« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
November 30, 2006
Albert Pujols: "I Was Waaahbbed!"
While Pujols voices a voting practice to which some members of the Baseball Writers Association of America subscribe, he does overlook this iddy, biddy fact:
Ryan Howard's Philadelphia Phillies won more games than Pujols' Cardinals.
It's not Howard's fault -- as the voters recognized -- that Pujols and the Cardinals were in the worst division in baseball.
[By the way, there were good arguments supporting the election of either Howard of Pujols for MVP. But exluding all but essentially a half dozen players from four teams is not one of them.]
Posted by shertaugh at 8:28 AM
Legislating Cyber Lingo in France
At first I thought it was a typo; "courrier" is the French word for mail. But it turns out that "courriel" is actually the Académie Française-approved word for "email." That august body rejected the words already commonly in use -- "email," "mail," and "mél" -- as insufficiently French.
Language from the top down.
But I don't think it's working. The Académie Française decreed the use of the word "courriel" in 2003, and this is the first time I've seen it used in correspondence with people in France (which I have with some frequency). And this most recent message came from a French government agency, where maybe you run the risk of adverse job action if you don't use the decreed words.
I kind of like "courriel," actually -- but I sort of doubt it'll prevail in the linguistic marketplace.
Posted by Eric at 8:18 AM | Comments (3)
To George Will: "Words Hurt"
Sorry, Mr. Will, but a President who abuses his bully pulpit in a harshly partisan way during a what he himself calls a "war" doesn't deserve the respect of a man who's fought in war and whose son is doing the same.
Bush got what he deserved. You'd be smart to be a little more brusque yourself . . . toward Bush, that is.
Posted by shertaugh at 7:23 AM | Comments (4)
November 29, 2006
My New Book!
The book tells the story of the various government bureaucracies that judged (and misjudged) the loyalty of 40,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry between 1943 and 1945. It's a sad tale of civilian and military officials searching for an enemy within and mostly finding their own fears and prejudices.
It'll be out in about a year.
Posted by Eric at 8:32 PM | Comments (8)
November 28, 2006
A New Legal History Blog
Mary's scholarly work is fantastic. Her book "Cold War Civil Rights" -- which placed the American civil rights movement in a transnational setting -- is a classic. I talked to her about her new project on Thurgood Marshall's work on a Kenyan constitution recently, and it too sounds enthralling. (I didn't even know that Thurgood Marshall had any significant dealings outside the United States!)
I'm sure the blog will live up to these high standards ... so check it out!
Posted by Eric at 3:56 PM
Wouldj yas like some "would-er" with yer beau-tea-ful Tastykakes?
|
W
hat American accent do you have? Your Result: Philadelphia Your accent is as Philadelphian as a cheesesteak! If you're not from Philadelphia, then you're from someplace near there like south Jersey, Baltimore, or Wilmington. if you've ever journeyed to some far off place where people don't know that Philly has an accent, someone may have thought you talked a little weird even though they didn't have a clue what accent it was they heard. | |
| The Northeast | |
| The Midland | |
| The Inland North | |
| The South | |
| Boston | |
| The West | |
| North Central | |
| What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes | |
Yup. I'm from South Jersey -- though I definitely do know people whose Philly accents are way stronger than mine. A few words that give away a true Philadelphian are: "down" (pronounced almost as if it were the name "Dan" (as pronounced in Philadelphia), with a hint of an "L" sound between the vowel diphthong and the "n"); "beautiful" (with the middle syllable pronounced as "tea"); and "water" (pronounced "would-er").
Posted by Eric at 9:52 AM | Comments (4)
November 27, 2006
The Sad World of Blog Comments
Reprehensible.
It really makes me wonder about the net value that open comments actually add to blogs. Take, as another example, David Bernstein's very reasonable recent post at the Volokh Conspiracy sharing his disdain for the Seinfeld character "Kramer" now that he's heard Michael Richards's racist rant. The comments quickly turned into a cesspool of racism themselves, with anonymous commenters chiming in repeatedly about stuff that bothers them about black people.
