Notes from the Hovel

Occasional Blogger Rants About an L.A. Times Article

2011-12-30T08:32:00.000-08:00

Given the title of this post, one would expect it to contain a rant about an L.A. Times article.

Given the following L.A. Times headline: "Annual Total of Death Sentences in California Falls to 10", and sub-headline: "The prior two years had each seen capital punishment ordered for 29 criminals. Analysts say a broken appeals process is driving the trend, and some observers cite tight budgets prosecutors face," one would think the article would focus on how the appeals system somehow became "broken" in the last year in a way it was not broken the last two years where nearly three times as many executions were ordered. One would probably expect some evidence supporting that conclusion. One might also expect some explanation of how a one-year drop in death sentences can be considered a trend. One's expectations would be left unfulfilled.

The first mention of anything about the appeals process being a cause of the single-year decline in death sentences comes in the article's third paragraph, which begins, "Legal analysts on both sides of the debate say a broken appeals process is driving the trend." But this lone sentence is the only reference to this supposed problem until 12 paragraphs later. And that paragraph, the only other one referencing California's "broken" appeals system, does not cite "legal analysts on both sides of the debate." Rather, it relies on a single quote from Kent Scheidegger from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an organization dedicated to removing legal obstacles to executing defendants.

Mr. Scheidegger says only that the time and cost of appeals continues to increase "as defendants and defense lawyers drag things out."

And that's it. The entirety of the evidence for the proposition that a broken appeals process has caused a decline in executions ordered in California over the last year is an unsupported statement from an organization dedicated to removing legal obstacles to executions claiming that defendants and defense lawyers drag out the process.

There are no statements from legal analysts "on both sides of the debate." Nor does the Times provide any empirical evidence for the dubious idea that an anomalous one-year decline in executions stems from a flawed appeals system. This claim, of course, makes little sense in the absence of any evidence the appeals system has recently changed in a manner which would discourage death sentences viz-a-viz the baseline period.

It appears the Times has simply chosen to mindlessly and unjustifiably repeat the oft-stated bit of conventional wisdom that a criminal justice system with the highest incarceration rate in the world coddles criminals to the detriment of crime victims and society as a whole. The absence of evidence for this narrative failed to stand in the way of a good story.

Pal Morgan addresses possibly the most important environmental issue of our day

2011-11-28T21:27:00.000-08:00

Pandas still exist

President Obama: He's Just Like (B)Us!(h)

2011-09-02T08:19:00.000-07:00

Back in March of 2008, President George W. Bush went against the advice of his own EPA's scientists, sacrificing the well-being and even lives of literally thousands of Americans a year. Scientists recommended setting ground-level ozone (smog) limits at 60 to 70 parts per billion (ppb), yet Bush's EPA set the level at 75 ppb, down from the previous limit of 84 ppb.

According to the EPA's scientists at the time, setting the limit at 75 ppb instead of 65 ppb would result in between 1,700 and 5,700 premature deaths per year.

For this reason, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer rightly called the move "outrageous," adding, "The Bush Administration would have us replace clean air standards driven by science with standards based on the interests of polluters."

Today, President Obama pulled a draft EPA recommendation which current EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson had said back in January 2010 would recommend the limit be placed between 60 and 70 ppb - the same range Bush-era EPA scientists recommended. Jackson said she chose to revisit the standard because the level set by the Bush administration was significantly higher than that recommended by EPA scientists at the time.

Mr. Obama claimed he rejected the draft because:

“Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013,” Obama said. “Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered.”

I'm sure it is a coincidence that Mr. Obama, who knew for twenty months that the EPA was going to recommend changing the standard to within the 60 to 70 ppb range, abruptly pulled the draft and decided reconsideration should be delayed until 2013 about six weeks after "several major trade associations held a joint conference call with reporters to suggest that the EPA postpone the new standards until 2013."

In addition to all the jobs created for oncologists and inhaler manufacturers, Obama's Bush-like fealty to business interests over scientific consensus will put another few thousand people in the grave and off the unemployment line. So there's that.

Security Consequences of U.S. Policies in the "War on Terror"

2011-06-13T08:09:00.000-07:00

Interesting piece by Gabor Rona on how U.S. policy has alienated our allies and led to less cooperation in fighting terrorism.

Episode 1: Party of None

2011-04-22T16:59:00.000-07:00

Swift Justice moves to Youtube

A couple links to public sector union stuff

2011-02-24T12:48:00.000-08:00

I'm not really sure how I feel about public sector unions as a general matter. But being a liberal, I felt obligated to see if there was something to the widely-held view among conservatives that they are a bad thing.

So here is an informative article on that subject from the Fall, 2010 issue of National Affairs, written by Daniel DiSalvo: The Trouble With Public Sector Unions

And if you're looking for a reason to really hate public sector unions, read this article from the L.A. Times: California Prison Guards Union Called Main Obstacle to Keeping Cellphones Away from Inmates

It's actually worse than the headline makes it sound. It seems pretty clear that prison employees, who regularly smuggle phones into prison, do not want to have to stop smuggling phones into prison because they can make up to $1,000 per phone. And their influence is enough to keep the legislature from criminalizing smuggling phones into prisons.

Turns out I was totally right about the Anti-Raiders conspiracy

2011-02-20T20:59:00.000-08:00

January 19, 2002 - The nation, still reeling from being attacked by a band of terrorist raiders, needed hope as we embarked on the new global war on terror. We need a symbol, a patriotic symbol, to rally behind.

Hence, the Snow Job, where the NFL invented a rule so that the Patriots could defeat the far superior Raiders and go on to begin one of the league's most successful dynasties - one that may even outlast the dynasty the U.S. military has established in the middle east.

This was only a theory, of course, until Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed by the Financial Times this past Super Bowl Sunday, and spilled the beans, saying:

"Nobody could support the Raiders. They're evil."

We know Jose Padilla is probably out of luck tying to sue Rumsfeld, but I can only hope the Raider Nation can still pursue justice over this.

Suprised I hadn't heard about this

2011-02-20T10:58:00.000-08:00

Federal judge Thomas Porteous got impeached in December for being almost as corrupt as the senators who impeached him. Way to accept tons of cash and favors from people who want you to rule in their favor (or in the case of the bail bondsman, set bail higher so they make more money). In a democracy, Tommy, you can only accept cash and favors from people who want you to pass laws and regulations in their favor.

Two fun facts:

Porteous has the distinction of being only the eighth federal judge to be impeached.

His attorney argued "that many of the practices [Porteous engaged in] – such as accepting favors and expensive meals – were common in the Louisiana legal community." Of course they are. It's Louisiana, a land where the governor believes monitoring volcanos located near major population centers is a waste of money. Those people have no sense.

Obama says you get medical care even if your doctor is a Republican

2011-02-18T11:07:00.000-08:00

The federal government did something good, and I'm writing about it. First time for everything. From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration rescinded most of a federal regulation Friday designed to protect health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable on personal or religious grounds.

I blogged about this when the Bush administration was proposing this regulation, and am glad to see it go. Basically, the law was designed to allow health care providers to deny contraception, family planning advice, abortions, end of life care, etc. if providing those services violated their ethical or religious beliefs. It follows, of course, that a patient's access to those services would be proscribed by the ethical or religious beliefs of her health care provider. In certain communities and in some situations, this could even result certain care being difficult or even impossible to obtain.

Good job, Obama. Now if you will just stop acting like Bush when it comes to executive power, I just might vote for you.

And 2011 begins with, what else...

2010-12-31T19:05:00.000-08:00

Another 'pivotal moment' for the war in Afghanistan. From the L.A. Times:

2011 Seen as Make-or-Break Year for Afghan Mission

Of course, we are due for a pivotal moment in the war, as it has been six months since John McCain took the initiative in making the semi-annual pivotal moment proclamation which U.S. politicians have been making like clockwork for several years now.

But I'm sure this time they mean it. And far be it for me to suggest that having a pivotal moment in the war every few months for several years sort of suggests we are simply refusing to extricate ourselves from an unwinnable war. That sort of talk, unlike spilling billions of dollars from our coffers and gallons of blood on the Afghan soil, would be unpatriotic.

In case any of us still have the attention span to watch an hour long discussion about abortion

2010-12-26T11:45:00.001-08:00

Really interesting discussion about the legal and political climate leading up to Roe v. Wade.

Before Roe vs. Wade: Voices that Shaped The Abortion Debate" from Yale Law Librarians on Vimeo.

Please hurry up and win so we can fire you

2010-12-11T14:57:00.000-08:00

According to a July report by the Congressional Research Service, there are 207,600 private contractors employed by the Department of Defense in Iraq and Afghanistan, compared with 175,000 uniformed soldiers. This means that we are in fact using an army made up mostly of mercenaries. This also means that for 54% of the people we have over there, ending the occupation means being out of a job and returning to the United States at a time when unemployment is just under 10%.

Moreover, since it would be politically impossible to increase troop levels, contractors are essentially irreplaceable, regardless of whether or not they are effective. So in addition to having a good reason to want the occupations to continue, contractors have little incentive to successfully complete the tasks to which they are assigned.

Just something to think about as we wonder why our now mostly privatized army has not yet accomplished its mission in either country.

Rick Pitino demands efficient execution

2010-08-11T15:09:00.000-07:00

Karen Sypher, who met and had sex with Rick Pitino at an Italian restaurant, was recently convicted of extortion for claiming she was raped after Pitino refused her demands for money and gifts.

From the New York Times article on the case, which was apparently written by someone who wants Pitino to be mocked by his friends for the rest of his life:

Pitino said the sex lasted ''15 seconds'' and was ''unfortunate.''

Rick Pitino: great coach; goes limp faster than Michael Spinks.

The Anti (ish) Defamation League and NY's Cordoba House

2010-07-30T13:01:00.000-07:00

Here is the Anti-Defamation League's mission statement:

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

And here is the Anti-Defamation League's public stance regarding the building of the Codoba House NYC, an Islamic community center near Ground Zero:

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

I don't see anything in the ADL's mission statement dealing with saving the families of terrorism victims from unnecessary pain. And so at first blush it seems somewhat odd the ADL would feel compelled to issue a public statement on the issue at all.

But especially interesting is what the ADL's statement leaves out. We are not told how it is exactly that the presence of an Islamic community center near the site of the attack would cause some victims unnecessary pain. But the answer is to that question is obvious: some victims, like most others who oppose the center, conflate Islam with terrorism, and Muslims with terrorists. For this reason, the ADL is correct to some extent - the community center will cause some victims pain as a result of their associating the center and the Muslims who use it with the men who flew planes into the Twin Towers. While acknowledging the right of Muslims to build a community center at the proposed site, the ADL argues it "is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right." And to the ADL, some people cannot see a Muslim without thinking about terrorists, Muslims should show their respect and sympathy for those people by relocating their center (whose purpose is "promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture") to a less controversial site.

And this is exactly why the ADL's public stance opposing the community center runs counter to its mission "to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." Which, of course, is the reason the ADL could not articulate the basis for its position - a group which is dedicated to ending religious bigotry cannot ask Muslims desiring to build a center dedicated to tolerance and integration to defer to bigots without simultaneously exposing itself as being hostile to Islam and Muslims. But considering the ADL had no legitimate reason to enter the debate in the first place (at least based on its self-stated justification for doing so), and chose to take a position running counter to is ostensible mission in order to oppose the center, it is difficult to find another motivation besides an organizational prejudice against Islam.

Afghanistan pivotal moment watch, John McCain edition

2010-07-06T13:43:00.000-07:00

Another day, another make-or-break moment in an American foreign war...

As of July 5, 2010, securing Kandahar is the key to winning in Afghanistan:

"The Taliban know that Kandahar is the key to success or failure, so what happens in this operation will have a great effect on the outcome of this conflict," McCain said.

Despite rising casualties among allied forces, McCain expressed confidence that the NATO military operation would succeed.

"I'm convinced we can succeed and will succeed in Kandahar. It's obviously the key area and if we succeed there, we will succeed in the rest of this struggle," McCain said.

Here's a fun game: put in 'Afghanistan' or 'Iraq' along with 'pivotal,' 'crucial' or 'decisive' to google and see how many of times those wars were won or lost.

According to the Robert Gates, for example, Iraq was won about three years ago, since January of 2007 was the pivotal time.

General Stanley McChrystal, on the other hand, declared the Taliban was winning as of August 13, 2009, and gives us about 35 days to show clear results in Afghanistan. That was apparently both a "critical" AND "decisive" time.

And that's just a small sampling of the number of times our leaders have told us the war was about to be won or lost. Nor does there seem to be any end to the number of moments pundits and media outlets considered pivotal, crucial and decisive.

Maybe it's just me, but when our 'winning' a war equates with our ability to withdraw and leave behind a stable democracy, and after numerous make-or-break moments we are not able to do that, sort of sounds like those moments didn't go so well for us.

Well, thank God the Fourth Estate has both the memory and balls of a goldfish or else we'd be forced to listen to our leaders give us some answers. And I don't imagine that would be so good for our self esteem.

BONUS QUESTION: What does 'losing' mean if not a state of affairs where the most powerful military in the world is spending hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and several years, yet is unable to overcome a small, disorganized and impoverished enemy? Since it is an impossibility for the Taliban to actually drive out U.S. forces involuntarily or take formal control of the government, what, realistically, could be a worse outcome at this stage of the war then where we currently stand?

