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

All things outside of Burning Man.
Locked
Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:45 am

Rian Jackson wrote:Joel, are you familiar with the book 'Left Hooks, Right Crosses: A Decade of Political Writing'?

Some good stuff from both sides of the fence, with 2 editors: once again, one from each 'side.'
Left hooks, right crosses : a decade of political writing
By: Christopher Caldwell; Christopher Hitchens


and i just stumbled across this...

http://aolsvc.pbs.aol.com/thinktank/transcript1102.html
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Rian Jackson
Posts: 3903
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
Location: In Rob's Head

Post by Rian Jackson » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:49 am

sweet, I'll be reading that after i get back from the mail run.

btw, i think the reason i've been thinking about you so much as i read this is that the 'conservative' editor, who introduced the 'liberal' section, sounded SOOOO much like you at points!!

I'm pretty excited to see what he chose for the second half of the book. I am normally not terribly interested in these left/right dichotomies, and don't spend the time studying them so much, but the book so far promises to be worthwhile.
surlier than thou

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:55 am

wow wow wow... i have been to Eagle Base, Bosnia

http://chicago.tribe.net/template/pub%2 ... 10&r=10659


and i worked for then MG B.B. Bell...

pretty interesting stuff

U.S. Troops End Nine Years in Bosnia Peace Force
By Nedim Dervisbegovic

EAGLE BASE, Bosnia (Reuters) - The U.S. military on Wednesday ended a 9-year peacekeeping role in Bosnia but kept on a small contingent to hunt down top war crimes suspects Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

"Those are the two guys we want to get," said Brigadier General Timothy Wright, commander of the outgoing 700-strong peace contingent, at a ceremony to end Task Force Eagle.

Bosnian Serb fugitives Karadzic and Mladic will be the "primary focus" of some 150 soldiers who will stay on in Eagle Base in northern Bosnia, he said.

About 100 more will remain at a new NATO (news - web sites) headquarters in Sarajevo under Brigadier General Steven Schook, commander of the outgoing Stabilization Force (SFOR).

U.S. soldiers made up a third of NATO's original force of 60,000 which was deployed in Bosnia in December 1995 under the Dayton peace treaty and became the Stabilization Force (SFOR).

SFOR shrank over the years to under 10,000 and will be replaced next week by a European Union (news - web sites) Force (EUFOR) of 7,000.

Bosnian Serb wartime leader Karadzic and his military chief Mladic have been indicted for genocide by the U.N. war crimes tribunal for the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica and for the siege of Sarajevo during the 1992-95 war.

Failure to capture them is seen as an embarrassment for NATO, which has arrested 28 suspects in Bosnia since 1997. But the Americans insist they are not giving up.

GUN SALUTE

Three 105mm howitzers fired a salute in the chilly autumn morning before a short ceremony marking the end of the mission which in total involved about 100,000 Americans soldiers over the years from several active and reserve divisions.

U.S. peacekeepers covered the north-eastern part of Bosnia, with Nordic and European troops under their wing, working among other things to secure the return of Muslim refugees expelled by Serbs from eastern Bosnia early in the war.

They arrested several war crimes suspects but encountered only one seriously hostile situation in 1997, when a Bosnian Serb mob attacked them for helping moderates take over a police station in the town of Brcko from hard-liners.

"This has not been an easy mission," said Gen. B.B. Bell, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, after soldiers of the 38th Infantry Division of Indiana's National Guard folded up the task force flag.

"But it demonstrated what can be accomplished when peoples, nations and militaries work together for a common cause."

The downsizing of U.S. forces here is part of a general shift of U.S. forces worldwide, as Bosnia stabilizes.