Honestly, these sorts of things really do give me pause about comments on blogs.
Posted by Eric at 8:38 PM | Comments (8)
November 26, 2006
Borat!
Posted by Eric at 10:43 PM
November 24, 2006
A No-Knock Death Warrant
The victim had burglar bars protecting her front door. When she heard the men breaking in, she opened fire with a pistol. The police, better armed, shot and killed the woman.
In justifying the officers' actions, Atlanta's Assistant Police Chief, Alan Dreher, said:
Johnston should have recognized the men as officers even though they were not wearing uniforms. He said all three wore bulletproof vests that had the word "Police" across the front and back. He said they shouted they were police as they burst through the door.
Ms. Johnston may have remembered the fate of these seven trusting men when she went down firing.
But even if she knew nothing about them, was the price paid worth it to our "War on Drugs"? To our Constitution?
In his opinion last term on no-knock warrants in Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Scalia said this in Part III.A: "One of those interests is the protection of human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident." That pejorative description of a constitutional interest would be comical if not for the fact that it reflects a dangerous authoritarian streak in this Court.
To further support their diminution of whatever's left of the Fourth Amendment, Justice Scalia for the Court writes about the availablity of a Bivens-type remedy in these circumstances. That won't do much good in cases like Ms. Johnston's.
The officers had a warrant authorizing a no-knock entry. End of Bivens suit -- especially in the 11th Circuit where Chief Judge Edmondson has made it his personal project to eviscerate all protection offered by Section 1983 and Bivens under the guise of qualified immunity.
I'm not knocking no-knock warrants. What I am complaining about is the Court's cavalier attitude -- in word and result -- to the Fourth Amendment. Case in point: the late Kathryn Johnston.
Posted by shertaugh at 3:02 PM | Comments (10)
November 22, 2006
Run! Run! As Fast As You Can! You Can't Catch Me, I'm The Gingerbread Stormtrooper!
It's a bit tough to make out in the photo, but those are little gingerbread men dressed as Nazis, saluting a little gingerbread Adolf Hitler.
In a CNN news clip, the artist defends the exhibit, saying that "it's not Treblinka or anything; it's just a rally!"
He says that he "just finds beauty in bizarre places."
I agree.
Posted by Eric at 10:12 AM | Comments (2)
November 20, 2006
Great Boules of Fire!
Utterly easy. Foolproof, really. And it's the best loaf I've ever made, by a mile. Amazing taste, texture, and crust.
Give it a try.
Posted by Eric at 2:14 PM | Comments (4)
Life Imitates Torts Exam
Relatives of a woman who died days after a fire she is accused of setting are suing emergency workers and others because they say she didn't get proper medical treatment.Representatives of Mary Terese Green, 51, of Wright, filed the lawsuit Nov. 8 in Campbell County District Court against Campbell County, county commissioners, the Sheriff's Office and sheriff, Campbell County Memorial Hospital, two jail nurses and a hospital emergency medical technician.
Green was found covered in soot inside a burned-out mobile home just before 1 a.m. on Dec. 31, 2004. Green resided in the mobile home but had been asked to leave. Witnesses earlier heard her threaten to burn the home if she was forced to leave.
She was arrested at the scene but was taken to the hospital the following day and died Jan. 8, 2005, from complications of smoke inhalation, the lawsuit said. Jail staff and nurses had noted that Green had trouble breathing and coughed while at the jail, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs are asking for $2,675 in funeral expenses, attorney fees and any other relief the court finds appropriate.
Posted by Eric at 10:16 AM
November 15, 2006
Dirty Campaign Tricks In Wyoming
Wyoming Secretary of State Joe Meyer will ask local and federal prosecutors to look into allegations of illegal automated campaign calls before last week's general election.The bogus-New-York-accent thing is especially offensive, given that Barbara Cubin is herself originally from California -- a state towards which Wyomingites feel considerably more antipathy than they do New York.Meyer's office received three complaints about illegal calls linked to the contentious U.S. House race and the race for governor.