Where have we heard this before?

2010-04-02T15:27:00.000-07:00

Q: How does a nation know it is winning a war? A: When the enemy has stopped fighting, or when the enemy is fighting harder.

Today's L.A. Times: Camp Pendleton General: Expect more killing in Afghanistan's Helmand province

A top general at Camp Pendleton who is departing to become the top Marine in Afghanistan said this week he expects more violence by Taliban fighters in Helmand province.
Maj. Gen. Richard Mills said the Taliban is desperate to regain momentum after being driven from its Helmand province stronghold in Marja a month ago by a Marine-led assault.
"I think the Taliban commander is back on his heels,'' Mills said. "He's losing Helmand province."
Unwilling to fight the Marines head-on, the Taliban will increasingly resort to suicide bombings and roadside bombs, even if the victims are Afghan civilians, Mills said.
"He's resorting to tactics of terrorism and intimidation," Mills said. "...An IED (improvised explosive device) doesn't differentiate between killing Marines and killing children on their way to school."

So we have a top military official saying that increased violence is actually indicative of the progress we're making against the insurgents. But he's not the first prominent public servant to make such a claim:

Fox News, October 27, 2003: Bush: Progress in Iraq Making Insurgents 'Desperate'

Despite two days of audacious, deadly attacks, President Bush insisted Monday that the United States is making progress in Iraq and said American successes are actually spurring the violence by making insurgents more desperate.

The article cites Howard Dean, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman as being critical of the President's claim that increased violence could be a sign of the insurgency's desperation, with Lieberman going so far as to say "it makes no sense," and Kerry likening the statement to the "light at the end of the tunnel" rhetoric from Vietnam.

Which of these fine gentleman will stand up and say the same now that it is Obama's war? More important, when will we as a nation stop accepting these nonsensical claims from our military officials and politicians?

Corey Haim, R.I.P.

2010-03-10T15:18:00.000-08:00

Anti-Defamation League Decries Israeli Defense Force as Anti-Semitic

2010-02-02T12:48:00.000-08:00

I mean, presumably, right, since a report by the IDF released Friday states that the IDF committed war crimes during the Gaza invasion. Doesn't that qualify under the ADL's definition of an anti-Semite? Answer: Yes. And yes.

The Decade's Top 5 Porn Titles Based on NYT Best Selling Nonfiction

2010-01-10T16:36:00.000-08:00

For some reason (probably because it is essentially a hentai version of Last Samurai meets Ferngully ever made) while watching Avatar I began thinking of titles for porn movies based on bestselling nonfiction books from the past decade. And so here's the list:

5. The Five People You Meat in Heaven
4. Two Gays With Morrie
3. The Seven Inches of Highly Effective People
2. Chicken Soup for the Hole
1. Eats, Shoots & Leaves

What is it about Thursday night college football that makes announcers unable to say anything intelligent?

2009-11-12T18:45:00.000-08:00

Q: In what world does the color guy decided to start talking in the middle of a drive about how he swears he saw Jeff Gordon in Manhattan yesterday while he was there with his family?

A: In the same world where Mark May asks, "Wow, did you see that run!" and Lou Holtz replies, "Yes."

While I'm venting, can announcers stop acting like every strategic decision should be decided based on how it's going to make everyone feel? Really, the coach should go for it on 4th and 2 from the 30 because his team needs to feel like they're able to move the ball? They shouldn't, I don't know, look at things like how likely they are to make it versus making the field goal? No? OK, every announcer ever. Thank you for your being really smart and understanding how football works. And by football, I mean facebook.

SWIFT JUSTICE: THE LOGAN SWIFT STORY: Episode 8 "Dial W for WTF"

2009-11-10T15:53:00.000-08:00

Episode 8 of Swift Justice, (Season 1 now available on DVD) was a special three-parter, making it the subject of two straight weeks of discussions around America's water coolers. Notes from the Hovel is proud to present the script:

ACT 1:

INT: A dive bar just of State Street.

(LOGAN enters, stumbling drunk, with his friend KATI. LOGAN proceeds to karaoke to the juke box. A HOT BARTENDER looks on.)

LOGAN: you're pretty...mgmmmhhh... i'll hab a nuvver Jackn'coke.

HOT BARTENDER: For some reason I find your antics charming. Also, my name is LAUREN.

(LOGAN slobbers on himself and returns to the juke box. He sings Lean on Me and leads the bar in clapping along. LOGAN gives LAUREN his number and stumbles along his merry way, in what could accurately be described as the worst attempt to hit on a woman he had engaged in for days.)
---------
INT: A different bar, happy hour, a week later. LOGAN and LAUREN are having drinks.

LAUREN: I certainly have enjoyed this first date-type experience.

LOGAN: As have I.

LAUREN: I have a BOYFRIEND.

LOGAN: Well, I'm not going to be dating you while you have a BOYFRIEND, I don't do that shit.

LAUREN: Totally. We've been together for like 3 years, but I've been trying to end it.

LOGAN: OK, well, still not going to get involved in that.

LAUREN: Lame.

LOGAN: Well said. Then I propose a compromise: No one can get upset about two friends who happen to want to do each other hanging out in broad daylight, right? So we can hang out, but only while the sun is up. That is in no way morally ambiguous or inviting trouble.

LAUREN: And what about inappropriately flirty text messages?

LOGAN: And inappropriately flirty text messages.
------------

EXT: A parking garage, around midnight, two months later.

LOGAN: So, thanks for calling me and telling me you finally broke up with your BOYFRIEND.

LAUREN: No problem. Thanks for meeting me late at night in this parking garage. Which is a completely unreasonable place to meet for something like this.

(they kiss.)

LAUREN: Well, that certainly resolved itself well. I broke up with BOYFRIEND, and now we are free to start dating.

LOGAN: Yep, looks like a happy ending for all involved. Can't imagine this going horribly wrong in any way whatsoever.

END ACT I
-----------------------------
ACT II

INT: Yet another bar, late in the evening. LAUREN is bartending.

LAUREN: I've got to close up.

LOGAN: Since I still live with my mom in Goleta, which is terribly pathetic, I will go to my office and pass out. Give me a call when you're off.

LAUREN: I will do that, because there is absolutely nowhere else for me to go at 2:30 in the morning, seeing as you and I are dating.

LOGAN: Super. I look forward to impending nakedness.
------------

INT: The floor of LOGAN'S office, 5:00 a.m., LOGAN awakes.

LOGAN: Looks like I've got a missed call from LAUREN. It would be a good idea to call her back at 5:00 a.m.

(He does.)

MALE VOICE: Hello.

LOGAN: Who's this?

MALE VOICE: This is OFFICER JOHNSON. Why are you calling LAUREN'S phone? I'm going to sound cranky for no reason.

LOGAN: Well, we're dating, douchebag.

JOHNSON: Well, would it surprise you that she went over to her boyfriend's house tonight and beat him up?

LOGAN: That was unexpected, yes.

JOHNSON: Do you know where she is? She just took off and no one can find her.

LOGAN: No.

(LOGAN hangs up and, fearing LAUREN did something drastic, frantically tries to locate her. he fails. Later that morning, he leaves for a wedding in Cambria, where he has no cell phone reception.)

EXT: A car. LOGAN is returning from Cambria. He answers his phone, it is LAUREN'S SISTER, ALLISON.

ALLISON: LAUREN is in jail. She's charged with domestic violence. She went over to BOYFRIEND'S house and found him in bed with a girl he had been cheating on her with. They got into a fight.

LOGAN: Clearly the logical thing would be for LOGAN SWIFT'S FIRM to represent her in this matter.

(THE FIRM does. The charges are dropped, as is LAUREN.)

END ACT II
---------------------
EPILOGUE:

EXT: State Street. 6 months later. LOGAN lives downtown now and is walking home from the bars. A HOT BLOND CHICK and a SKANKY OLDER WOMAN WITH FAKE TITS walk by. LOGAN and the HOT BLOND CHICK make eye contact.

LOGAN: My you are an attractive young woman.

HOT BLOND CHICK: Yes I am. In fact I there is no reason I should be receptive to your advances because I am sober and guys hit on me all the time. My name is SARAH, by the way.

LOGAN: Well, lets see if I can manage five good minutes of charming conversation, shall we?

(He does. LOGAN and SARAH agree to meet for a drink.)

INT: A different bar, several days later. LOGAN and SARAH are sitting together.

LOGAN: Wow, you are cool, beautiful and like country music. Pretty much that's all I'm looking for.

SARAH: All those things are true. And inexplicably, I am attracted to you. In fact, I expect during our next interaction, you will likely see me at least partially naked.

LOGAN: Huzzah! Things are looking up.

------

INT: LOGAN'S apartment. He receives a text from SARAH

SARAH: "Do u know a girl named LAUREN?"

LOGAN: Hmm. Santa Barbara is a small town, and LAUREN is a bartender. There can be any number of reasons these two would know each other. I will text her back "Yes. Why?"

(He does.)

SARAH: "I was the girl in bed with her boyfriend."

(LOGAN immediately calls SARAH.)

LOGAN: Seriously?

SARAH: No. Actually, I'm roommates with her boyfriend and I was over at the house when the whole thing went down. So, I can't really date you because as far as my roommate is concerned you're the guy who was fucking his girlfriend. Sounds impossibly unlucky, doesn't it, that due to this crazy coincidence, though no fault of your own you are now precluded from entertaining yourself with my fabulous breasts?

LOGAN: Wow. God hates me, doesn't he?

SARAH: That would seem to be the case.

END.

Modern Sounds in Country and Western Idiocy

2009-10-28T08:32:00.001-07:00

In addition to being troubling, this is just poor work, Mr. Willams, Jr. You can do better:

Also amusing is that the original song is about the Williams family being a bunch of boozers.
----------------------------
I feel I must now defend country music's good name, so here is a song by Emmylou Harris and her band of redneck hippies:

Much better. Thanks, Emmylou.

Go see Cal!

2009-10-18T19:21:00.000-07:00

It took all my strength to stop myself from citing Cal Worthington and his dog spot in the appeal I am currently drafting. Read this piece in the NY Times on him and you will understand. He is awesome.

And here's the man in action:

George Lopez is a robot sent from the future to make us groan during NLCS games

2009-10-16T19:37:00.000-07:00

OK, so I don't know what to make of this story in the NY Times:

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

In a related story, it is an absolute crime that the show Voyagers! is not available on DVD.
-----------------------
How is it possible that the George Lopez show can be so funny, and the promo for the new George Lopez late night talk show during today's Dodgers/Phillies game was perhaps the least funny joke I have heard this year. It was essentially "Baseball is getting more high tech all the time. The other day I saw the catcher text the pitcher what to throw." Honestly, George.

In a mildly related story, I once had a Reno cocktail waitress/self-described witch sneak me into a Jay Leno performance. Surprisingly vulgar that guy. Epilogue: The witch later confessed she once tried to run her ex-boyfriend over while he was standing on his front lawn. She seemed nice enough to me.

Bush admin. suppressed its own EPA's climate change report

2009-10-13T23:30:00.000-07:00

This tells you everything you need to know about how much the Bush administration cared about the country's welfare:

Reporting from Washington - The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded -- based on science -- that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.

The report, known as an "endangerment finding," was done in 2007. The Bush White House refused to make it public because it opposed new government efforts to regulate the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming.

Bill Moyers is your cool grampa

2009-10-10T14:01:00.000-07:00

and here is your cool grampa calling out Congress for being owned by the health care industry

I may need to implement an "OMG WTF" tag

2009-10-08T12:46:00.000-07:00

... because police officers in Tenaha, Texas are just straight up robbing people. Basically, they pull people over and threaten to charge them with money laundering unless they turn over their cash and jewelry:

Texas law allows police to confiscate drug money and other personal property they believe are used in the commission of a crime. If no charges are filed or the person is acquitted, the property has to be returned. But Guillory's lawsuit states that Tenaha and surrounding Shelby County don't bother to return much of what they confiscate.
Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson said they agreed to forfeit their property after Russell threatened to have their children taken away.
Like Daniels, the couple says they were carrying a large amount of cash --- about $6,000 -- to buy a car. When they were stopped in Tenaha in 2007, Boatright said, Russell came to the Tenaha police station to berate her and threaten to separate the family.
"I said, 'If it's the money you want, you can take it, if that's what it takes to keep my children with me and not separate them from us. Take the money,' " she said.

The document Henderson signed, which bears Russell's signature, states that in exchange for forfeiting the cash, "no criminal charges shall be filed ... and our children shall not be turned over" to the state's child protective services agency.

[...]

Guillory, who practices in nearby Nacogdoches, Texas, estimates authorities in Tenaha seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008, and in about 150 cases -- virtually all of which involved African-American or Latino motorists -- the seizures were improper.

Who Would Jesus Claim is a Kenyan Communist-Nazi Muslim?

2009-10-05T11:46:00.000-07:00

Try to fit those initials on a string bracelet you made at camp.

It's been awhile since I've perused Conservapedia. Glad to know they haven't stopped fighting the good fight. Presenting the Conservative Bible Project. A movement to replace the liberal bias from the Bible with the 21st Century right-wing American bias the Good Lord intended.

