Skimming the Kitzmiller opinion (pdf file here) issued earlier today by the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, I couldn't help but suffer a little grief over the retirement of Justice O'Connor, who gave us the endorsement test, and thus a level-headed approach to the Establishment Clause. My concern is that today's opinion might be overruled as reliant on outdated jurisprudence, out of step with today's more conservative appellate jurists. Only time will tell, but for now, I'm thankful that a judge has taken the time to stem the tide of what seems to me to be a clearly misleading educational requirement.
And while we're on the subject of political brainwashing, what's up with warrantless domestic wiretap surveillance? As I understand it, the law provides for investigators to approach a secret court to obtain a warrant based on evidence less stringent than the usual 'probable cause' for searches in a criminal investigation...so we lower the bar for the security-hawks, and still they skip the steps, not just in emergency, time-sensitive situations, but over the course of months and years. It can't be that they just didn't know about the warrant process; they made the arbitrary decision that they just didn't have to follow it. Strange because this statute makes it a federal crime to engage in domestic wiretap surveillance except if authorized by going through the process of getting a court order approving the tap. I watched Russ Feingold on C-SPAN last night get worked up over the issue, and read today's Talking Points Memo posts by Josh Marshall. I hope the brouhaha doesn't get smothered by the Christmas break in the action and another revelation. And I wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald is paying attention...I suspect there are some big fish to reel in on this one.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Say it again, George
I haven't taken the time to do a word-by-word comparison between Bush 43's address tonight
from the Oval Office and his speech last Wednesday that I remarked on in an earlier post, but many of the same catch phrases and sound bites showed up.
It leaves me wondering:
When did "the Architect" decide that George had done well enough in his four 'strike-back-at-Murtha' speeches that he could do a credible encore presentation? Seems to me that it must have been after Dec. 14th, because his talk at the Woodrow Wilson Center had been billed as the last in a series.
It leaves me thinking:
When will Amerca stop accepting the conflation of the "enemy," the "terrorists," and Iraq?
I'm glad to see Bush 43 admit that his intelligence was wrong about WMD, but he and Rumsfeld constantly use pronouns (the departed Paul Wolfowitz was a master at this) to slide among Saddam and al Qaeda and the insurgents fighting against the Americans in the Gulf. Are they not different parties with vastly different interests? Who, exactly, is the "enemy?"
Bush 43 asked tonight for patience from those who doubted his decision to invade Iraq, and asked us not to criticize or demand justification for our troops' sacrifice, lest we be "defeatists."
I'm no defeatist; I just want the truth!
It proves Wolffe right:
The cover article titled "Bush in a Bubble"in the Dec. 19, 2005 Newsweek highlighted Bush's isolation and his black-and-white perspective on world events, contrasting it with the multi-faceted argruments forming the policies of FDR and Clinton. Bush fit that description perfectly with his "victory or defeat" options. The problem is: how do you determine victory here? In 2003, the election of a parliament in Iraq would surely have been considered "victory," but now, 3 days after such an election, there are still US troops in harm's way, and a call to the mysterious "victory." I'm proud of our armed forces; they've accomplished great things on a shoestring budget and with less-than-optimal staffing. Now they deserve to know what it is they're doing, and who it is they're pursuing, and so do the American people.
from the Oval Office and his speech last Wednesday that I remarked on in an earlier post, but many of the same catch phrases and sound bites showed up.
It leaves me wondering:
When did "the Architect" decide that George had done well enough in his four 'strike-back-at-Murtha' speeches that he could do a credible encore presentation? Seems to me that it must have been after Dec. 14th, because his talk at the Woodrow Wilson Center had been billed as the last in a series.
It leaves me thinking:
When will Amerca stop accepting the conflation of the "enemy," the "terrorists," and Iraq?
I'm glad to see Bush 43 admit that his intelligence was wrong about WMD, but he and Rumsfeld constantly use pronouns (the departed Paul Wolfowitz was a master at this) to slide among Saddam and al Qaeda and the insurgents fighting against the Americans in the Gulf. Are they not different parties with vastly different interests? Who, exactly, is the "enemy?"
Bush 43 asked tonight for patience from those who doubted his decision to invade Iraq, and asked us not to criticize or demand justification for our troops' sacrifice, lest we be "defeatists."
I'm no defeatist; I just want the truth!
It proves Wolffe right:
The cover article titled "Bush in a Bubble"in the Dec. 19, 2005 Newsweek highlighted Bush's isolation and his black-and-white perspective on world events, contrasting it with the multi-faceted argruments forming the policies of FDR and Clinton. Bush fit that description perfectly with his "victory or defeat" options. The problem is: how do you determine victory here? In 2003, the election of a parliament in Iraq would surely have been considered "victory," but now, 3 days after such an election, there are still US troops in harm's way, and a call to the mysterious "victory." I'm proud of our armed forces; they've accomplished great things on a shoestring budget and with less-than-optimal staffing. Now they deserve to know what it is they're doing, and who it is they're pursuing, and so do the American people.
Friday, December 16, 2005
The Prism of Time
Nothing amazes me more than history's generalizations and exaggerations of the tales of victory.
The movie "Braveheart" may lead with the quote "I tell of a man named Wallace," but we Americans know much more about, (and owe our existence to) the British Empire, and not the Scots.
Bush 43's speech on Wednesday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars gave me the sense that the errors and fallacies leading us into the second war against Iraq will be forgotten. If yesterday's elections successfully leave Iraq with a government more stable than Canada's tumultuous parliament, then I'm starting to believe that democracy could indeed spread in the Middle East, a position I never would have taken in the days before the 2003 invasion, and certainly not in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, 2001.
Don't look now, Harry Reid, but the main man in the White House is looking (and sounding) better than before. And while G. Spinach still supports the Dems and their populism, the long view might have us looking like the isolationists keeping the U.S. out of both World Wars, and in both cases, for too long indeed.
G. Spinach
The movie "Braveheart" may lead with the quote "I tell of a man named Wallace," but we Americans know much more about, (and owe our existence to) the British Empire, and not the Scots.
Bush 43's speech on Wednesday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars gave me the sense that the errors and fallacies leading us into the second war against Iraq will be forgotten. If yesterday's elections successfully leave Iraq with a government more stable than Canada's tumultuous parliament, then I'm starting to believe that democracy could indeed spread in the Middle East, a position I never would have taken in the days before the 2003 invasion, and certainly not in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, 2001.
Don't look now, Harry Reid, but the main man in the White House is looking (and sounding) better than before. And while G. Spinach still supports the Dems and their populism, the long view might have us looking like the isolationists keeping the U.S. out of both World Wars, and in both cases, for too long indeed.
G. Spinach
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The Luttig Strikes Back
Now that the easy pickin's for this decade's Supreme Court retirements/vacancies have come to fruition, and their respective posts have either been filled, or virtually a lock to be filled, it seems that the vying candidates left in the cold have little incentive to ingratiate themselves with the Administration.
In fact, it may be time for a little revenge...
In the 4th Circuit, Luttig's typically conservative pen took a mighty swing against the war-on-terror-mongers in the Padilla case, as reported in last week's ABA eJournal: here.
When there's time, we'll have to see what Lady Clement is up to these days.
G. Spinach
In fact, it may be time for a little revenge...
In the 4th Circuit, Luttig's typically conservative pen took a mighty swing against the war-on-terror-mongers in the Padilla case, as reported in last week's ABA eJournal: here.
When there's time, we'll have to see what Lady Clement is up to these days.
G. Spinach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)