Meanwhile, the spokeswoman for Democrat Gary Trauner's apparently unsuccessful U.S. House campaign said illegal calls may have influenced that race. Linda Stoval said stronger laws are needed to prevent future violations.
“I would certainly say that in a race this close, it could have had an impact,” Stoval said.
Meyer will ask the Laramie County district attorney to look into the report of an “unfriendly, almost threatening male voice” urging a Cheyenne voter to support Republican candidates.
He'll ask the U.S. attorney's office to consider a complaint about someone using a fake New York accent to misrepresent Trauner's position on key issues. Trauner moved to Wyoming from New York more than 16 years ago.
As for the "unfriendly, almost threatening male voice" urging Wyomingites to vote Republican, I'd note simply that Vice President Cheney is from Wyoming.
Posted by Eric at 9:24 AM | Comments (1)
November 14, 2006
What Happens When Democrats Control Congress?
. . . the DOW soars to a record high.
I expect our friends on the right will explain it's really (1) the fruits of Bush's tax cuts (. . . or is it Reagan's?), (2) low gas prices, (3) stable interest rates, or maybe even (4) Bush as President.
One thing's for sure. The market sees an emerging Congress that could not, even if drunk and throwing darts at at random billion dollar amounts on a wall, apprropriate as recklessly as the last couple of GOP Congresses -- with the sign-and-spend GWBush as chief enabler -- did for the past 4 years.
As an investor with kids, I'll take the soon-to-be Democrat[ ] Congress, thank you very much.
Posted by shertaugh at 11:38 PM | Comments (1)
Numa Want A Cracker
I'm happy to provide the answer.
Because this is just the sort of incisive, cutting-edge commentary and analysis for which people have been turning to IsThatLegal since January of 2003.
Posted by Eric at 12:23 PM | Comments (1)
November 12, 2006
Is Bill Stuntz Right About Military Strategy In Iraq?
Take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt -- after all, when you're looking for expert advice on military strategy, you probably shouldn't expect much from law professors.
Still, I find two basic flaws in Stuntz's argument.
First, it's hard to understand why the single historical example in the piece is the Civil War. Seems to me that American military strategy in Vietnam might have been a more pertinent example, given that it was a war overseas that had the American military intervening in another nation's civil war, and given that American did pursue Stuntz's ratcheting-up strategy without success. Perhaps Soviet military strategy in Afghanistan might have been a more pertinent example as well. (And we all know how that venture ended.)
But more importantly, I question the accuracy of Stuntz's use of the American Civil War as an example in the first place. The American Civil War did not include a protracted insurgency. As Jay Winick's April 1865 makes clear, the Civil War might have included such an insurgency after the fall of Richmond -- Jefferson Davis was urging just such a strategy -- but his top generals refused that strategy for reasons that had nothing to do with their belief that a numerically superior Union force would succeed in crushing a Confederate insurgency.
I'm no expert in military strategy. But Stuntz's arguments strike me as deeply flawed.
Posted by Eric at 10:57 AM | Comments (9)
November 11, 2006
Pastor Ted's Redemption
Posted by Eric at 1:00 PM | Comments (1)
November 10, 2006
Pissing on Kristallnacht in Germany
Oh, wait. It did.
Posted by Eric at 3:04 PM | Comments (2)
How the Democratic Victory Makes Congress More...CONSERVATIVE?
(NOTE: a couple of commenters got the impression from the post below that I believe Congress will behave more conservatively now. I do not. Just making the point, that the leftward shift may not be as dramatic as some expect.)
Republicans lost seats in both houses of Congress, Democrats gained majorities in both houses, so Congress moves to the left, right? Well, yes and no. Republicans scoured the archives during the campaign for any reference by Democratic leaders to their wish to do something that might be characterized as extreme by conservatives. They used these quotes, and some embellishments, to scare conservative and moderate voters: the Democrats will raise taxes drastically, they will de-fund the military, they will cede our sovereignty to the U.N., they will make gay marriage legal everywhere, and they will impeach the president!! Of course, they will do none of these things, mainly because very few of them want to, but also because they couldn't these things if they tried, and even if they could, it would spell their political doom and destroy their new and narrow majority.