(To those who believe I've got no sense of propriety, I'd like to point out that I decided against the original title for this post, "Jesus was a Teabagger.")

Guess which one gets sanctioned/bombed?

2009-09-29T09:01:00.000-07:00

September 29, 2009 - Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a country currently without nuclear weapons, refuses to discuss its recently revealed nuclear facility at upcoming talks in Geneva, but states it will soon offer a timetable for international inspectors to visit the site. Iran has previously cooperated with IAEA inspectors and is arguably in compliance with its duties under the treaty with regard to the newly-revealed facility.

September 18, 2009 - Israel, one of only four countries who are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with India, Pakistan and North Korea), vows not to cooperate with a U.N. resolution calling on it to allow inspection of of its nuclear capabilities. Israel has never allowed inspections, and refuses to even acknowledge whether it has nuclear weapons, although it is "universally believed to possess a sizable arsenal of such warheads."

Have you ever noticed...

2009-09-23T19:37:00.000-07:00

... that you never see Muammar Qaddafi and Zombie Bert in the same place at the same time?

Just saying.

And this is what the Raiders have become...

2009-09-21T23:40:00.000-07:00

From the Oakland Tribune, after the Raiders 13-10 win over the Chief's yesterday:

Among the game balls awarded by Cable were to punter Shane Lechler and place-kicker Sebastian Janikowski, who the coach said "put this team on their back and carried us yesterday."

I don't even know what to say about this, other than that I hope coach Cable has a very dry sense of humor.

Side note: it might be a consolation to Raiders management as they lament their absolutely horrid recent draft history, that if the NFL were to have a league-wide punt/pass/kick competition, the combination of Lechler, Russell/Janikowski would be a heavy favorite.

That is the same Jamarcus Russell has completed 35.2 percent of his passes this year and is making 8.7 billion dollars this season.

What I learned on my trip to Las Vegas

2009-09-21T17:13:00.001-07:00

Took a rather mellow trip to Vegas with the lady this weekend (after a stop at the Phoenix/Metric show at the Greek Theater in L.A.). Here's what I learned:

Steve Wilkos - the bouncer/security guy from Jerry Springer, now has his own talk show. On the episode I saw he was lecturing a wayward teen about disrespecting his girlfriend/mother-of-his-children, just prior to revealing the results of a lie detector test about his cheating. Yes, that is the same Steve whose qualifications to lecture wayward teens include have wrestled several of them to the ground in the mid 90's. And this is not the most disturbing thing about the show. The most disturbing thing about the show is that while going to a commercial break, a message came on imploring viewers that if they knew about a child being abused or neglected, THEY SHOULD CALL STEVE." Not the cops. Not Child Protective Services. Steve. If someone knows of a child being abused or neglected, they should call Jerry Springer's former bouncer. Unbelievable.

Primm, NV - $15 rooms. But no discount for checking in at 3:45 a.m.

Need a room in Vegas on short notice but have not joined the 21st century? There's an app for that. Call your friend in Seattle who has internet access. Thanks, Matt.

If you're looking for a good dive bar off the Strip, try the Office Bar. It doubles as a liquor store, which makes it maddening to pay $4 for a beer that comes out of a $10 six pack, but other than that, great place.

People who live in New Jersey must have terrible lives. Because last weekend hundreds of them were willing to fly four hours to spend three hours standing in line to pay $50 to get into a club serving $12 drinks.

We now live in a world where persons not associated with the erotic arts believe it is a good idea to get novelty-sized breast implants.

California's State-Run Sweatshops

2009-09-15T14:16:00.000-07:00

What does the average American consumer want? Quality products at reasonable prices, manufactured by the nearly unpaid labor of California's prisoners.

Here's a catalog of all the wonderful products available for purchase from the California Prison Industry Authority.

According to the PIA, inmates are paid between $.30 to $.95 per hour, before deductions.

By contrast, here are some average wages from around the third world:

Well, they're doing better than the Vietnamese at least.

Rude Jude for California Assembly, District 72

2009-09-10T08:30:00.000-07:00

OK, I could care less about Mike Duvall and his sexual antics. I'm of the opinion that a politician's private sex life is his own business. But, this is too great. From Mr. Duvall's website:

"I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs. My offense was engaging in inappropriate story-telling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state."

This is what Duvall was caught saying on the Assembly floor when he didn't know his mike was on:

She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And  so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going  up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!

and

So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'

That's about Girl #1. On his other paramour:

And so her birthday was Monday. I was 54 on June 14, so for a month, she was 19 years younger than  me. I said, 'Now, you're getting old. I am going to have to trade you in.' And she goes, '[I'm] 36.' She is 18 years younger than me. And so I keep  teasing her, and she goes, 'I know you French men. You divide your age by  two and add seven, and if you're older than that, you dump us.

Seriously, I've heard better excuses on Jenny Jones. (most notably on that classic episode "They Said Cheating Wasn't Their Game, but the Lie Detector Proved Their Excuses Were Lame!") Which leads me to...

TOP FIVE MIKE DUVALL RELATED JENNY JONES EPISODES:

5. This Budget Crisis Sure Ain't Pleasin', but Neither is your Skeezin'

4. I Don't Care if He's G.O.P., Stay Away from My Man's B.O.D.

3. You Vehemently Opposed Same-Sex Marriage, Who's that Ho in Your Undercarriage?

2. I Thought My Husband Served the Golden State, but Why's He Stayin' Out so Late?

1. Out of Control State Assemblymen Show Off Their Hot Bodies and Don't Care What Anyone Thinks!

"I'm State Assemblyman Mike Duvall. I go out late, I smoke, I drink. I had sex with five guys last week, and can't no one tell me what to do! I hit my mom when she tells me to reach across the aisle! My constituents love my sexy body and I love the attention. Don't hate! You know you want this!"

Party Discipline and Health Care Reform

2009-09-09T11:57:00.001-07:00

Well, I'm going to try to start posting regularly again. Not sure why, but I am. Here is my less than exciting return:

So I'm a little confused about why a strong health reform bill with a public option can't pass the Senate, or at least couldn't have passed the Senate while Ted Kennedy was alive and there were 60 senators in the Democratic Caucus. It takes 51 votes to pass a bill, and I can't imagine Democrats couldn't find 51 votes for a relatively strong bill with a public option. The problem seems to be a cloture vote, which of course requires 60 votes. What I don't get is how Democrats who would oppose a strong reform bill can't at least be made to vote for cloture, even if they plan to vote against the actual bill. They can still tell their constituents they voted against the bill, and then make the reasonable case that despite their opposition, the right thing to do was to put the bill to a vote.

And seriously, what kind of party has so little control that it can't get its members to not filibuster their president's most important policy initiative? From the Democratic Party's perspective, if this legislation fails, they are looking at taking a big hit in upcoming elections. It is unbelievable to me that they are not putting more pressure on senators to at least agree to stop being obstructionist on this.

One more reason that failing to investigate the architects of torture is a bad idea

2009-08-11T10:28:00.000-07:00

So, let's say Eric Holder does appoint a special prosecutor who is charged only with investigating and prosecuting CIA agents who went beyond the torture guidelines set by OLC and DOJ. And let's he does successfully prosecute some of these agents. What happens next? Consider two near certainties that would come from prosecuting these agents:

More disturbing details will have come out during the investigations and trial as to the nature and extent of the Bush torture program, further demonizing those who orchestrated it.
The agents will have had their defense limited by the state secrets privilege. That is, the government will have prevented them from presenting certain evidence in because it would endanger national security.

We will have, then, a situation where the architects of the torture program, the big fish, will be further exposed as the guilty parties they are. At he same time, the most sympathetic figures, the people on the ground trying to follow orders to "protect our country" become the fall guys, and to add insult to injury, are arguably prevented from defending themselves.

What does this add up to? Successful prosecutions of CIA agents would be followed by public outcry, no doubt led by the G.O.P., to pardon "the brave men and women who did what they had to in order to protect our country." And considering the most culpable players in the torture regime would never have to stand trial, the agents would make especially sympathetic figures.

Many are portraying Holder's (read: Obama's) decision to avoid investigations of those in charge of the Bush torture program as a pragmatic one. That it would be too politically damaging. If that is the reason, it is a short-sighted one, as either the prosecutions will fail and appear to have been a partisan witch hunt, or they will succeed and Obama will be faced with either allowing the scapegoats to serve time while their bosses get off scot-free, or pardoning convicted torturers.

Not only, then, is failing to investigate those responsible for the torture program bad precedent, and downright immoral, but it is likely politically self-defeating as well.

A day in the life of a Gitmo detainee

2009-08-10T10:49:00.000-07:00

In light of the news that Attorney General Eric Holder is supposedly close to naming a special prosecutor to investigate interrogators who may have gone beyond the torture techniques authorized by the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel, I thought it might be interesting to post an example of what Holder's Justice Department believes a legal interrogation looks like.

From the Bradbury Memo, dated May 10, 2005:

(With the exception of a single citation to Techniques, all citations are to The Background Paper, and have been omitted for ease of reading. Footnotes have also been omitted. This memo can be read in its entirety here. Techniques can be read here.)

A Prototypical Interrogation

In a "prototypical interrogation," the detainee begins his first interrogation session stripped of his clothes, shackled, and hooded, with the walling collar over his head and around his neck.The interrogators remove the hood and explain that the detainee can improve his situation by cooperating and may say that the interrogators "will do what it takes to get important information." As soon as the detainee does anything inconsistent with the interrogators' instructions, the interrogators use an insult slap or abdominal slap. They employ walling [slamming the detainee against a wall, up to 20-30 times consecutively - Ed. note] if it becomes clear that the detainee is not cooperating in the interrogation. This sequence "may continue for several more iterations as the interrogators continue to measure the [detainee's] resistance posture and apply a negative consequence to [his] resistance efforts." The interrogators and security officers then put the detainee into position for standing sleep deprivation [to prevent the detainee from sleeping his hands and feet are shackled; the handcuffs are attached by a chain to the ceiling, the leg shackles are bolted to the floor; thus the detainee is kept standing and unable to move - Ed. note], begin dietary manipulation through a liquid diet, and keep the detainee nude (except for a diaper). The first interrogation session, which could have lasted from 30 minutes to several hours, would then be at an end.

If the interrogation team determines there is a need to continue, and if the medial and psychological personnel advise that there are no contraindications, a second session may begin. The interval between sessions could be as short as an hour or as long as 24 hours. At the start of the second session, the detainee is released from the position for standing sleep deprivation, is hooded, and is positioned against the walling wall, with the walling caller over his head and around his neck. Even before removing the hood, the interrogators use the attention grasp to startle the detainee. The interrogators take off the hood and begin questioning. If the detainee does not give appropriate answers to the first questions, the interrogators use an insult slap or abdominal slap. They employ walling if they determine that the detainee "is intent on maintaining his resistance posture." This sequence "may continue for multiple iterations as the interrogators continue to measure the [detainee's] resistance posture." The interrogators then increase the pressure on the detainee by using a hose to douse the detainee with water for several minutes. They stop and start the dousing as they continue the interrogation. They then end the session by placing the detainee into the same circumstances as at the end of the first session: the detainee is in the standing position for sleep deprivation, is nude (except for a diaper), and is subjected to dietary manipulation. Once again, the session could have lasted from 30 minutes to several hours.

Again, if the interrogation team determines there is a need to continue, and if the medical and psychological personnel find no contraindications, a third session may follow. The session begins with the detainee positioned as at the beginning of the second. If the detainee continues to resist, the interrogators continue to use walling and water dousing. The corrective techniques - the insult slap, the abdominal slap, the facial hold, the attention grasp - "may be used several times during this session based on the responses and actions of the [detainee]." The interrogators integrate stress positions and wall standing into the session. Furthermore, "[i]ntense questioning and walling would be repeated multiple times." Interrogators "use one technique to support another." For example, they threaten the use of walling unless the detainee holds a stress position, thus inducing the detainee to remain in the position longer than he otherwise would. At the end of the session, the interrogators and security personnel place the detainee into the same circumstance as at the end of the first two sessions, with the detainee subject to sleep deprivation, nudity, and dietary manipulation.

In later sessions, the interrogators use those techniques that are proving most effective and drop the others. Sleep deprivation "may continue to the 70 to 120 hour range, or possibly beyond for the hardest resisters, but in no case exceed the 180-hour time limit." If the medical or psychological personnel find contraindications, sleep deprivation will end earlier. While continuing the use of sleep deprivation, nudity, and dietary manipulation, the interrogators may add cramped confinement. As detainee begins to cooperate, the interrogators "begin gradually to decrease the use of interrogation techniques." They may permit the detainee to sit, supply clothes, and provide more appetizing food.

The entire process in this "prototypical interrogation" may last 30 days. If additional time is required and a new approval is obtained from headquarters, interrogation may go longer than 30 days. Nevertheless, "[o]n average, the actual use of interrogation techniques covers a period of three to seven days, but can vary upward to fifteen days based on the resilience of the [detainee]." As in Techniques, our advice here is limited to an interrogation process lasting no more than 30 days.

Nice Interview with Justice Ginsburg

2009-06-28T09:44:00.000-07:00

about why we need more women on the Supreme Court.

Another little interesting SCOTUS diversity fun fact: If Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed, 6 of the 9 Justices will be Roman Catholic.