Bosnian Muslim leaders oppose a wholesale withdrawal, however. They see the U.S. military presence as a guarantee of Washington's continued involvement in the country.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:21 pm

Well at least the people of Ukraine have more balls than anyone in the states. And Powell needs to take a large Lydia cup of shut the fuck up:

Powell warns Ukraine of 'consequence'


Washington, DC, Nov. 24 (UPI)

-- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Wednesday warned Ukraine of a "consequence" if it does not investigate and correct allegations of election fraud.
"We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse," he said.
Earlier, Ukraine's election commission declared pro-Moscow Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych winner of the contentious presidential election. The announcement dismayed opposition supporters who are in their third day of protests over what international observers have called flawed elections.
Powell urged the Ukrainian government to investigate.
"If the Ukrainian government does not act immediately or responsibly there will be consequence for our relationship," he said, but did not elaborate.
Powell said he discussed the issue with European Union officials and with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Russia has openly backed Yanukovych. Powell said both sides agreed on the need for a solution.
Ukraine is a key U.S. ally in Iraq.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:29 pm

[quote="DVD Burner"]Well at least the people of Ukraine have more balls than anyone in the states. And Powell needs to take a large Lydia cup of shut the fuck up:


isolationist.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:36 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
isolationist.
Yep, Isolate Collin Powell from the planet.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
Apollonaris Zeus
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am

Post by Apollonaris Zeus » Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:51 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
Apollonaris Zeus wrote:Sadly, many students will never collect on those benefits.
A II Z
please allow me to correct you

Sadly, many soldiers (students/sons/daughters/parents/co-workers... etc) will never collect on those benefits.

and me?

i am still supporting the idea of democracy in the middle east, despite the high costs in human life.

you can take that to the bank.
soldier students! Like I said, its a draft system. I much rather have manditory draft for everyone then force it upon the poor of this imperial country. How long are you willing to go it in Iraq? Several lifetimes. That's the way these insurgents look at it. The Middle East has been waiting a long time and will wait longer then you or me. Lucky they only have to wait until the oil runs out and our interest in bringing them democracy will be over.

A II Z

I support democracy, but never should it be imposed. It is something that comes from from within.

User avatar
robbidobbs
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:07 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Pottie Central
Location: LOS of the Pottie doors

Post by robbidobbs » Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:13 pm

I just need to post this blog, because it addresses culture/politics/monied interests...aka "corporate culture".

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/

This guy's a very close friend of mine, didn't make the Burn, but I'm trying to get his burning feet wet at the NYDecom.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004
BUREAU OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS. Jonah Goldberg adds to his colleague's list of conservatively-correct shows "South Park," "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," and "The Dave Chapelle Show." No explanation is provided -- Goldberg is steamrollin' on his way to a demand for affirmative action for conservatives, about which more later -- but one ventures to guess that they pass the red litmus test because Buffy has values 'cause she fights evil and stuff, "South Park" proceeds from the loins of the sainted Parker and Stone, and Chapelle sometimes makes fun of black people, something Goldberg really wishes he could do.

Now, I like those shows myself, but believe me, that doesn't make me a conservative. Like most people, I deal with culture as, you know, culture -- that which makes us neither liberal or conservative but human, and something vastly more interesting and important than politics.

But for Goldberg, culture isn't something one is called to create by anything so non-partisan as a muse -- it's a rank power struggle: "Today," he says, "conservatives need to embrace more than tokenism, accept more than a quota for their views, and demand more than condescension... This is our culture, our nation, too." (That "too" is unusually generous.) "Everything we believe says that it would be better for everybody if we got busy taking it back through door-to-door fighting and persuasion."

Control of the culture is, in his view, an entitlement program, and he's out to twist some arms to make sure he and his get their slice of the pie.

The up-front problem is obvious: How do you take over a culture without artists? I know they have a few creative types who loudly proclaim themselves for the Right (as opposed to artists who happen to be conservative but would rather make art than culture war), but is Ben Stein patiently collecting funds for his Calvin Coolidge biopic? Are Richard Scaife or Sun Myung Moon subsidizing right-wing writer's colonies or film academies?

No. Because their model, remember, is not artistic but political. Laboring in garrets and ateliers, starving and unacknowledged, is for liberal losers; conservatives make things happen.

Another advantage of their political model of cultural control is that it exempts them from submitting actual works of art to the marketplace for judgement. In their way of doing things, constructive effort -- whether the building of superhighways or the filming of epics -- is left to wait until after the voters have been brought on board.