Every race is different, but let's look at what kind of Democrats won and what kind of Republicans lost in the seats that changed hands: many of the Republicans who lost were moderate to liberal, while many of the Democrats who won for the first time were moderate to conservative. The result: both the Republican and Democratic caucuses, on average, moved to the right. Don't read too much into that, Democrats will now control the agenda in Congress, so it will move to the left, but they can't be bomb-throwers because it will get the Heath Shulers (D-NC) and Jim Webbs (D-VA) beat when they run for reelection. That's what happened to Republican moderates like Nancy Johnson of Connecticut or Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island - their caucus went far to the right of the American people and was punished for it. They could protect their most conservative members, from their most reliably conservative districts but they could not protect the moderates in "blue" or "purple" areas. So..
.. progressives will be disappointed by the moderation and cautiousness of the new Democratic Congress and conservatives will find their worst fears to be unfounded. Democrats will pass popular measures that the President will have to accept, like a minimum wage hike, some lobby reform, relief on prescription drug costs, implementing 9/11 commission recommendations and maybe deductibility of college tuition. They will prevent truly extreme nominees from being confirmed to the federal bench or key appointed jobs, but they won't be able to install their own people. Forecast: moderation, with scattered partisan bickering, and occasional horse-trading. Chance of impeachment, almost nil. Unless there are new revelations.
Now, if we can get a Democratic president in '08, we can start making more dramatic changes, but even then, Dems will (or should) be striving to avoid the overreach that brought down the Bush/Rove "permanent majority." Our democracy is highly imperfect, but still a democracy. If you ignore the wishes of the people, sooner or later they are going to yank the leash.
Posted by TFW at 2:31 PM | Comments (4)
November 9, 2006
Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY) Has Leukemia
No word on how serious the condition currently is, although he's been hospitalized for the last few days. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
(Note that Wyoming's governor, who would appoint a replacement if Thomas were too ill to serve, is Dave Freudenthal, a very popular Democrat who also just won reelection.)
Posted by Eric at 1:36 PM | Comments (1)
It's Worth A Click.
Posted by Eric at 1:32 PM
SCOTUS: Time For A New Short List!
No Vacancy? No ProblemHa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.......President Bush isn't looking very far for his next conservative pick to the U.S. Supreme Court: His top two candidates work just 12 blocks away in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Insiders say Judge Janice Rogers Brown, appointed in June 2005, tops the list, followed by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appointed in May. Also up: Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the D.C. court is pending. So there's no vacancy, you say? With apologies to Justice John Paul Stevens, 86, it's his seat they hope to fill.
What a difference a week makes!
On a more serious note, I would imagine that Allyson Duncan might be a name people in the Administration are beginning to talk about.
Posted by Eric at 1:09 PM
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Pump
The price for regular gas at each was $1.99.
Yesterday morning, the day after the election, the price of regular at each of the three stations was $2.09.
Today, the price of regular was $2.12.
Sure, falling gas prices had nothing to do with the election.
And, sure, George Bush decided to change the DefSec on Wednesday morning.
Posted by shertaugh at 8:41 AM | Comments (4)
November 8, 2006
Or This.
Posted by Eric at 10:56 PM
Pop doesn't get much better than this.
Posted by Eric at 10:45 PM | Comments (2)
Little Green Nutballs
Find your favorite and quote it in the comments here.
My nomination: "cheesehead's" #13: "The MSM hated Rummy; that's why I loved the guy. Our loss. Terror scores again."
Posted by Eric at 2:54 PM | Comments (2)
Americans . . . Those Damn Flip-Floppers
In a word, America voted for Bush before they voted against him.
Posted by shertaugh at 10:47 AM
"Seize the Middle!"