John Roberts is the Angel Hernandez of SCOTUS Justices

2009-06-23T12:06:00.001-07:00

For some reason, I've decided to comment on two recent Supreme Court rulings which highlight Justice Roberts' glaring shortcomings:

I have to say that given the facts of the recent Supreme Court decision in Osborne, where the batshit crazy wing was joined by Justice Kennedy in ruling there is no right to post-conviction DNA testing, I don't think it is unreasonable that the particular defendant did not have a right to retesting. (The DNA test used in his case could only narrow the perpetrator down to 5% of the population, and his attorney decided not to have a more discriminating test done because she thought it might implicate him. In concurrence, Kennedy and Alito took this as an additional basis to deny DNA testing.) That being said, given the relatively minor expense of DNA testing, and its near-unique ability to prove innocence, it is unreasonable to deny access to testing for, at a minimum, those defendants who could not have their DNA tested at the time of their convictions. The Court's decision essentially acknowledges, uncaringly, that innocent people will remain behind bars simply because, through no fault of their own, DNA testing was not performed prior to their trials.

This line, in particular from Justice Roberts' majority opinion is classic Roberts stupidity:

The elected governments of the States are actively confronting the challenges DNA technology poses to our criminal justice systems and our traditional notions of finality, as well as the opportunities it affords. To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response.

Roberts seems to have a habit of putting what he considers practical implications of a decision ahead of the substantive issue. Here, he worries that finding a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing would throw a wrench into the States' attempts to legislate the issue. True or not, this does nothing to answer the question of whether such a right exists. If it does, inconveniencing the State legislatures cannot justify failing to recognize that fact. Further, Roberts' argument creates a paradox. If States are moving to create a statutory right to DNA testing, that means the Court should not step in to recognize a constitutional right. If, however, the States fail to recognize such a right, this, too suggests the Court should decline to as well. As Roberts put it:

Osborne seeks access to state evidence so that he can apply new DNA-testing technology that might prove him innocent. There is no long history of such a right, and “[t]he mere novelty of such a claim is reason enough to doubt that ‘substantive due process’ sustains it.” (Citing Reno v. Flores)

If the Court should not step in when many (but not all) are addressing an issue dealing with a fundamental liberty interest, and should be reluctant to find an interest when the States do not, when does the Court step in? If the Court's years under Roberts are any guide, almost never.

Another fine example of Roberts' attempt to obfuscate the issue, this time thankfully in dissent, is in Caperton v. Massey. In that case, the Court decided (with the batshit crazy wing all dissenting, of course) that it was unfair for an appeal to be heard by a judge who had benefited from millions of dollars in campaign contributions by one of the litigants, specifically so he could assume the bench on hear the case. The majority called this an "extraordinary case where the Constitution requires reversal," with facts that are "extreme by any measure." Roberts' dissent again exposes his intellectual limitations, as he criticizes the majority:

The Court’s new “rule” provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required. This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be.

Because he is unhappy with the allegedly vague nature of the rule articulated by the majority, he would decide that no due process violation occurred in the case. While it is fine to criticize the majority's articulation of the constitutional principle they rely upon, it does not follow, as Roberts suggests, that no violation of the principle occurred.

These are just two of the latest in what is quickly becoming a long line of intellectually lazy and ideologically driven opinions by the self-described umpire jurist. It is of course unsurprising that Roberts, joining Samuel Alito as the last standing members of the Bush administration, would carry on the legacy.

Dick Cheney is the Aaron Burr of Constitutional Interpretation

2009-06-17T21:36:00.001-07:00

Gather 'round, kids, and listen to the story of how Dick Cheney killed Alexander Hamilton:

Alexander Hamilton was a mythical American hero who lived thousands of years ago. He is credited with wiping out North America's dinosaurs by bringing a meteor down from the top of Pennsylvania's Mt. Rainer in 1605. Legend has it, the pea-brained dinosaurs, awed by the magnificent metallic sphere, bowed to Hamilton as though he were a god. While the great lizards were distracted, Hamilton catapulted the astral boulder at the beasts, killing all but 3, who Daniel Boone later slew with his baby rattle. Hamilton disbursed the dinosaur carcasses throughout the world in order to create a fake fossil record, thus testing the faith of later generations. Mt. Rainer, of course, was later moved to Washington State, where it serves as a silent threat to Japan's Godzilla, should he be tempted to cross the Pacific. And the catapult, you ask? Why, Hamilton destroyed it in a rage after suffering the embarrassment of having an Antiques Roadshow appraiser tell him it was worthless.

Hamilton is also known for being the first Secretary of the Treasury, and for authoring many of the Federalist Papers, including those on the Executive Branch.

As we shall soon see, neo-cons eat up Hamiltonian executive theory, except when they don't:

Federalist 51 is frequently cited by proponents of a strong "unitary executive." In that essay, Hamilton argues that because in a republic the legislative branch will naturally predominate, the relatively weak executive needs to be protected from encroachment. The unitary executive folks use this to premise their argument that the executive must be given unfettered authority to execute his Article II powers without interference from Congress or the judiciary.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack.

And,

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department?

See, I wasn't kidding. The Bush administration took Hamilton's argument and made the case for expanding executive power to new lengths, going so far as to claim that only the President could decide if he was acting under his Article II powers, and that executive orders could be modified or vacated simply by the President acting in manner inconsistent with them.

But never one to be accused of having a cogent legal philosophy, the Bush administration's love for Hamiltonian constitutional interpretation apparently did not compel anyone in the White House to read all the way up to Federalist 70. That's the one where Hamilton warns about vesting executive authority in more than one person. Like, say, an especially strong and independent Vice-President:

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is, that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds to censure and to punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office. Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author. The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated that, where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.

and,

It is evident from these considerations, that the plurality of the Executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy, as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number, as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and, secondly, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it.

finally,

When power, therefore, is placed in the hands of so small a number of men, as to admit of their interests and views being easily combined in a common enterprise, by an artful leader, it becomes more liable to abuse, and more dangerous when abused, than if it be lodged in the hands of one man; who, from the very circumstance of his being alone, will be more narrowly watched and more readily suspected, and who cannot unite so great a mass of influence as when he is associated with others.

By adopting their hyper-unitary executive philosophy, while at the same time ceding an unprecedented level of power to Dick Cheney, who frequently operated in secret and claimed not to even be subject to many restrictions on executive branch officers, the Bush administration had its Hamiltonian cake and ate it too. On one hand, the administration grabbed sweeping new powers to detain people without charges, spy on Americans, and to interpret and enforce laws however the President saw fit. On the other, the President withstood record low approval ratings, while still overseeing an administration that committed and covered up war crimes, running our economy into the ground, and occupying a country we never should have invaded. The fears Hamilton expressed of vesting executive power in more than one man were realized. Even overwhelming public opinion against Bush policy provided little deterrent to his acting how he pleased, and despite the breath and vileness of the crimes committed during his tenure, it seems unlikely any top official will be called to answer.

It is ironic that it was by vesting power in his Vice-President that George Bush achieved a power and lack of accountability rivaling that of a king. Doubly ironic is the selective use of Hamilton's writings, about a document written to guide a nation just over fighting a revolution to free itself of its King George, as the justification.

And that, kids, is how Dick Cheney killed Alexander Hamilton. Or at least sodomized his political philosophy with a rifle.

"I'm gonna make you squeal, boy..."

On Supreme Court nominees

2009-05-13T13:49:00.000-07:00

Could someone with this resume get through the Senate? Would Obama even nominate him?

First in his class at Howard Law School
One year out of law school, became a civil rights lawyer with the NAACP
Became the NAACP's Chief Counsel at age 32
Argued the most controversial civil rights case of the era before the United States Supreme Court
Judge on the Second District Court of Appeal for four years
Served as Soliciter General for two years

This is Thurgood Marshall's resume. In 1967, a black man who won Brown v. Board of Education, forcing the integration of schools across much of the country, could get through Senate confirmation, only two months after the Supreme Court rule anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. In 2009, could a civil rights attorney like Marshall make it?

In a related note, how many of those who are already decrying the potential Sonia Sotomayor appointment as affirmative action supported Harriet Miers nomination, or would have been behind Alberto Gonzales had he been the nominee?

Here, by the way is Senator John Cornyn's October, 2005 Wall Street Journal op-ed in support of Miers' nomination. This is Cornyn's standard:

And, moreover, there is little question that she is up to the job. She has been a true trailblazer for women in the law. She was the first woman hired by her law firm--one of the most prominent in Texas. She was the first woman to serve as president of her law firm. She was the first woman to serve as president of the Dallas Bar Association. She was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas Bar Association. And her accomplishments do not end at the Lone Star border.
For the past five years, she has worked at the highest levels in the White House, including serving as the president's closest legal adviser. Few lawyers in America have a more impressive resume. And none have more of the president's confidence.

I'm sure he'll use that as a measuring stick for Obama's nominee.

You let them make salt, next thing they'll want is territorial sovereignty

2009-04-23T15:03:00.000-07:00

This headline says it all: Pakistan gets a say in drone attacks on militants

From the L.A. Times:

"Under the new partnership, a separate fleet of U.S. drones operated by the Defense Department will be free for the first time to venture beyond the Afghan border under the direction of Pakistani military officials, who are working alongside American counterparts at a command center in Jalalabad, Afghanistan."

The article sort of fails to mention the extent to which we've been launching missiles into Pakistan for awhile now. Like when we killed at least 25 Pakistanis, mostly women and children, who were in the school we blew up in an attempt to kill two men who, it turns out, weren't there.

But seriously, Pakistanis want control over our launching missiles into their country? Don't they understand there's a war on terror going on? When will they realize that when, six years ago, a group of mostly Saudi men, hijacked planes in the U.S., killing nearly 3,000 Americans, it changed everything about launching missiles into Pakistan whenever we want?

Speaking of reducing terror in the world, I would guess there are few things more terrifying than being a Pakistani parent and worrying that any day a missile could land in your kid's school.

And speaking of killing brown people to keep America safe, here are some rather ill-conceived comparisons:

87,215: Minimum number of violent Iraqi deaths since 2005, according to death certificates counted by Iraqi Health Ministry. The Associated Press puts the minimum number of deaths since 2003 at 110,600, and estimates the true number to be 10 to 20 percent higher.

140,000 and 80,000: Number of people killed as a result of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively.

58,159: Number of U.S. soldiers killed during the entire Vietnam war.
-----------------------
2,974: Americans killed in the 9/11 attacks.

3,641: Afghan civilians killed in 2007 and 2008, according to the United Nations.

EDIT: Note this post is actually from May 13, not April 23rd or whatever it says.

The death penalty and the company we keep

2009-03-30T14:26:00.001-07:00

Amnesty International released its report on global death penalty use and policy for 2008. Some highlights:

The death penalty was legal in 59 countries in 2008, but only 25 carried out executions.
93% of the executions performed in 2008 were carried out by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Pakistan.
China executed at least 1,718 people last year, nearly five times as Iran, the #2 country. The U.S. executed 37, fourth in the world. The United States' 37 executions was its lowest total since 2005.
The U.S. and China appear to be the only countries to use lethal injection. The U.S. appears to be the only country to use the electric chair. (The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld lethal injection against a cruel and unusual punishment challenge.)
Only one country in Europe and Central Asia, Belarus, has yet to abolish the death penalty.
All but one of the executions carried out in the Americas last year were performed by the United States. The other, in St. Kitts and Nevis, was the first non-U.S. execution in the Americas since 2003.
Texas executed 18 people last year. Virginia was second with 4.
Since 1975, 120 death row inmates have been released from U.S. prisons because they were innocent of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death.

The best line of the tournament so far

2009-03-22T13:37:00.000-07:00

About Arizona's Nick Wise, after hitting a three pointer against Cleveland State:

"He continues to take the steam out of Cleveland State."

Yes, Nick Wise, you are the Cleveland Steamer.

An open letter to women's basketball

2009-03-21T20:33:00.000-07:00

Dear women's basketball,

I came back again tonight. I knew it was wrong - that you would hurt me again. But I can't quit you. I do this every year. March comes, I get sentimental, I put on my TV. But this year was going to be different. Until I came home with my Little Caesar's $5 hot and ready pizza, turned on the World Baseball Classic, and saw that UCSB and Stanford were playing just one channel up, on ESPN 2. After all this time, you can still play me like a fiddle. The Gauchos? You knew I couldn't say no. And I shrugged my shoulders, grabbed the remote, and gave you one more chance.

And it wasn't different. I sat there, I watched, I gave you a good eight minutes of game time. You repaid my trust with an open three pointer bouncing off the backboard wide of the hoop. Two players falling down for less than compelling reasons. Four airballs, and I'm not counting the one that was avoided by a shot clock violation. A travel. And even a double dribble. A double dribble women's basketball? I swear you're like a child sometimes.

So you lost me again. I'm watching a 10-2 baseball game between Korea and Venezuela. Even that is better than living with the abuse you give me. That's right, abuse. When that point guard tripped unmolested a the top of the key, the bruise she got on her knee might as well have been on my eyeball. I felt like I was being slammed against the backboard like an errant three pointer. And you showed me less respect than a child, too young to know he can't just start dribbling again whenever he feels like it.

I know I'll forget. I always do. But please, don't make this any harder than it has to be. Let me go. I wish you the best, but tonight I have to say this: You don't got next.