So, with rare exceptions, theirs is not a support-the-arts drive, but a war of attrition. Their obsessions with Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand et alia are well-known, but even a conservative gets bored sometimes, so occasionally they spray in other directions. They've been rolling on the new Oliver Stone movie, for example, since well before it opened, not because it figures to advance any political agenda (unless you're an ancient Macedonian), but because it was made by Oliver Stone, an approved target.

The plan, it would seem, is to so widely and completely vilify the opposition that all the liberals are chased out of Hollyweird like rats, leaving "The Joe McCarthy Nobody Knew," starring Drew Carey, written by Roger L. Simon, and directed by Mel Gibson, who also guest-stars as General McArthur, as the only game in town.

Can it work? Well, people do buy Hoobastank CDs, so who knows.

UPDATE. I don't know why these guys never mention "7th Heaven," one of my all-time favorite Christian shows, in which a minister's children fuck their lives up royally and with much love, laughter, and treacly acoustic guitar music. It makes me long for a Rapture I will never know. Continuing coverage here.

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

posted by the cranky old curmudgeon of the midwest

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:30 am

State's rights versus Federal rights...

DOCTORS AND THE LAW

May a doctor in California lawfully prescribe marijuana for a seriously ill patient? May a doctor in Oregon lawfully help a terminal patient to commit suicide?

Most of the press coverage has focused upon the California case of Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson. Both women are seriously ill, Raich from an inoperable brain tumor, Monson from chronic back trouble and painful muscle spasms. After conventional medications failed to give them relief, their doctors turned to California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The law authorizes physicians to prescribe marijuana as a palliative in cases of cancer, anorexia, arthritis, migraine, and "any other illness for which it provides relief."

Such prescriptions are legal under the laws of eight other states, but they conflict with federal laws and regulations that punish possession or use of a "controlled substance." The lawsuit seeks to protect them and their doctors from prosecution under federal drug laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit split 2-1 in siding with the two women. Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the majority, emphasized that the marijuana used in their medication never enters the stream of interstate commerce. The cannabis is grown, harvested and consumed within the state. Judge C. Arlen Beam of the 8th Circuit, sitting by designation, disagreed. He saw no way to distinguish the plaintiffs' home-grown medical marijuana from the social marijuana that federal law condemns. The Supreme Court will settle the issue by early spring.

The high court's decision in the marijuana case from California will surely influence its disposition of the suicide case from Oregon. Both cases are rooted not only in federal powers under the Commerce Clause, but also in state powers under the 10th Amendment. The regulation of medical practice historically has been regarded as a power reserved to the states respectively. Where does U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft find authority to nullify Oregon's Death With Dignity Act of 2003?

The attorney general finds his authority over death-inducing drugs in the same place he finds authority for banning medical marijuana. He finds it in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The law prohibits doctors from prescribing drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." Authorized drugs must have "a legitimate medical purpose," and Ashcroft reasons that "assisting in suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose."

In its opinion five months ago, the 9th Circuit held that Ashcroft's directive is "unlawful and unenforceable." It exceeds the scope of the act and ignores the attorney general's limited role. "We note that the attorney general has no specialized expertise in the field of medicine." Moreover, said Judge Richard C. Tallman, the directive violates the concept of federalism, which teaches that "direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government."

Tallman quoted Justice John Paul Stevens in a marijuana case three years ago: Whenever possible, said Stevens, federal courts must minimize state and federal conflict in areas "in which the citizens of a state have chosen to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Then Tallman rubbed it in. The Controlled Substances Act was enacted to combat drug abuse. "To the extent that it authorizes the federal government to make decisions regarding the practice of medicine, those decisions are delegated to the secretary of health and human services, not to the attorney general. His unilateral attempt to regulate general medical practices historically entrusted to state lawmakers interferes with the democratic debate about physician-assisted suicide and far exceeds the scope of his authority under federal law."

Amen to that! In the view of this old-fashioned, octogenarian, unreconstructed states'-righter, that is the Sound Doctrine. And behold: It comes from the 9th Circuit! If the Nebulous Ninth can defend the 10th Amendment, all is not yet lost.