The job of the Senate and House Democratic Leadership (yes, the Dems have won both houses) is to be smart and force the GOP to the right even further. In particular, force Bush to choose to refuse to be bipartisan because that's who he is. Force McCain to vote against the middle in favor of the GOP base because he can taste the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.
Make the GOP make the choice between what's good for America versus what's good for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurers, and the Top1%. Clearly, there's some overlap. But not too much. I think Bush -- and McCain, who's sold his soul -- will be surprised at how much debate-framing power was in that rubberstamp called a Congress.
In other words, Democratic leadership needs to do one thing . . . a la Bill Clinton: "SEIZE THE MIDDLE!"
Posted by shertaugh at 10:01 AM
SCOTUS: The Day After
Posted by Eric at 8:09 AM | Comments (2)
Three cheers for peaceful transitions of power!
Posted by Eric at 8:00 AM | Comments (1)
Senate Dems Declare: "We Won . . . Now Try to Take It Away"
It's 1:55 a.m., eastern time, and McCaskill -- still with 15% of the vote to count -- has just given a victory speech.
Webb declared victory after Allen called the election "interesting." It looks like 2000 votes, out of about 80 million cast for US Senators, will decide control of the Senate.
One final thought. NO MORE ELECTIONS ON NOVEMBER 7th!!!
Posted by shertaugh at 1:53 AM
God and Country II
Posted by shertaugh at 1:14 AM
November 7, 2006
Only Chumps Don't Vote - Rove is counting on it
It looks like Democrats are going to win big today, but don't count on it - go vote. If there is one principle of Rovian politics, it's that you don't need a majority to win; more precisely, you certainly don't need the support of a majority of potential voters to get a majority of the votes actually cast. I'm not just talking about turnout here - everybody tries to get their folks out - nothing wrong with that. What's changed since prior to 2000 is that the political operatives who control Republican strategy and tactics no longer see any need to try, or even pretend to try, to build support among a majority of Americans. They are not embarrassed by overt efforts to suppress the opposition's turnout (mostly by legal means like negative ads, and barely legal means like hyperactive efforts against potential "voter fraud", really just designed to hassle certain kinds of people into not voting). The formula seems to be: get real affirmative support from about 40%, and convince about 10% that the Democrat is even worse because he/she is unpatriotic, a big taxer, effeminate, not hostile enough to gays, has a fetish for the bill of rights, wants the terrorists to win, wants your gun, whatever. Rove and his disciples seem to take pride in the idea that a "permanent Republican majority" could be cobbled together from a base that clearly is a minority and voters who choose the candidate they hate and fear the least. Many of them seem to regard the kind of agenda and governing style that would be necessary to build a real majority as the province of "the squishes," as they like to call moderates. Luckily, their "permanent majority" is unsustainable, and in its final hours.
This minority rule approach never was more apparent than when W. and his surrogates trashed the idea that his loss of the popular vote in 2000 should affect in any way the policy choices he would make - after all, he had a five-Justice mandate! He then veered rightward and used 9/11 to intimidate any who might challenge him on matters unrelated to terrorism. He certainly has been ostentatious in showing his contempt for the processes of American democracy, as have his (until recently) loyal troops in the Congress. I always thought that a governing style that regards the affirmative support of a true majority as an unnecessary indulgence could not prevail politically in the long term. Today I think we will learn the limits of that authoritarian approach.
But you never know. Don't be a chump. GO VOTE.
(That goes for you too, Republicans. We want it fair and square.)
Posted by TFW at 11:08 AM | Comments (1)
November 7, 2006
Remember 2000? The year George Bush came away the winner . . . eventually?
Here's hoping that Election Year 2006 is nothing like Election Year 2000.
Oh . . . and a very happy birthday to my brother.
Posted by shertaugh at 8:36 AM
Bush's Reason No. 101 For A One-Party Country
He's come up with a new line. Now, he's warning that no one should vote for Democrats because Democrats cannot be trusted to run the government in war time.