Farewell,

Dave

United States slowly becoming as gay as the rest of the world

2009-03-17T19:54:00.000-07:00

I'm always happy when the mainstream media gives Americans some perspective on where stand on issues relative to the rest of the world:

Prior to Obama's asking to add us to the list of supporters, the United States was the only Western country which had not signed on to a U.N. resolution calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. That's right, the gay loving liberal elites controlling the governments of such countries as Poland, Spain, Italy and Portugal had already agreed to allow homosexual couples to degrade the moral foundation of their countries. Thanks to the forward thinking leadership of our former president, the United States was, until now, the lone holdout.

In related news, Glenn Greenwald, author of the only political blog worth reading, has a piece about a bill pending in Congress that would eliminate discrimination against same sex couples in obtaining visas so *GASP* both partners could live (and have anal sex and indoctrinate our innocent children) in the same country. (You have to scroll down a bit.)

Fox News outdoes itself

2009-03-16T13:37:00.001-07:00

Wow. I mean, it's easy to rip on Fox News, but sometimes they just go so far it leaves me speechless. Check out this Wonkette post and be amazed.

(If you're too lazy to click on the link, here's the gist: Fox News is claiming that Democrats have "changed their tune" on the economy over the weekend. One of the clips they use is Joe Biden saying "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." It is a six month old clip of Biden mocking John McCain for saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

A thought on the progressive tax

2009-03-15T15:13:00.000-07:00

Whenever there some debate about the fairness of wealthier people paying higher income tax rates than those less fortunate, frequently someone will refer to the fact that wealthy people are paying to subsidize government services enjoyed by all, or enjoyed only by the poor. And of course this is true. But I've always wondered why I never see anyone bring up the fact that taxpayers fund plenty of government services that provide hugely disproportionate benefits the rich.

For example, the federal government spends roughly a billion dollars a year on the Securities Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market. The FAA had a 15 billion dollar budget last year to ensure that those with enough money to fly did so safely. State insurance commissions are much more valuable to those who own valuable real estate or businesses. And many American business interests abroad would be more risky and costly or even impossible without the protection of the most expensive military in the world - paid for in part by Americans whose jobs have been shipped overseas.

Anyway, I just think its weird that nobody mentions that. The end.

Andrea Zuckerman will not be left out in the cold

2009-03-11T21:01:00.001-07:00

Trustees of the Beverly Hills Unified School District voted to allow students residing outside the city and who go to city schools under special permits to continue attending. The Hovel interviewedBeverly Hills High sophomore Scott Scanlon for his thoughts on the ruling. Scanlon remarked "Check this out!" and was suddenly unavailable for further comment.

Recession unemployment rate not as bad as normal African-American unemployment rate

2009-03-06T11:36:00.000-08:00

Just something to think about as we hear so many stories about people unable to find work, and the terrible effects it has on their families, self-esteem, hope for the future, etc:

The current unemployment rate for the general population (8.1%) is still better than the African-American unemployment rate for any year* during which President Bush was in office. (Low of 8.3% in 2007, high of 10.8% in 2003.)

Here is the unemployment rate for the general population* over the same period. (Low of 4.6% in 2006 and 2007, high of 6.0% in 2003.)

In 1999 and 2000, by the way, the African-American unemployment rate was 8.0% and 7.6%, respectively, compared with a general unemployment rate of 4.2% and 4.0%.

Interesting that in the the midst of the worst recession in modern history, the country as a whole still has a lower unemployment rate than African-Americans enjoyed at anytime over the last eight years.

*Apparently the tables I linked to are no longer available. Here is the monthly and annual African-American unemployment rate from 1/1999 to 2/2009:

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
Series Id: LNU04000006 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent Age: 16 years and over Race: Black or African American
1999	7.9	8.6	8.2	7.3	7.3	7.9	9.6	8.0	8.4	7.9	7.6	7.2	8.0
2000	8.3	8.3	7.4	6.5	7.6	8.0	8.5	8.1	7.1	7.0	7.1	6.9	7.6
2001	8.4	7.9	8.5	7.4	7.7	8.6	8.8	9.3	8.6	9.1	9.5	9.4	8.6
2002	10.3	10.2	10.8	10.1	9.9	10.8	10.7	10.0	9.3	9.4	10.5	10.7	10.2
2003	10.9	11.1	10.6	10.3	10.5	12.0	12.0	11.0	10.6	10.9	10.1	9.7	10.8
2004	10.7	10.0	10.5	9.3	9.6	10.7	12.0	10.5	9.9	10.4	10.6	10.4	10.4
2005	11.0	11.2	10.5	9.7	9.7	10.8	10.2	9.7	9.0	8.8	10.5	8.9	10.0
2006	9.1	9.6	9.4	8.8	8.4	9.4	10.5	8.8	8.8	8.1	8.4	7.9	8.9
2007	8.2	8.2	8.3	7.8	8.1	9.0	8.9	7.7	7.9	8.2	8.3	8.6	8.3
2008	9.4	8.4	9.0	8.2	9.4	9.8	10.9	10.7	11.2	11.0	11.2	11.7	10.1
2009	13.4	13.8

And for the general population:

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
Series Id: LNU04000000 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Unadj) Unemployment Rate Labor force status: Unemployment rate Type of data: Percent Age: 16 years and over
1999	4.8	4.7	4.4	4.1	4.0	4.5	4.5	4.2	4.1	3.8	3.8	3.7	4.2
2000	4.5	4.4	4.3	3.7	3.8	4.1	4.2	4.1	3.8	3.6	3.7	3.7	4.0
2001	4.7	4.6	4.5	4.2	4.1	4.7	4.7	4.9	4.7	5.0	5.3	5.4	4.7
2002	6.3	6.1	6.1	5.7	5.5	6.0	5.9	5.7	5.4	5.3	5.6	5.7	5.8
2003	6.5	6.4	6.2	5.8	5.8	6.5	6.3	6.0	5.8	5.6	5.6	5.4	6.0
2004	6.3	6.0	6.0	5.4	5.3	5.8	5.7	5.4	5.1	5.1	5.2	5.1	5.5
2005	5.7	5.8	5.4	4.9	4.9	5.2	5.2	4.9	4.8	4.6	4.8	4.6	5.1
2006	5.1	5.1	4.8	4.5	4.4	4.8	5.0	4.6	4.4	4.1	4.3	4.3	4.6
2007	5.0	4.9	4.5	4.3	4.3	4.7	4.9	4.6	4.5	4.4	4.5	4.8	4.6
2008	5.4	5.2	5.2	4.8	5.2	5.7	6.0	6.1	6.0	6.1	6.5	7.1	5.8
2009	8.5	8.9

Not sure why 2/2009 is at 8.9% in this table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and 8.1% according to the government, per the NY Times story.

A couple big days in the fight for LGBT rights

2009-03-04T09:34:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, GLAD filed a lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act's denial of all benefits to legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. The lawsuit essentially says that because Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage, and the federal government has always deferred to the States in determining what is and is not a valid marriage, it is wrong for the federal government to deny a class of legally married people marriage benefits (such as social security survivor benefits, medical insurance, and income tax status), based on their being same sex.

Here's GLAD's eloquent and touching explanation of the lawsuit.

Also, oral argument will be heard tomorrow in the California Supreme Court for the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which defined marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. Can't tell you how proud I am that Duke alumnus and noted asshole Ken Starr will be arguing on behalf of the law's sponsors. Just one more reason your grand kids will change their names, Ken.

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

As a side note, I wish the mainstream media would stop referring to Anthony Kennedy as the moderate Supreme Court Justice, and the Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter as the liberal wing. Stevens was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford, Souter was nominated by George H.W. Bush. So the four Justice "liberal" wing includes two Republican appointees.

This is a big deal because when we see so many 5-4 decisions, what we are seeing is the ultra-conservative wing lining up against the ideological moderates such that in every close decision at least half the "liberal" vote consists of Republican appointees. And it is rare that any significant case on this Court is decided 7-2 with the two Democratic-appointed Justices being in the minority. (At least I can't think of any offhand. Sorry, I've got a cold today and am being lazy.) Rather, they are nearly always joined by at least one, and more often two Republican Justices.

But I think the public perception is that there really is a moderate center in Justice Kennedy, and that he is flanked by an equal number of liberal and conservative colleagues. The media plays into this with the terminology they use. Imagine if Heller, the D.C. gun ban case, was described as a 5-4 decision where an equally bipartisan group of Justices voted to uphold the law, but were defeated by a bloc of the Court's five most conservative Republicans. This would accurately describe the voting breakdown, instead of giving the impression that D.C.'s law was somehow controversial among moderates, when in fact it wasn't. The same can be said for the huge number of other 5-4 decisions where Court's hardcore ideologues found themselves dependant on Justice Kennedy parting with view supported by Justices of both parties. It's simply wrong to describe this Court as anything reflecting close to America's center, especially when our legislative bodies each have overwhelming Democratic majorities.

End or rant. Going back to bed.

Get Jimmy Fallon off my goddamn TV

2009-03-02T11:58:00.000-08:00

Right, so I can understand how you, network TV executive who decided Jimmy Fallon should host Late Night, would assume he is a funny person. I mean, he is hideously ugly and has no acting skills, yet he's fabulously wealthy and famous - he must be funny, right? I assure you he is not. Please get him off my television, or I will be forced to continue watching Cheaters before bed.*

Also, fire yourselves, because you are incompetent. In fact, the person who suggested to you that you hire Jimmy Fallon to host Late Night was probably doing it as a test to see if you had any sense at all. You failed, and will likely soon be fired, so you should probably just save face and go out on your own terms. And by that I mean ritual suicide. And it should be painful, Samurai-style disembowelment as penance for unleashing this talent bankrupt menace on us.

And if you somehow happen to be the same person who green lit Fever Pitch, you will burn in hell for taking a wonderful Nick Hornby memoir and making perhaps the most perverted screen adaptation imaginable, and trying to convince a nation that Jimmy Fallon could be a romantic lead at the same time. For shame!

*I should point out that my anger of Jimmy Fallon being on Late Night is party a result of my confusing him with Chris Kattan.

Your George Orwell quote of the day

2009-02-28T21:32:00.000-08:00

From Democracy in the British Army - originally published September, 1939, in The Left Forum:

"... it can be pointed out that a Left-wing party which, within a capitalist society, becomes a war party, has already thrown up the sponge, because it is demanding a policy which can only be carried out by its opponents."

For five years Democrats have been complicit in advancing the unashamedly belligerent policies of Bush-style American imperialism, and they have done so with almost no regard to the wisdom or legality of those policies. At their worst, Congressional Dems were active cheerleaders for the administration's most bellicose and misguided adventure, the Iraq War. At their best, mainstream Dems offered only half-hearted and inevitably impotent resistance to outrages from torture to illegal domestic spying in the name of so-called War on Terror. Wherever liberal values conflicted with their desire to look tough on foreign threats, real or imagined, mainstream Democrats almost uniformly chose the latter.

Yet despite becoming what can only be described as a war party - one that voted to invade Iraq, and only months after their victory in the 2006 elections was voting to escalate that same war - Democrats have only increased their popularity. So is Orwell wrong that a Left-wing party is doomed when it becomes a war party? Maybe. Or maybe our country just no longer has a Left-wing party.

Senate passes Obama Assassin Rights Bill, scares the fuck out of everyone in D.C.

2009-02-28T08:23:00.000-08:00

So the Senate passed legislation to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress, which is great because it means we likely get to hear more from Eleanor Holmes Norton, one of the more awesome House members.

Oh, and thanks to an amendment offered by a guy from Nevada, the citizens of D.C. can now live in fear of this:

Yep, according to the New York Times, this .50 caliber sniper rifle will be legal in D.C. if John Ensign's amendment remains part of the final legislation. If you haven't watched the video, please do so, and just replace the words "insurgent" or "enemy" with "Obama" or "anyone in D.C." Here's your voting seat in Congress, now try to make it to the polls while dodging sniper fire from felons who were recently released from a mental hospital. (Seriously, they get guns too.)

Just another example of Republican commitment to keeping the federal government out of local politics.
-------------------

Glad to see Israel has finally started getting serious about demolishing illegal settlements. Palestinian settlements. In Palestinian East Jerusalem neighborhoods. Because they were built without permits Palestinian's can't get.

Brandon Walsh reads today's New York Times

2009-02-25T09:48:00.000-08:00

February 25, 2009

Wall Street Slides again as investors look to Washington... In bed!

"Are you thinking of him again? You are. It's Washington again, isn't it? Why won't you look at me when we make love?" Asks Wall Street.

Home sales at slowest pace in more than a decade... In bed!

America's builders promise to lay first time home buyers down, make it something magical, even if it takes all night, 'cuz they've got nowhere to go, and morning ain't coming 'til it gets here.

Obama urges bold action and big ideas... In bed!

First Lady promises to be open to new things in effort to spice up love life.

Afghan buildup includes billions for equipment... In bed!

Defense Department declares 'jihad' against unsatisfying sex lives, hopes to lure hearts and minds through distribution of novelty gifts and sensual oils.