(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent in care of this newspaper, or by e-mail to [email protected].)

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Thu Nov 25, 2004 5:41 am

you know, when a mosque is full of weapons and insurgents, and the insugents are firing at you... the mosque loses its religious status while the weapons are still there...

remove the weapons and insurgents, and lo and behold... it is a mosque once again.
Associated Press wrote:Basra Police Arrest Five Arab Fighters
1 hour, 1 minute ago Middle East - AP
By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Five Arab foreign fighters who had escaped from Fallujah were arrested near southern Basra, where they were planning to attack coalition bases and police stations, authorities said Thursday. In Fallujah, the U.S. military said it had uncovered the largest arms cache yet inside the mosque of an insurgent leader.

Basra Police Chief Brig. Mohammed Khazim said the men were stopped late Wednesday at a checkpoint in Qurnah, about 37 miles north of Basra, and "personal weapons" were found in their four-wheel-drive vehicle.

The men said they had come from Fallujah, the former rebel bastion where U.S. Marine officers say they have found enough weapons to refuel a nationwide rebellion.

Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan said earlier this week that about 60 Arab fighters have been arrested during the assault on Fallujah. The U.S. and Iraqi leadership have repeatedly maintained that foreign fighters from neighboring Arabic countries join the insurgency.

The captured fighters were identified as Mohammed Faleh and Bassem Faleh, from Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Hassan and Walid Mohammed, from Tunisia, and Mohammed al-Hadi, from Libya, he said.

The men left Fallujah four days ago, traveling to Baghdad for a couple days during which they worked with another group to carry out attacks in the capital. They did not say what kind of attacks.

They said they then headed to Basra with plans to attack police stations and coalition bases in the area. The bulk of Britain's 8,500 troops in Iraq are based around the southern port city of Basra.

The men said they were supposed to be assisted by another group that had already infiltrated the Basra, Khazim said. They were told that the weapons needed to carry out the attacks were already hidden inside the city, he said.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:51 am

Goes to court on Monday.

http://angeljustice.org/
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:02 am

If these guys get there way, Eplaya will be considered a terrorist website.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publicat ... ib_id=9713
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:04 am

their ok? :P :twisted:
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:26 am

DVD Burner wrote:If these guys get there way, Eplaya will be considered a terrorist website.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publicat ... ib_id=9713
could you explain how you came to that conclusion?
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Lessons contained herein, if you are willing to learn

Post by Simply Joel » Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:45 am

November 29, 2004

'My Son, My Son'
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington — Thanks to Claudia Rosett, an enterprising reporter writing in The New York Sun, the world now knows that some information put out by Secretary General Kofi Annan about his son's involvement with a Swiss inspection company at the heart of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal is untrue.

At a luncheon at "21" in New York this summer, Annan came over to me to complain politely that my series suggesting U.N. maladministration was unfair. When I asked about the consultant fee paid to his son Kojo that may have influenced the award of a U.N. contract to Cotecna Inspection, the secretary general said that the allegation (originally reported in The Sunday Telegraph in London) had been "thoroughly investigated" by the U.N. and there was "nothing to it."

He later insisted that ours was a "private conversation" (though no off-the-record restriction was requested or given), but this denial was consistent with Kofi's public statement in April about the contract award: "Neither he nor I had anything to do with the contracts for Cotecna." Note the plural "contracts" - after a low-ball bid, a later contract was much more lucrative - and his clear indication that his son joined him in denial.

The story put out by the U.N. Secretariat at the time was that the son, Kojo, had resigned from Cotecna just weeks before the U.N. switched its fast-growing inspection business to the Swiss firm. Though such a timely termination looked fishy on its face, the absence of post-contract payments to Kofi's son was the basis for the U.N.'s claim that there had been no conflict of interest or nepotism.

Last week the truth was outed. The U.S. attorney's office in New York is in competition with the U.N.'s "independent" investigation, whose Paul Volcker - while stonewalling angry Congressional investigators - has grand jury help from the Manhattan district attorney's office. I suspect a subpoena forced Kojo to hire a lawyer, whom reporter Rosett tracked down and The Sun had its first world beat.