Interesting. The so-called GWOT will last well after anyone reading this, and their children, are dead and buried. So in Bush's mind, that means Democrats NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVVVVVVER are allowed to take control of government and call the shots.
Amazing. With a track record like Bush's, really, how much worse could my 9-year old do?
Posted by shertaugh at 1:54 AM | Comments (3)
November 6, 2006
Dead Guys Say The Darndest Things.
Yet I just heard him being interviewed on the radio.
So I conclude that he is not dead.
Incredible. Art Linkletter. Still alive in 2006. Who knew?
Posted by Eric at 4:52 PM | Comments (1)
"Self-Hating"
I wasn't so sure about that then, and I'm even less sure about it now that I've read Ted Haggard's deeply depressing letter to his congregation -- in which he refers to his sexual life as "repulsive," "dark" "dirt."
Sounds pretty self-hating to me, and to the extent that his revulsion toward himself fueled his confident condemnation of homosexuality (and gay marriage), I'd say that it'd be entirely fair to call Ted Haggard quite damagingly "self-hating."
UPDATE: To clarify, when I say that Haggard's self-hatred was "damaging," I mean that it was damaging to gays and lesbians whose sexual conduct Haggard condemned, and against whose interests Haggard argued in public discourse.
Posted by Eric at 1:29 PM | Comments (4)
November 5, 2006
Death and Democracy
It seems from here that his trial's been a sham, on the order of Stalin's purge trials. Was there any doubt as to the verdict or sentence?
Really, justice called for a Mussolini-style "trial" in the center of Bahgdad when Saddam was captured. He should have been executed then and there.
As for this Administration's and the GOP's crowing about the Saddam verdict proving that democracy has taken root in Iraq, let's be serious.
First, there's question of convenient timing. I vaguely remember Republicans screaming bloody murder when Independent Counsel Larry Walsh obtained indictments in Iraq-gate on the eve of the '92 Presidential election. This hardly does much but reinforce that Saddam's trial -- while satisfying and necessary -- has been manipulated to help Bush & Co.
More to the point the question that should be on the table for today's talking media heads is, was a trial of Saddam worth the nearly 3,000 American lives, 16,000 American wounded, scores of tens of thousands dead Iraqis, and a $320 Billion price-tag?
This is another of the famous corners being turned in the expanding polygon that is Iraq.
Posted by shertaugh at 8:20 AM | Comments (1)
November 4, 2006
God and Country
Will it be Democrats? Republicans? Liberals? Conservatives? Evangelicals? Moderates? Independents?
Who among us will thank the Almighty for what happens? Will anyone be satisfied that "it's God's plan"?
And who among us will say, "God sure has a funny sense of humor."
My bet is this. If Ken Blackwell wins the governor's race in Ohio, then it's pretty likely the GOP will keep the House and Senate. And the subject won't be God's sense of humor.
Posted by shertaugh at 6:12 PM
Is It The Economy, Stupid?
I wonder if this is really a viable card to play. Seriously, when was the last time the economy really stunk for everyone? Post-9/11? Okay, the GOP effectively controlled the federal government at that point and got a pass. Was it during any time in the Clinton years? After '94, the GOP controlled the Congress.
If you go back to 1992, you'll find a recession while the Democratics controlled both the House and Senate. But that was, in historical terms as I remember it (and I welcome correction), a fairly mild one.
Was the last really bad recession in the Reagan years? After the October '87 stock-market crash?
My point is, who remembers? For Americans who make more than $100,000, doesn't it seem that things have been pretty good for while? That's what this Administration has been telling us since 2002. Yes, lots of white-collar jobs have disappeared. And sure, manufacturing jobs are almost as extinct as snail darters. But the stock market's gone up to about 80% of where it was, in real terms, during FY 2000. Also, the economy has generated a ton of low-wage, health-sector jobs.
I don't see the economy as a plus for the GOP. Maybe in the board rooms. But not on Main street.