A warning to anyone who likes to draw dirty pictures

2009-02-20T16:02:00.000-08:00

Make sure you draw little drivers licenses next to the people so you can prove you're drawing adults. Otherwise your ass is going to jail. Yep, you can go to prison for possessing, in your own home, obscene drawings of "minors." I'm not sure if I'm more upset at the First Amendment implications of this, or more confused about how a fictional character whose existence is defined only by the arrangement of lines ink on a piece of paper can be considered a minor.

Here's the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. 1466A.

"No officer, its a drawing of a 20 year old girl dressed as a 14 year old girl. They're role playing. And the guy she's having sex with just turned 18 like a week ago. He's just a late bloomer. See, that's his Nirvana t-shirt in that pile of clothes strewn across the floor. It's 2009 - no 17 year old wears a Nirvana t-shirt."

Dear Sir, Please cancel my fictional subscription to the New Frontiersman

2009-02-15T21:38:00.000-08:00

In 1986 Alan Moore wrote the graphic novel Watchmen, wherein he deconstructed the costumed hero genre in a wonderful story set in a world on the brink of nuclear war. I'm rereading it in advance of the movie coming out, and recommend it to anyone who doesn't absolutely hate graphic novels. At the end of each chapter, Moore supplements the story with fictional documents - an autobiography written by one of the characters, an article from an ornithological journal, etc. One of these documents is an editorial from the New Frontiersman - a fictional publication Moore uses to parody Reagen era ultra-right John Birch Society-type thought. New Frontiersman editor Hector Godfrey writes in defense of masked crime-fighters, who have been condemned by most of society as dangerous vigilantes. Amidst referring to an editor from a rival news magazine as "cocaine-advocating" and praising those who founded the Ku Klux Klan alongside the participants of the Boston Tea Party He makes the following analogy:

Similarly, during our perfectly justified retaliatory bombing of Beirut in 1979, there were many of our so-called fair-weather-friend European allies who were bleating about supposed infringements of international law. Yet what are laws made for, if not to serve mankind? And if those laws through unforeseen circumstances become no longer applicable, is it not more noble to follow the course of right and justice; to serve the spirit of the law rather than its every dot and comma? In my book, anyone answering that question in the negative is someone without the moral backbone necessary to call himself an American.

A little scary that a position used to parody the ultra-right politics of 1986 looks a hell of a lot like the view of moderate Republicans today when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Guantanamo, FISA, etc.

So cute!

2009-02-04T08:48:00.000-08:00

It sounds like Al Gonzales really can't find a job! And he thinks its reasonable to blame that on the economy! Oh, Al - you and your child-like understanding of how the world works!

That's right, nobody wants to hire the former Attorney General. More specifically, nobody wants to hire the guy George Bush hired as White House Counsel, the guy George Bush appointed as Attorney General, the guy George Bush wanted to nominate as Justice for the United States Supreme Court.

Of course I'm sure Al could get a job. But I honestly can't see a hiring partner at any reasonably prestigious firm thinking he could contribute in a way commensurate with the salary he is likely demanding. Think about it. Say your company is seeking representation by a huge national law firm in a litigation matter where a couple hundred million dollars is at stake. You're in the conference room at the firm's office, and in walks Al Gonzales, who tells you with his goofy smile and that he will be the partner in charge of handling your case, his eyes reflecting all the wisdom of a retriever wondering why his food bowl has been moved. How good are you going to feel about that? In fact, and I'm being entirely serious, I'm pretty sure I'd be more comfortable with any random middle-aged person walking through that door who could plausibly claim to be a senior partner. Based on his troubles finding a job, it looks like a lot of other people feel that way, too. Al's only value has been as a lap dog to the powerful, a partisan lackey willing to be the public face of his superiors' most corrupt and stupid policies and rationals. And actually the goodwill he earned in that role could have had some value in certain politically-connected law firms, but unfortunately for Gonzales, he's squandered his value there as well. Heck of a job, Al.

U.S. military spending compared to that of the rest of the world

2009-02-03T14:33:00.000-08:00

Glenn Greenwald posted this on his blog today, taken from some goofy site. It shows U.S. defense spending as being nearly equal to that of the rest of the world's combined defense spending. Wow, we must really have a lot of defending to do.

More nuclear fun with North Korea

2009-02-03T12:54:00.001-08:00

While we were fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, North Korea was busy processing weapons-grade uranium and developing a missile capable of reaching the Western United States. For real.

As much as anything, Bush's presidency should be remembered for having allowed a hostile and unstable nation to develop the capability for sending a nuclear missile into our country. While it is likely not the case that North Korea could strike us tomorrow, or next month, or maybe even next year, it is beginning to look inevitable that sometime in the near future they will be able to do so.

What does this mean? Well, if things don't change then very soon we may be faced with the unhappy choice of either engaging in what would be an extremely bloody war on the Korean Peninsula - one that would result in millions of civilian casualties (North Korea has the world's fifth largest standing army and can reach Tokyo or Seoul with its missiles.), or living in a world where Kim Jong-Il has the power to nuke Los Angeles. Given Kim's unstable, delusional personality and his complete disregard for his people's well-being, the second option would result represent perhaps the greatest threat to our security since World War II. While the Soviet Union always had the power to wipe us off the face of the earth, its leaders were unwilling to do so at the expense of the U.S.S.R.'s own existence. Kim Jong-Il may not be so restrained. And North Korea is already in a position that it could hold other nations hostage to dissuade a nuclear retaliation by the U.S. Can we realistically threaten a counter-strike against Pyongyang if it meant Tokyo, Osaka or Seoul would be next? The bottom line is, we simply cannot allow the existence of a North Korea capable of sending a nuclear missile across the Pacific. We will be forced to deal with them, and doing could make the Iraq War look like the cake walk Bush's lackey's said it would be.

Just as it was in 2003, a nuclear armed North Korea remains the biggest threat to our security. Unfortunately it is not a threat that fit well with the post September 11th terrorism and Muslim vs. Christian culture war memes, and for that reason the Bush administration chased potential hijacking and dirty bombing bogeymen, while allowing a once manageable North Korean problem to metastasise into a full-blown nuclear threat. The difference between the dangers posed by bin Laden's ilk and Kim Jong-Il is the difference between a highly unlikely repeat of September 11th and the surety of living with the constant threat of a mega-Hiroshima - our previous leaders ignored this; our current ones cannot afford to.

It is well past time that serious people in our government started making pragmatic decisions about how to keep us safe, regardless of how those decisions look in a headline or sound coming from a congressman's mouth on the Sunday morning talk shows. Right now this means making every effort to turn back the clock on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, even if it means negotiating with an evil dictator or diverting resources from the war on cave-dwelling Jihadists with fake passports and C4 in their shampoo bottles. While negotiating a concession from a Korean emissary may not be as glamorous as killing al-Qaeda's number #2 man for the 30th time, it is vastly more important, and must be treated as such.

What's in my head right now

2009-01-28T11:16:00.000-08:00

Is everyone confusing 'Black president' with 'cool president?' Because they're not the same thing, and Barack Obama is not a cool man:

He plays basketball (so cool!) - in a tight t-shirt tucked into sweatpants. (Embarrassing dad style.)
He collects Spider-man and Conan the Barbarian comics. (Spider-man comics are actually really cool, but Conan is for total losers who can't get laid without attaining public office.)
He's a former college professor with a stable family life. Compare to coked-up AWOL fighter pilot with a wife who killed a guy. It's no contest.

I am, however, more than happy to have a nerd for my president.

I am also convinced the media keep calling Obama handsome because most successful female journalists grew up as upper middle-class White girls who always longed to prove their liberal credentials to themselves and their friends and piss off their parents (who actually wouldn't have been upset at all) by dating a Black guy in high school, but the "safe" Black guy at their school was taken, so they had to settle for sensitive nerdy White guy instead, who provided her with endless hours of awkward makeout sessions until they went away to different colleges, whereupon he cried like a little girl to her on the phone five nights a week until she couldn't take it anymore, got wasted on about 2.5 Popov vodka cranberries, and blew a frat boy just so she wouldn't be lying when she said she'd found someone else. But perhaps I'm over-analyzing. Anyway, other than the fact that he has the power to literally wipe other nations off the face of the Earth, I don't see why so many women find him attractive.

If I owned a car company, I'd create an SUV called the Becerro, with a special "gold" luxury package, only so Evangelical Christians would buy them and put Jesus stickers on the back, causing me to be greatly amused. What the hell is wrong with me?

This woman, and the local news team who failed to mention that she is fucking crazy, should have their children/jobs (respectively) taken from them:

I try hard to avoid learning too much about the economy, but this shit is getting scary. Can we really just throw trillions of dollars we don't have at this and not end up absolutely screwed later? I'm also pretty excited to tell the IRS that I'll pay my taxes when California makes good on the IOU's its about to start using to "pay" me. Well, at least we're safe from terrorism as a result of bankrupting our country by going to war in Iraq.

Something else that's always confused me: People saying that the actions we take in combating terrorism are done to keep us "free." Who is trying to take our freedoms, which ones, and how do they plan to take them? That is, the only practical way a foreign entity could really take away our freedom of religion, or right to own private property or whatever, would be to invade the United States and set up a new regime. I mean, how else does one go about taking away the freedoms of a sovereign nation which has demonstrated time and again it will not change its ways even in the face of near universal international condemnation?

Since the end of the Cold War, invasion never been even a remote possibility. So none of our recent military or counter-terrorism actions can reasonably be said to be in the name of protecting our freedom. Rather, at best the serve only to help ensure our security. While this is a legitimate and important goal, it doesn't sound nearly as noble - the notion that we're torturing people, profiling minorities, allowing our government to spy on us because we're scared - in fact it sounds antithetical to the noblest sensibilities of our nation, to a tradition of viewing liberty as a value not to be compromised in the face of fear. It also doesn't do much, from a proportionality perspective, to justify killing, maiming, and displacing millions of Iraqi's and Afghans, or sending missiles into Pakistani schools, to help reduce the already remote risk of another few thousand Americans being killed in a domestic terrorist attack.

The end.

Possibly the first nice thing I've ever said about Bush

2009-01-27T14:45:00.001-08:00

... he didn't abuse his pardon power during his last days in office. I really thought he was going to issue some goofy blanket pardon to everyone in any way involved in his administration's controversies.

Self-referential fun fact time

2009-01-25T10:26:00.000-08:00

Did you know?

Checked the statistics for Notes From the Hovel today, and it turns out that since the inception of this blog I've had more hits from Iran than from West Virginia - a state which I have actually referenced in the title of one of my posts. Perhaps this is because unlike West Virginia, many people in Iran can read English.

Seriously, as of 2003, 13 percent of West Virginia's adults could not read, down from 17 percent a decade earlier. 38 percent were married to their cousin(s), and over half thought "teeth paste" was something used by people with good dental insurance.

Sumir Sennik - Fox poll commenter/hero

2009-01-23T14:32:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's Fox News poll: Would You Want Terrorists in Your Backyard?

Mr. Sennik's answer:

Would I want terrorists in my back yard? This is a complex question, with an equally complex answer.

On the one hand, terrorists can be quite dangerous. On the other hand, my back yard has needed landscaping for some time now. There are a few maple trees with branches that are overhanging the patio, and it’s just generally looking a little scruffy near the fence. And there is the matter of the never-used stack of firewood as well, which is just smelling a little rotten at the moment.

So I guess my answer comes down to landscaping. If the terrorists in my back yard are handy with yard work, then I suppose I would want them there. If not, no.

Nathan Hale couldn't have said it better himself.

I heart Obama (Like every other liberal right now)

2009-01-23T12:09:00.000-08:00

I am frankly amazed at what Obama has done in his first week in office to repair some of the most egregious aspects of the Bush administration policies.* From his inaugural speech, where he reminded us that "Muslim" is not a slur, to removing some of the curtains behind which the executive branch has operated, and taking concrete steps to end our atrocious manner of dealing with so-called enemy combatants - after literally years of Bush saying he wanted to but taking no steps in that direction - I couldn't ask for much more. (Also, African clinics don't have to pretend abortion doesn't exist in order to get federal funds for AIDS prevention! Obama's like Kevin Bacon showing that small town that religious fanatics shouldn't be allowed to make crazy religion-based policy! Take that George W. Bush/Mean Dad Who Later Went on to Star in 3rd Rock from the Sun!)

(Pictured above: Barack Hussein Obama.)

And here's another interesting move: Check out the whitehouse.gov page on the President's agenda on civil rights. Not only is it dominated by LGBT issues, but it lays out an extremely ambitious and concrete set of goals for that community. Federal rights equal to those of married couples, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, expanding adoption rights - these are things that politically Obama does not need to do right now, and certainly does not need to make the centerpiece of his policy. The fact that he is doing so anyway to me speaks to the sincerity of his message of inclusiveness.

*This post is part of my New Year's resolution to be more positive. Don't worry, I expect to return to being a curmudgeon shortly.

One more way the George W. Bush era has made us less safe

2009-01-17T15:46:00.000-08:00

A nuclear-armed North Korea. From al Jazeera:

"All of those I met said that North Korea has already weaponised 30.8 kg of plutonium ... and that the weapons cannot be inspected," Harrison, the director of the Washington-based Centre for International Policy's Asia programme, said.

"That means North Korea has four or five nuclear weapons, depending on the grade of plutonium, the specific weapons design and desired explosive yield," he told a news conference in the Chinese capital on Saturday after returning from Pyongyang, his eleventh visit to the North since 1972.

