic experimentation.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
EvilDustBooger
Posts: 3805
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Post by EvilDustBooger » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:41 am

Your new source for Iranian news and Nuclear proliferation:

english.pravda.ru/

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:25 am

mistake
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:19 pm

Colon Powell looks beautiful on the BBC interview today.

:lol:


Treason!ist
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:31 pm

DVD Burner wrote:Colon Powell
Was that an intentional misspelling?

User avatar
joel the ornery
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Burning Since: 1998
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Contact:

Not in the Kennedys' Backyard

Post by joel the ornery » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:02 pm

January 17, 2006

Not in the Kennedys' Backyard
By JOHN TIERNEY

Do not doubt the Kennedys' devotion to renewable energy. If they had their way and the policies they support became law, there would be new wind farms along the coasts and on Appalachian hilltops, Midwestern prairies and Rocky Mountain ridges - more than 100,000 turbines twirling from sea to shining sea.

Just not in the waters where the Kennedys go sailing. Their love of renewable energy does not extend to the 130 turbines proposed for Nantucket Sound. Many other environmentalists consider it one of the most promising new energy projects in America, but the Kennedys are against it.

Robert Kennedy Jr., the environmental lawyer, warned in an Op-Ed article that the wind farm would "damage the views from 16 historic sites," one of which happens to be the Kennedy compound at Hyannis Port. He didn't specify the damage, but this is what it would amount to: if you stood in Hyannis Port, six miles from the wind farm, the turbines on the horizon would appear to be a half-inch high, about the size of a fingernail.

Senator Edward Kennedy is also opposed to the project, and his colleagues on Capitol Hill may effectively kill the project by slipping a last-minute amendment into a Coast Guard budget bill. The bill was passed earlier by both houses and is now being negotiated behind closed doors in a House-Senate conference committee.

Senator Kennedy says he has nothing to do with this maneuver and doesn't support it, but a committee source tells me that the Massachusetts delegation lobbied for the amendment, which would ban offshore wind farms within 1.5 nautical miles of shipping lanes. That's a dubious requirement, considering that European offshore wind farms already operate near much busier shipping lanes than those in Nantucket Sound.

To be fair, there are good arguments against the wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Robert Kennedy rightly complained that it wouldn't be feasible without hefty state and federal subsidies. But neither would the other renewable-energy projects promoted by him and his uncle.

Environmentalists have been promising for more than three decades that wind energy would be competitive if there was a "level playing field," but it survives only because the field has been tilted in its favor.

When you add up the tax breaks and other federal aid to wind farms, the subsidy per unit of energy produced is more than double the subsidy given to nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants, according to Thomas Tanton, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

"Wind power is at least twice as expensive as power from conventional sources," Tanton says, "and it's less than half as valuable because it's not always available when you need it." Even when Tanton makes allowances for what economists call externalities - like the benefits of slowing global warming by emitting less carbon dioxide - he finds that wind power is still nowhere close to competitive.

Besides the federal dollars, wind farms get extra help from states, particularly states like New York and California, which have ordered utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from renewable energy. This amounts to a hidden surcharge on consumers - the kind of subsidy that economists loathe. If state officials want to direct money to the owners of wind farms, they should at least dole it out openly.

Yet this stealth subsidy is so politically appealing that environmental groups are pushing to federalize it. The Natural Resources Defense Council, where Robert Kennedy works as a senior attorney, supported legislation in Congress that would force utilities to get 10 percent of their power from renewable energy. That would probably require erecting more than 100,000 wind turbines.

Senator Kennedy voted for that proposal and also for an even stricter version, which would have meant twice as many turbines. Fortunately, neither proposal has become law yet because some members of Congress have contemplated what would happen to the landscapes in their states.

Personally, I'm agnostic on the scenic merits of a wind farm. I can understand why some people hate the sight and others don't. If you equate the turbines with environmental virtue, you may find it a lovely panorama, and you (unlike me) may even be willing to pay higher taxes and electricity bills for it.

But this should be a decision made by you and your neighbors - at the local level, not in Washington. And everyone should know exactly how much extra this virtue costs. Politicians and environmentalists shouldn't be trying to sneak 100,000 wind turbines into everyone's backyard but their own.

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:27 am

Here is a good reason why you don't have the genetically inferior in charge of anything and definitly not allowed to be in any millitary, security or/and executive positions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10895199/


But hey, they are there anyway aren't they.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:34 am

Dave Marash is a great thing for Al Jazeera.

He is an awesome reporter and Al Jazeera has always tried to present the truth to the world.


Hated when Al Jazeera's website got hacked.


People had a hard time accepting the truth from them as people in a state of denial do.


My hats off to him.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Kinetic IV
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Post by Kinetic IV » Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:07 am

He is an awesome reporter and Al Jazeera has always tried to present the truth to the world.
I'm sure many of the people behind Voice of America feel the exact same way about their broadcasts.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 10358
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Jan 18, 2006 6:18 am

Do you mean this Voice of America?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Locked

Return to “Open Discussion”