The lawyer confirmed that Kojo received payments of $2,500 per month for four years after he supposedly severed his relationship with Cotecna - up to February of this year, when Iraqis blew the lid off the U.N.-Saddam-French-Russian conspiracy.

When confronted with the falsity of previous U.N. denials, the secretary general's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, pleaded: "There is nothing illegal in this." You see, um, the payments to Annan's son were part of an "open-ended no-compete contract." After all, what could be illegal about getting paid for not joining a competing inspection company, which Cotecna probably took as assurance that nobody else would get the inside track?

"We previously thought they had ceased," Annan's embarrassed aide said of the payments. He stuck grimly to the line that U.N. officials "who gave Cotecna the contract had no idea that Kojo Annan worked for Cotecna," but carefully left himself an out: "and that continues to be our belief."

In the same way, there are still officials of the oil-stained U.N. Secretariat who profess to believe the repeated denials of Benon Sevan, the longtime right-hand man of Kofi Annan put in charge of what became history's largest swindle.

Of course, in a $20 billion ripoff, $125,000 to the boss's son for doing nothing is chump change. But it should lead to questions for the son: what are his associations with families in the oil industry? (Yamani or ya life!) Did he lie to his father about four years of fees from Cotecna, or did Kofi fail to ask him? Did Kojo inform Sevan about the fees, or know about any lucrative oil vouchers given by Saddam to Sevan?

For the father: Will he now share with Congress, which supplies 22 percent of the U.N. budget, his "thorough investigation" of his son's Cotecna connection? Did he learn of the "nothing illegal" fees only last Tuesday, as his aides say? Has he since asked his Absalomic son if the secretary general can stand by his April "nothing to do with" statement about Cotecna?

This marks the end of the beginning of the scandal. Its end will not begin until Kofi Annan, even if personally innocent, resigns - having, through initial ineptitude and final obstructionism, brought dishonor on the Secretariat of the United Nations.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Letter of Hope and Caution

Post by Simply Joel » Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:49 am

November 29, 2004
EDITORIAL
Preserving the Power of Congress

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a case involving two important, but very different, legal issues: medical marijuana and federalism. Two California women have sued the federal government to stop it from prosecuting them for using marijuana for medical purposes, which they are permitted to do under California law. The court should uphold their right to use medical marijuana, but in a way that pays proper respect to Congress's power to make national laws.

This case arises out of an unusually dramatic face-off between federal and state power. In 2002, federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration showed up at the home of Diane Monson, who grew marijuana there and used it to treat a degenerative spine condition. In California, such use of marijuana has been legal since the voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, the Compassionate Use Act, which allows seriously ill people to grow and use marijuana when a doctor has found it to be medically appropriate. The federal agents were met at Ms. Monson's home by sheriff's deputies, who found that her cultivation and use of the drug were legal under California law. After a three-hour standoff, the D.E.A. agents seized Ms. Monson's six cannabis plants and destroyed them.

Fearing that they would be deprived of medical marijuana in the future, Ms. Monson and another California woman, who has an inoperable brain tumor, sued the federal government seeking a declaration that the Controlled Substances Act, the federal law the D.E.A. agents were acting under, does not prevent them from using medical marijuana.

The central issue is whether Congress had the constitutional power to criminalize the women's activities. When it passed the Controlled Substances Act, Congress relied on the commerce clause of the Constitution, which authorizes it "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of what that authorizes Congress to do. It has ruled, in 5-to-4 decisions, that Congress did not have the power to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act or a key part of the Violence Against Women Act.

We remain troubled by these decisions and, more generally, by the court's narrow reading of Congress's power. But given the state of the law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was correct to hold that the federal government had no right to criminalize the California women's actions. The marijuana in this case was far removed from interstate commerce, since it was raised in California for use within the state and was not sold commercially. The Justice Department has argued that allowing Californians to use medical marijuana "seriously undermines Congress's comprehensive scheme for the regulation of dangerous drugs." But when an individual treats herself with marijuana, under the sanction of state law and with a doctor's guidance, the impact on trafficking in dangerous drugs is close to nonexistent.