Remember North Korea? They're the ones who in early 2003 were restarting their nuclear weapons program, and had already demonstrated the ability to reach Japan with a nuclear-capable cruise missile. So, in the infinite wisdom of our leaders at that time, we invaded Iraq, rendering our military impotent as a deterrent to Kim Jong-Il, and robbing us of the credibility in the world necessary to effectively lead a diplomatic solution.

And, lets not ignore that North Korea, being the only Axis of Evil country not yet invaded or repeatedly threatened with invasion, would have to be crazy not to do everything it can to acquire nuclear weapons in the face of Bush's nuance-free and brazenly bellicose foreign policy.

Thank God he's only got three more days to ruin the world.

I won't have Dana Perino to kick around anymore

2009-01-16T12:22:00.001-08:00

Sadly, today Dana presided over her last White House press conference. She is leaving the podium and will soon embark on a long vacation with her husband where I'm sure she will visit many countries she has never heard of, but which are home to people she lied about us not torturing. In honor of Dana's substantial contribution to this blog, a list of all Perino-related posts:

And thanks as well to our Fourth Estate

How tight is security in Iraq?

Nothing is certain but death, taxes, and the constant erosion of civil liberties under the Bush administration.

Another crappy cartoon and a hall of fame White House press conference

I've made a "firm decision" that Bush is "very much" capable of running the country.

Bush/Cheney reported back at Crawford ranch, bullseyeing wamprats.

A did you know from yesterday's White House press gaggle.

I'd like to leave Al Gonzales alone for 10 minutes with an angry Candace Parker.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan...

Breaking news: Bush administration may not be filled with the brightest folks.

Tony Fratto - worse liar than Al Gonzales?

Today in political silliness

Really, Dana, really?

Dana Perino jumps the shark.

Milo Ventimiglia and Dana Perino collectively dumb as two posts.

Perino upholds tradition of Bush appointee incompetence.

And the one that started it all:

Dana Perino's got potential.

I'll miss you, Dana, but I will always cherish the memories. And it still sickens me that you did not know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.

Some context

2009-01-16T07:38:00.000-08:00

From the C.I.A. World Fact Book on Gaza:

on the economy:

High population density, limited land access, and strict internal and external security controls have kept economic conditions in the Gaza Strip - the smaller of the two areas under the Palestinian Authority (PA)- even more degraded than in the West Bank. The beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 sparked an economic downturn, largely the result of Israeli closure policies; these policies, which were imposed to address security concerns in Israel, disrupted labor and trade access to and from the Gaza Strip. In 2001, and even more severely in 2003, Israeli military measures in PA areas resulted in the destruction of capital, the disruption of administrative structures, and widespread business closures. The Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September 2005 offered some medium-term opportunities for economic growth, but continued Israeli-imposed crossings closures, which became more restrictive after Hamas violently took over the territory in June 2007, have resulted in widespread private sector layoffs and shortages of most goods.

According to the report the unemployment rate as of 2006 was 34.8%. For comparison, America's unemployment rate during the Great Depression never rose above 25%.

Military:

in accordance with the peace agreement, the Palestinian Authority is not permitted conventional military forces; there are, however, public security forces (2008)

The U.S. does not torture...

2009-01-14T12:06:00.000-08:00

... much.

So it's probably not good when the woman in charge of deciding whether to bring detainees to trial says:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

But I'm sure Mr. Qahtani was the only one. No need to investigate further, Barack.

Article on the legality of the Gaza invasion

2009-01-12T09:58:00.000-08:00

An interesting post by David Luban at bakinization on the legality of a) Israel's decision to wage war in Gaza, and b) the legality of how they are waging that war.

I recommend reading the post, because its an informative but fairly brief examination of this aspect of the law of war. But if you just want to cut to the chase, here are Luban's conclusions as I understand them:

Although Israel's invasion would violate classical notions of "just war," under current international law nations are granted wide latitude to go to war in self defense, and cannot be second guessed for that decision. Under this standard, Israel's invasion of Gaza is legal.
But, under current international law as interpreted by Israel's own supreme court, Israel is not conducting the war in a legal manner, at least to the extent it is intentionally targeting civilians such as cadets graduating from a Gazan police academy.

U.S. DOJ committed to prosecuting torture

2009-01-10T10:44:00.000-08:00

The Department of Justice and U.S. courts sent a strong message yesterday: if you commit torture, you will be prosecuted. It doesn't matter that you were acting on behalf of the government, or if the people you tortured were a threat to your country. If you tortured, you violated international law, and you will be punished severely.

One caveat: Only if you're Liberian.

Another story you won't see in American newspapers

2009-01-09T08:43:00.000-08:00

from al Jazeera:

The UN says:

"According to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitun, warning them to stay indoors," the UN report said on Friday.

"Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30."

and:

Emergency workers from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Palestinian Red Crescent said they were not able to reach the wounded for four days because Israel would not allow them safe passage.

Israel's government can only get away with killing more than 700 Palestinians in the face of near universal condemnation because the United States backs them. It's disgraceful that no one in our government, the government that funds and arms the Israel's military, has lifted a finger to try to stopthe atroicities that their army has committed during the war. Even if our country's position is that Israel has a right to invade Gaza, we should at least demand they do so in a more humane way.

Quick post on the Israel-Palestine clusterfuck

2009-01-03T10:52:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times, on Israel's shelling of Gaza:

A mosque in northern Gaza was hit on Saturday during evening prayer time. At least 11 worshipers were killed and about 30 wounded, according to Palestinian hospital officials. The Israeli military had no immediate comment.

Even assuming the mosque was a legitimate military target, I can't think of any plausible reason for shelling it during prayers other than to maximize civilian casualties and instill fear in the populace. Regardless of whatever justification Israel may have for its rather extreme reaction to Hamas's violation of the cease-fire agreement, to me this has become a war of terrorists against terrorists.

An Open Letter to Rosario Dawson

2008-12-30T16:19:00.000-08:00

Dear Rosario,

Please believe me when I say I'm not one of those guys who uses his blog to ask out celebrities on a regular basis. But there's just something special about you. I won't tell you what that is, however, because I feel keeping your self esteem as low as possible will help advance my goal of dating you. So let me instead give you several reasons why you should go out with me. I'm told women love it when guys do that.

I am conveniently located in Santa Barbara, just up the road from Hollywood. You can stay in one of the spare rooms at the hippie commune-like house I call home. (If you can resist my charms, that is.) Perhaps this will take you back to your days as a girl growing up in a Manhattan squat, making you feel comfortable with a man for the first time since you dated Joshua Jackson, who you only felt safe around because he gives off about as much sexual energy as an apple.
I will romance the shit out of you. And I will do so without going over budget. That's right, baby, not only am I a regular Don Juan de Mack-o, but I am a thrifty shopper as well. You can rest assured while we are enjoying dinner that the appetizer we have will be free, because we will be at one of the many fine area restaurants accepting the Axxess Card. Hell, we might even get 2 for 1 meals. All that extra cash means I can afford a bottle of Moet (currently on special at the Ralph's down the street), which I will likely end up pouring over your body during our all night love making session. Which brings me to my next point:
Disease free.* You won't be leaving my place with any unwelcome rashes, Ro Ro. Unless you consider the memory of the best night of your life an unwelcome rash. And you shouldn't, because that makes no sense. Seriously, you would be crazy if you thought that.
I can take you away from the self destructive life you must be living with your French DJ boyfriend. Jetting across the Atlantic, partying all night in exotic locals- that's not what you want, is it? I can provide stability Rodizzle, as my job simply involves trying to put criminals back on the street as quickly as possible. Now that's an atmosphere you want to raise a family in, and let's face it, you're not getting any younger. You should really think about settling down while you're still in demand. Tick, tick, tick...
I've got a pretty decent little comic book collection, including, I'm proud to say, Iron Man number 1. I'll let you read them. Not the Iron Man, though. You've got to earn that right by showing proper caution with the others. But expensive comics aren't the only thing you'd see were I featured on Cribs...
I now drive a car which was manufactured this century and has an antenna that is not a rusty coat hanger taped to the hood. 2000 Accord, girl - V6. I couldn't say that a month ago, but those are the sort of changes I'm making for you, R-Dawg. "You make me want to be a better man." Yeah, that's from As Good As It Gets. I knew you'd pick up on that. We have so much in common. You've been in like 20 movies, I have an extensive DVD collection. You are smoking hot, I happen to like smoking hot women. You aren't Italian, I hate Olive Garden. Seriously, the similarities are eerie.

So there you have it. And that's just a sample of what I have to offer you, R2D2. (Like your initials!) If you're interested, and I can't believe you aren't at this point, hit me up. It could change your life. Possibly even for the better.

Dreamily,

Dave

* Crabs are not technically a disease.

Fun with international news services

2008-12-30T10:14:00.001-08:00

Just for kicks, I like to check in with al Jazeera every few days and marvel at how many important stories aren't covered by the major U.S. news services. It's also fun when Israel is involved in something newsworthy and al Jazz' coverage is usually starkly different than the U.S. newspapers'. For example, when an Israeli naval vessel a Gaza-bound aid boat met up in international waters yesterday. al Jazeera's headline:

Israeli vessel hits Gaza-bound boat.

with the sub headline: "Aid boat limps to Lebanese port after being 'rammed' and forced to return."

Washington Post:

Israeli naval ship clashes with Gaza aid boat

The Washington Post doesn't mention that the Israeli boat actually hit the aid boat until paragraph five. Interestingly, the term "rammed" in the al Jazeera headline is taken from the Free Gaza Movement's statement about the incident, while the Washington Post's "clash" is a direct quote from an Israel foreign ministry spokesman.

The LA Times' headline:

Israeli ship intercepts Gaza aid boat

with the sub headline "International activists attempting to run the blockade in a cabin cruiser are diverted to Lebanon."

Keep in mind Israel has admitted there was physical contact between the two boats, and the aid workers claim to have been rammed. I don't know how you can argue "diverted" is the most accurate description of what occurred. I also like how "run the blockade" almost implies the aid workers were doing something wrong.

Bonus: Try to find the story on the New York Times' Middle East page.

And lest one think the difference is merely Jazeera's anti-Israel bias, UK's The Guardian:

Israel accused of ramming Free Gaza aid boat.

The Guardian's story emphasises that the incident took place in international waters (which may make it a criminal act), the boat was delivering medical supplies to help those injured by Israeli attacks as hospitals are overrun and turning away all but the most seriously injured, and that Cyprus is planning to lodge a protest.

And thanks as well to our Fourth Estate

2008-12-17T10:50:00.000-08:00

First White House Press Conference since the Senate Arms Services Committee report shows Bush lied about prisoner abuse. How many questions do you think Dana got on that? How about none. At least Helen Thomas is still giving Dana shit:

Q Why not worry about it [the Iraqi journalist who threw a shoe at the president]? Doesn't it reflect the feelings of the people?
MS. PERINO: I don't think that you can take one guy throwing his shoe as representative of the people of Iraq. And I will tell you that Prime Minister Maliki and the journalists who were there in the room, who apologized on behalf of the Iraqis, saying this is not how they would treat a guest -- I know that there are people in Iraq who are angry -- angry at their situation. It's been a very rough five years. What we were there talking about, though, is how much progress Iraq has made because of our troops and because of the wonderful work of the Iraqi security forces and their military, and how their economy is coming back. And they've grown in leaps and bounds, and so the country is on its way to becoming a wonderful country that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and they will be an ally of ours in the war on terror.
Q But he wasn't a guest. It was occupied.
MS. PERINO: No, we're not, Helen. We are absolutely a guest.
Q It was occupied.
MS. PERINO: We all went there and he signed the agreement, the status of forces agreement. If the Iraqis didn't want us there, we wouldn't have been signing that agreement that allows our troops to operate there for the next three years.
Q -- a bunch of people self-picked by us who run the country.
MS. PERINO: Are you suggesting that Prime Minister Maliki was not elected by the people of Iraq? That's preposterous.
Q Why?
MS. PERINO: Because there was an election and they -- he was elected.
Q When you have an occupation, can you really have a free election?
MS. PERINO: I have never once heard somebody suggest that that was not a free and fair election in Iraq. It was one of the highlights of the last several years that they were able to pull off an election like that, and how many people came out to vote. And absolutely, Prime Minister Maliki is their duly elected Prime Minister.

And glad to know Dana lives in a world where she has never heard anyone suggest elections in Iraq were not free and fair. You know, the election where hundreds of the candidates' names weren't available to the voters and . Apparently she's never met an Iraqi Sunni. Or read The New York Times. Neither of those would surprise me, actually.

I am shocked, shocked, to find war crimes going on at the highest levels of government!

2008-12-15T16:47:00.000-08:00

Above: Your Democratic Congress, 2002-2008.