Posted by shertaugh at 5:14 AM | Comments (1)
November 3, 2006
Move Over, Gandhi. You've Got Company. Ted Haggard's Coming.
So says Ted Haggard.
Posted by Eric at 9:31 AM | Comments (18)
Now It All Makes Sense.
Posted by Eric at 9:09 AM
November 2, 2006
Ted Haggard and George Bush: Saying Less Than They Know.
I recently asked [Pastor Ted] Haggard, himself the pastor of a large church in Colorado, why the president, as a man of supposedly strong faith, did not publicly apologize for continually misleading Americans in the run-up to the Iraq War. Instead, Bush clung zealously to misinformation and half-truths. I asked Haggard why, as a man of Christian principle, Bush did not fully disavow Karl Rove’s despicable smear tactics and apologize for the ugly lies the Bush campaign spread over the years about Ann Richards, John McCain, and John Kerry, among others. After all, isn’t getting right with God -- whatever the political price --the most important thing for the sort of Christian Bush has proclaimed himself to be?Evidently not.Haggard laughed as though my questions were the most naive he’d ever heard. “I think if you asked the president these questions once he’s out of office,” Haggard said, “he’d say, ‘You’re right. We shouldn’t have done it.’ But right now if he said something like that, well, the world would spin out of control!
“That’s why when Jimmy Carter ran, he [turned out to be] such a terrible president. Because when he [governed], he really tried to maintain [his integrity] and those types of values -- and that is virtually impossible.”
The pastor returned to my charges of Bush’s deceitfulness. “Listen,” he said testily, “I think [we Christian believers] are responsible not to lie [sic], but I don’t think we’re responsible to say everything we know.”
Posted by Eric at 7:58 PM | Comments (1)
In the wake of the Kerry Remarks, Democrats are...WINNING.
Demagogue-in-Chief Bush is coming unhinged and now believes that his only hope of avoiding defeat is to fire up the base and hope nobody else shows up. Yesterday he pursued this strategy by- get this - by going on Rush Limbaugh to declare that Rumsfeld is doing great and will stay in office for the next two years! I want to know - which base is he trying to motivate??!! While he's at it, maybe he can bring back Brownie to FEMA!
Republicans: Keep yakking about Kerry and how the Democrats want terrorists to win. Swing voters and a good number of Republicans will just sigh and pull the lever for the Dems. You have lost the House, the Senate is even money at best. Santorum is done in Pennsylvania. DeWine is done in Ohio. Chaffee is done in Rhode Island. Things look grim for Burns in Montana and Talent in Missouri. Former sure thing George Allen is behind Jim Webb in the latest polls. And even with all the race baiting, Harold Ford is still in the game in Tennessee.
Everybody wins: Republicans get to do a little more swift-boating, and Democrats get to win the mid-term elections and impose some accountability on the guy who started this fiasco and all the incompetent, arrogant, constitution-shredding demagogues and weaklings who enable him every day. I can't wait for Tuesday.
Posted by TFW at 10:13 AM | Comments (3)
November 1, 2006
An Abstract, Purely Hypothetical Thought Experiment
One of them says, "I avoided military service in Vietnam, but have gotten nearly 3,000 American soldiers killed and some 45,000 wounded first toppling an Iraqi regime that I knew had not attacked the United States and then trying to control the ensuing insurgency and civil war that I could have, but did not, anticipate. I remain indefinitely committed to the policies that place American troops in harm's way -- indeed, that keep them in harm's way longer than they bargained for -- even though it is clear that those policies have led to insurgency and civil war."
The other says, "I enlisted in the military during the Vietnam War and served in combat. I have opposed the policies that opened Iraq to insurgency and civil war and increased the dangers to our troops. I noted the other day that the young volunteers in our all-volunteer military tend to be academic underachievers, for whom the military presents an attractive and economically rewarding option."
You are told that one of these men has less respect for America's troops than the other.
Mr./Ms. Martian, whom would you choose?
Posted by Eric at 2:36 PM | Comments (4)