Although the California women should win, it is important that they win on narrow, fact-specific grounds. Advocates of states' rights have latched onto this case and are urging the court to use it to radically rewrite its commerce clause rulings, reviving ancient precedents that took a more limited view of Congressional power. This is where the greatest danger lies in this case. If this sharply restricted view prevails, it could substantially diminish the federal government's ability to protect Americans from unsafe work conditions, pollution, discrimination and other harms.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:12 am

the editorial rant linked below is why i won't buy her books.
even i know there is a point in which to hit the pause button.

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!


slap my salmon, baby

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:22 am

Safire is leaving the Times soon.

Woo Hoo!

Now who is gonna take his place.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

here is my guess.

Post by Simply Joel » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:13 am

DVD Burner wrote:Safire is leaving the Times soon.

Woo Hoo!

Now who is gonna take his place.
here is my guess.

Columnist Biography: David Brooks

David Brooks's column on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times started in September 2003. He is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a contributing editor at Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly, and a commentator on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." He is the author of "Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There" published by Simon & Schuster.

Mr. Brooks joined The Weekly Standard at its inception in September 1995, having worked at The Wall Street Journal for the previous nine years. His last post at the Journal was as op-ed editor. Prior to that, he was posted in Brussels, covering Russia, the Middle East, South Africa and European affairs. His first post at the Journal was as editor of the book review section, and he filled in for five months as the Journal's movie critic.

Mr. Brooks graduated from the University of Chicago in 1983, and worked as a police reporter for the City News Bureau, a wire service owned jointly by the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times.

He is also a frequent analyst on NPR’s "All Things Considered" and the "Diane Rehm Show." His articles have appeared in the The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Forbes, the Washington Post, the TLS, Commentary, The Public Interest and many other magazines. He is editor of the anthology "Backward and Upward: The New Conservative Writing" (Vintage Books).

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:15 am

Oh,


Brooks aint too bad.


You like Brooks?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:25 am

wow, where did the year go?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 1, 2004
The Fourth Election
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON — "Welcome to the world's interrelated four-month, four-nation election cycle" was the challenge posted here in October.

So far, voters who support implanting freedom in the Middle East have won three in a row, electing President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, the American ally John Howard in Australia, and George Bush here.

Now pessimists are trying desperately to call off the fourth election - the one scheduled for late January in Iraq to elect a 275-member national assembly that will write a constitution - lest they lose that vote, too.

For one awful moment last week, it seemed the foot-draggers might succeed. The old Sunni Arab politician Adnan Pachachi, who had been the U.N.'s choice for interim leader last year but was roundly rejected by Iraqis, convened a cabal of Sunni groups worried about a Shiite majority. They sought to appease violence by urging a six-month delay; that would give Sunni insurgents time to regroup after their Falluja defeat and then escalate warfare to push elections back forever.

This small gathering's consensus was reported as a major impetus to delay the vote. Even more alarming was the report that "the two main Kurdish parties supported the delay request."

If true, that would be a stunner. Could it be that the courageous Kurds, with 20 percent of the population - and having been protected from Saddam's genocide for the past decade by American and British air power - were about to double-cross us and side with the Sunni Baathists who had persecuted them?

On the phone, I put it to the top Kurd serving in the interim Iraqi government, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih: Were the Kurds chickening out?

"This whole story was an exercise in political spin," he replied. As he had just told Sir David Frost on BBC, Iraq is not the calamity we see on television. "I was supposed to be a Kurdish representative to that meeting, but it wasn't possible," Dr. Salih informed me. "A junior representative took part. No decision was made, and we did not endorse the delaying of the election."

No waffling? "We have demonstrated our resolve in Falluja," Salih said. "Holding the election will be tough, but delaying it would be tougher. We will do everything in our power to honor our commitment to free elections."

Pachachi, the chief spinner of delay, means trouble. At the Ambrosetti conference in Italy a year ago, I saw him with Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League, getting instructions from Sunni Central. Pachachi has long been in the pocket of the Saudi royals, and a picture of him kissing the hand of the United Arab Emirates ruler, Sheik Zayed, disgusted many Iraqis, who blocked the U.N.'s choice. Instead, Iraqi leaders chose Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite; now Pachachi's pan-Arab crowd is out to avert elections and bring back Sunni minority rule.

My bona fides with the Kurdish people go back a generation, to friendship with their nationalist patriot, Mustafa Barzani. Kurds were the open source of a 2001 column reporting the presence of an affiliate of Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, in northern Iraq, where terrorists tried to kill Dr. Salih.

Hungry Kurds first told me of Saddam's oil-for-food scam, and still remember Christer Elfverson, the Swede who spent four years as the U.N. deputy to Benon Sevan - a bureaucrat who saw no evil in the denial of $4 billion worth of food and medicine owed the Kurds.

Today their pesh merga is the readiest and fiercest Iraqi fighting force. In Iraqi uniform, these mountain warriors are helping to pacify Mosul; they want to avoid Kurd-Arab clashes, but a million Kurds live in Baghdad and their trained compatriots will defend them from terrorists.

It's simplistic to prognosticate the coming election as 60 percent Shiite, 15 percent Sunni, 20 percent Kurd, 5 percent other. Only half the Shiites and Sunnis are fervent Islamists, while most of the Kurds are secular Sunnis. The result is an Oliver Hardy demographic: "a fine mess," susceptible to democratic surprises by charismatic local candidates.

The most important element in the two months leading up to this fourth election is a sense of inexorability. The U.N. may run, the Pachachi reactionaries may drag a foot, the terrorists may intimidate - but the vote must go on. Democracy delayed is democracy denied.


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:37 am

Anthrax!

I still dont know.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:38 am

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

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:56 am

<plonk>

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:10 am

Simply Joel wrote:<plonk>
Excelent answer for the less than.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:11 am

excellent. Ok?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:11 am

thoughts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 1, 2004
A New Index for Social Security
By JOHN KASICH

Columbus, Ohio

In all the confusion surrounding the current Social Security debate, there is one inescapable truth: Social Security is broken, and it's headed for disaster unless serious changes are made now.

While President Bush's commitment to saving the program was evident during the campaign and during his press conference after the election, his plans remain too vague to be called a solution. Similarly, there is no consensus in Congress to indicate that its members are willing to attack this problem.

To repair Social Security, we have to be clear about what's destroying it. We'll soon be taking more money out of the system than we're putting into it, which means that one day it will go broke. In 1945 there were about 42 workers paying into the system for each person receiving benefits. Today that ratio is 3.3 to 1, and by 2040, there will be just two workers for each beneficiary.

At the same time, Americans are living longer. That's good news, but it means retirees will receive benefits for longer, putting further pressure on the fund. Americans are also having fewer children, which means fewer workers will be paying the taxes that help finance benefits.

Furthermore, benefits are growing faster than inflation. First-time Social Security benefits are now tied to wage growth, and wages are rising faster than prices. The result: over the next 75 years, benefits are expected to increase nearly eighteenfold, while prices will go up less than half that rate. In order to keep pace, our children and their children will have to work longer hours and pay more taxes. Between now and 2080, benefits will most likely exceed payroll taxes by $120 trillion.

How do we get out of this mess? To preserve the system for the long term, we must change the way first-time benefits are calculated. Growth in initial benefits should be linked to the consumer price index - not to wage growth.

A switch to price-indexing from wage-indexing would accomplish two things. It would eliminate the need for future payroll tax increases, and it would still allow initial benefits to rise over time, albeit at a slower rate. Instead of rising eighteenfold over the next 75 years, benefits would likely increase by a factor of eight.

We should also create Social Security savings accounts for those under 55. Workers could invest some of their payroll taxes in their own savings account in a mixture of conservative stocks and bonds, much as members of Congress and federal employees do. In exchange for investing a part of their payroll taxes, workers would give up some of their future Social Security benefit - probably about 25 cents for every dollar invested.

Older Americans would be exempt from both changes for a simple reason: our country's greatest legacy is that one generation sacrifices for the next. These people have already made their sacrifices on behalf of the baby boom generation. Now it's our turn. While this sacrifice is small compared to the sacrifices made by those who came before us, it's one that will safeguard Social Security for years to come.

John Kasich, a Republican representative from Ohio from 1983 to 2000, was chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Simply Joel
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Land of Lincoln
Contact:

Post by Simply Joel » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:42 am

CULTURE CLASH

It is disappointing, for those of us alternately engaged in teaching Iraqis how to square off democratically on divisive issues of state, to sit down and disconnect the telephone, intending to spend a few uninterrupted hours on the issue argued on Monday before the Supreme Court. The issue, of course, is whether individual states can legislate with regard to drug laws if the federal government has already staked out a position on the matter.

We have very concrete circumstances here: 35 states grant exemptions of one kind or another to producers, retailers, consumers, cons and ex-cons involved with cannabis. The arguments made before the Supreme Court were blissfully simple, in one respect. What the government lawyers argued was that the states were in violation of the Constitution, which gives to Congress, and only to Congress, authority to regulate commerce. Accordingly (they argue) all those state laws are stuff and nonsense. One jurist wants even more: He wants punitive action taken against those states that, acting on their various plebiscites and propositions, have been less than rigorous in enforcing the anti-narcotics laws.

An Iraqi surveying the scene would be struck by the application of the democratic canon, as he is led to understand it. For a century, the Constitution forbade the treatment of black Americans by standards different from those applied to other Americans. What we learned was that actually to enforce the ban on unequal treatment you had to have a felt political commitment to passing a new law or enforcing the existing ones.

The Supreme Court justices are faced with pretty outspoken contrarieties on the drug business. In 35 states, legislators have taken action to squirm out of the totalist ban which is a part of our legacy, and so the focus became techniques of evasion. There was a great flowering of these back during Jim Crow, which culminated in the elderly, scholarly Negro arriving at the polling booth and being told that he could vote only if he could read Greek. The ballot in hand, the petitioner muses, "Ah kin read Greek, aw right. It says here: 'No nigger's goin' to vote today.'" That made for civil-rights barracks humor, but it held the feds at bay for about 75 years.

The modern version of the civil-rights plea is: Unless I can have marijuana, I will suffer, I will vomit, I will, finally, die.

The hardliners haven't neglected a defense on this matter. Hand on a Bible, they will swear that all the effective ingredients in a cannabis plant can be leached out and poured into a cookie of sorts, the taking of which will relieve you just as a draw on a cannabis weed would do.

The scientists have a hard time here, because it is difficult to argue with a flesh-and-blood human being who says take your effing placebo and run it up your behind. A colleague of mine, the author of four outstanding books on American history, put it roughly like this: I am telling you I tried the placebo, and I tried marijuana. I continued wretchedly sick with the fake stuff and hugely solaced by the grass. I am an honors graduate of Yale University, politically a conservative opposed to drug legalization and please leave off the cant about how it doesn't make any difference, because I had cancer, and it does.

The complications in a comprehensive ban are manifest. What is the proper punishment for the mother who brings a reefer to her son's cancer bed?

And there is the putative respect paid to the medical community. Does the article in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate commerce extend to writing law on the uses of a drug, given that medical experience is uniquely qualified to pass on such questions?

The Iraqi who is looking in on how we handle our political conundrums will jot down that one way to do it is not to force the point. People in the western states especially have been drawing on cannabis with virtual impunity, but what the Supreme Court is being asked to do is to say: One set of laws is right, another set of laws is wrong, and we're going to tell you which is which.

Sometimes, the observer will say to himself, nothing less than that can be done, as when we were coexisting with unequal treatment under the law. Sometimes the mature democracy will say: We have to adjudicate. After all, we did it for Dred Scott.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Rian Jackson
Posts: 3903
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
Location: In Rob's Head

Post by Rian Jackson » Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:12 pm

anyone have an opinion on the whole Congo/Rwanda thing that's blowing up as we speak??
surlier than thou

User avatar
DVD Burner
Posts: 11031
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: White Trash Camp
Contact:

Post by DVD Burner » Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:31 pm

it's all about it's resources.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER

Locked

Return to “Open Discussion”