Just finished reading the Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. Here are the highlights, and keep in mind, this was a bi-partisan report, issued without objection, and signed by among others, John McCain:

Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President's determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.
Conlusion 2: Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were dicussed. National Security Council Principals reviewed the CIA's interrogation program during that period.
Conclusion 5: In July 2002, the Office of the Secretary of Defense General Counsel solicited information from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) on SERE technique for use during interrogations. That solicitation, prompted by requests from Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II, reflected the view that abusive tactics similar to those used by our enemies should be considered for use against detainees in U.S. custody.
Conclusion 6: The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) interrogation program including at least one SERE training technique, waterboarding. Senior Administration lawyers, including Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and David Addington, Counsel to the vice President, were consulted on the development of legal analysis of CIA interrogation techniques. Legal opinions subsequently issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) interpreted legal obligations under US. anti-torture laws and determined the legality of CIA interrogation techniques. Those OLC opinions distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws, rationalized the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody and influenced Department of Defense determinations as to what interrogation techniques were legal for use during interrogations conducted by U.S. military personnel.
Conclusion 13: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of Mr. Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Conclusion 17: Interrogation policies approved by Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez [former Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq], which included the use of military working dogs and stress positions, were a direct cause of detainee abuse in Iraq. Lieutenant General Sanchez's decision to issue his September 14, 2003 policy with the knowledge that there were ongoing discussions as to the legality of some techniques in it was a serious error in judgment...
Conclusion 19: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld'stechniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

A bipartisan report signed by the presidential candidate from the President's own party implicates, in no uncertain terms, the former Secretary of Defense and former Commander of Coalition forces in Iraq in the torture and murder of detainees, as well as, at a minimum, exposing the President's lies about the abuses at Abu Ghraib. How is this not the top story all week in every paper and on every news show?

Oh, and thanks again, Democratic Congress, doing next to nothing to expose this over the last five years. Hope the electoral success your complicity (may have) earned you was worth it.

How tight is security in Iraq?

2008-12-14T15:48:00.001-08:00

so tight an Iraqi reporter has time to throw both shoes at President Bush before anyone even makes a move to subdue him.

More proof that the "surprise" visits Bush administration officials love making there are more like "if we announced it in advance we'd be killed" visits.

Also, congratulations to White House Press Secretary for her late yet strong entry into the contest for 2008's Excuse for a Black Eye that Sounds Like it Clearly Must be an Attempt to Cover Up Domestic Abuse. A microphone hit you in the eye during the melee? Oh, Dana. That's about as believable as when you claimed you were only joking when you said you didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.

L.A. Times photo essay on Keanu Reeves and his stone-faced stare

2008-12-13T10:09:00.000-08:00

Thank you, L.A. Times, for taking on the story other newspapers were afraid to touch. Here's their photo collection of Keanu Reeves's blank stares from various movies. The unashamedly sarcastic commentary is the best part, including this one on Reeves's role in Devil's Advocate:

"Sure, Pacino may have an Oscar, but when it comes to stone-faced stares, he's got nothin on our boy Keanu."

Is it just me, or every time Keanu talks does it seem like he's a stoned college sophomore philosophy student trying to impress some girl he just got into his dorm with the promise of watching The Unbearable Lightness of Being?

While I'm on the subject of word choices that piss me off more than they should

2008-12-08T18:37:00.000-08:00

This is what "disenfranchise" means, from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

"To deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity ; especially : to deprive of the right to vote."

"privilege" in this context refers to the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that all citizens are given full benefits of citizenship.

Disenfranchisement doesn't mean a broadcast deal which makes it difficult for 20% of the population to watch BCS bowl games. As in:

"The question is whether college presidents and athletic directors at publicly funded institutions should be complicit in disenfranchising 20 percent of citizenry from access to the most popular college football games," NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said.

Black people in the Jim Crow South = disenfranchised.

People who don't have ESPN during Bowl Season = inconvenienced.

Steal by Bird, underneath to D.J.... He lays it in! Celtics win, but the search for meaning is a quest for self-delusion!

2008-12-07T21:08:00.000-08:00

What I love about sports announcers is that they are not afraid to probe the notion of the ephemeral self by constantly saying things like:

"If you are Mack Brown, you're wondering what you can do to get yourself into that BCS title game."

"If you are the Lakers right now, you want to make sure you get a good shot the next time down."

or even,

"If you are the Big Twelve, you need to reevaluate your tie-breaker system."

Sure, it would be much easier and make more sense to say "Mack Brown is probably wondering what he can do to get into that BCS title game," or "The Lakers need to get a good shot the next time down." But doing that, while perhaps making the announcers sound like they understand how English works, wouldn't take us on a Being John Macovich style odyssey, dropping us in the persona of a college football coach, the Lakers, or even an entire conference.

What exactly comprises the Lakers? That is, if I "am" the Lakers, who or what am I? Can it change depending on context? If, for example, I am the Lakers needing to get a good shot on a certain possession, am I now simply the five players on the court? The entire squad? The trainer? The entire organization? Supporters? How big a fan does one have to be to be incorporated in the Lakers "I"? But when I am the Lakers deciding on whether to draft Trevor Ariza, have I become some other subset of individuals, or does identity necessarily imply consistency in the elements of the self?

Are the many members of the Big Twelve's self like rival portions of a collective psyche, competing in some vaguely Freudian way? Can there be a self when the individual components are merely associates of one another, and adversarial ones at that?

Yes, these are the questions we would probably never ponder were it not for the gentlemen philosophers who invite themselves into our homes for three hour lectures on the great questions left unanswered by the so-called intellectual giants of the modern age.

To summarize:

Announcer guy, please stop saying "if you are" when you mean "he is" or "they should."
I have no idea why this bothers me so much.
One of the few things that bothers me more is people asking useless and stupid philosophical questions about "the self."
In fact, any time someone refers to "the self," I want to throw my shoe at them.
I may very well have lost my mind. Well, I had a pretty good run.
Oh, and someone please tell football commentaters that "game changer" and "play maker" both just mean "good."

I am done now.

Disconnected Ramblings: A Blog Post Inspired by Chuck D.

2008-11-24T15:37:00.000-08:00

The UCSB Black Studies department recently held a conference entitled something like "1968: A Year of Student Driven Change." I went to hear Chuck D., formerly of Public Enemy, speak on the topic of "contemporary music and progressive change." I left there knowing what it must be like to marry Chuck's daughter, as the only way I could imagine sitting through 45 minutes of disconnected and sometimes incoherent ramblings on pretty much whatever popped into Chuck's head is if he was my father in law. But, I figure if Chuck can do it, so can I. So here's "Whatever the Hell Pops into My Head in the Next 15 or so Minutes:"

Anyone wonder why amid talks of several hundred billion dollar bailouts and economic stimulus packages, no one has even breathed a word about repealing the draconian bankruptcy "reforms" of 2005? (Answer: people facing bankruptcy typically don't have much money to buy congressmen.)
I consider myself a pretty broad-minded person, but I'm sometimes taken aback by how easy it is for me to stereotype members of groups I disagree with - and how difficult that becomes when I actually interact with them. I had a lot of unfair anger towards the LDS after Prop. 8, and my Mormon friend Tim West reaching out to me went a long way to correcting my bigotry.
I just realized I don't think I've been out of the country since 2004. Unacceptable. Also, untrue. Just remembered I was in Mexico. But still, I really need to go somewhere soon.
Speaking of Mexico, what the hell is going on in that country with their drug related violence. Good lord. I heard on NPR a while back that a gang serving as soldiers for a cartel actually had a banner ad trying to recruit local police to work for them - they even had a number to call.
The way late hits are called in the NFL now is an absolute joke.
It has become apparent that the need to encourage more African-Americans to direct has never been more urgent, as Spike Lee has proven once again with Miracle at St. Anna that he is determined to ruin everything he touches. He is like a flesh-eating bacteria who feeds on good movie ideas and realistic dialogue. Unless things change, we are in danger of having a generation of moviegoers who think black people float through the air and have no sense of subltlety.
I think I actually like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Surprising.
Just read my first book (The Innocent Man) by that guy who wrote The Firm and The Client. He is really not a good writer. At least with nonfiction. You know who is a good writer? Kazuo Ishiguro. He's fucking bomb. Oh, John Grisham. Yeah, John Grisham blows literary goats.
One thing I have to say about Chuck D., the video to "By the Time I get to Arizona" took some serious balls to make. I don't think you could make a video today about assassinating the governor of Arizona for opposing an MLK day holiday.
Accidentally saw a really great band called Gram Rabbit the other night. I highly recommend them if, like me, your favorite musical genre is psychadellic/electronic/hipster rock.

al-Jazeera is bomb(ed)

2008-11-21T13:39:00.000-08:00

This is old, but the first I've heard of it. Apparently Bush wanted to/did bomb al-Jazeera. (Unless he was joking. Which just makes him a dick.)

You know its bad when even Bush's partisan hacks say his environmental policy is irresponsible

2008-11-19T10:15:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post:

"The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing new air-quality rules that would make it easier to build coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other major polluters near national parks and wilderness areas, even though half of the EPA's 10 regional administrators formally dissented from the decision and four others criticized the move in writing."

[...]

"All but two of the regional administrators objecting to the proposed rule are political appointees."

Shameless president + no check on his power = this kind of shit.

BREAKING: Anti-Polygraph.org is now recommending AGAINST anal sphincter contraction as a counter measure for defeating the polygraph

2008-11-14T21:00:00.000-08:00

I know that's hard to believe, but see for yourself:

It's the end of an era, as one of the last and most ardent anal sphincter contraction proponents has given in to the the latest lie detection thwarting fad. Sadly, the march away from anal-centered counter measures has gone unchecked by even a modicum of reasoned debate in recent years. And we are left to live with the consequences. Yes, our sphincters are liberated from the hours upon hours required to adequately hone the response of the typically involuntary anal muscles, but at what cost?

2008-11-12T12:55:00.001-08:00

Senior class yearbook from a Japanese Internment Camp. From UC Berkeley library via Boing Boing. (Scans of all pages available at above link.)

An Open Letter of Thanks to the Proponents of Proposition 8

2008-11-09T13:24:00.000-08:00

As someone who believes all people should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation, I would like to thank the proponents of Proposition 8 for your contribution towards advancing this cause. In the last few months, millions of straight people who never thought about gay and lesbian rights began to do so. Many became allies. Thousands of conversations started between gays and straights that otherwise would have never taken place. Those conversations helped humanize a misunderstood and oft-stereotyped minority in the minds of thousands who just needed the opportunity to understand. Even many conservative religious persons began to reexamine their views, and decided that taking away rights was not the compassionate, decent thing to do. A sometimes apathetic queer youth was stirred to action, and now stands ready to take up the challenge from the previous generation. And nearly four million Californians went to the ballot box to cast votes against bigotry.

All this was made possible by you who hold hatred so dear your felt it necessary to write it into law. You may think you achieved a victory on Tuesday, with the insertion of the language that “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to our State Constitution. You are wrong. Same-sex marriage is not the issue. Equality, true equality, where people are not insulted, attacked, discriminated against or ostracized because of their sexual orientation; where sexual diversity is celebrated, not just tolerated, is the goal – it always has been. Same-sex marriage is just one step on that march, one symbol of progress towards that dream. In the process of securing the battle you have helped raise an army that will defeat you in this war.

You got a sentence on Tuesday. It is an important sentence, a sentence that takes away people’s fundamental rights and treats them as less than full citizens. But a sentence does not change what is in anyone’s heart. It does not make a couple’s commitment any less real, a parent’s love any less pure. On the other hand, the equality movement got a renewed focus, a fresh energy, and literally millions of new supporters. The cause of those who believe that we are all created equal and deserve to be treated as such is immeasurably stronger. And it is all thanks to you, a group of heterosexual bigots, who turned out to be better recruiters than you ever claimed homosexuals were.

History has taught us that there will always be resistance to the fight for liberty, but also that such resistance can at most only delay the inevitable. You now stand in front of the courthouse steps the way George Wallace stood in the doorway of the Foster Auditorium, with the same futile obstinacy, the pathetic self-righteousness. You have temporarily barred same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses, but you can’t hold back the 61% of voters under 30 who voted against hate. You can’t quell the rebellion you helped stoke this fall. The sun will set on the time of anti-homosexual bigotry, and it will set sooner, not later, thanks to your efforts.

Sarah Palin and the Intellectual Death of the GOP

2008-11-06T07:06:00.000-08:00

A clip from Fox News that I'm sure will be getting a lot of publicity in the next few days:

Right. The GOP nominee didn't know Africa was a continent.

I post this not to keep piling on Pailin' now that the election is over. (Incidentally, Pilin' on Pailin is set to ship next month, early reviews say the gangbang scene is a little derivative.) I post this because it demonstrates where the GOP has gone. People in the GOP "base" loved this woman, many probably would have wanted her in the White House more than McCain. And of course people have been talking for weeks about her running in 2012.

The GOP - once arguably considered the "thinking person's party" to the bleeding heart Democrats, has descended entirely to the other extreme. They are all ideology to the exclusion of intellect and ability. Even following on the heels of a Republican president who showed the danger of such a philosophy, the hardcore GOP was happy, elated even, to have a woman in the White House who couldn't name the parties to NAFTA, simply because that woman was willing to publicly and blindly take the extreme ideological positions that define the identity politics traded on in the Party these days. To those voters, Palin was with them, right or wrong, for better or worse, and God would assumedly take care of the rest.

That is the reason the Republican party has rightly lost the confidence of most thinking people in this country. As Barack Obama pointed out in his victory speech on Tuesday, the GOP has made many important, positive and lasting contributions to our nation. We need a healthy Republican party, and hopefully those who shape its agenda will soon wake up and realize that the big tent should no longer be booked exclusively for snake oil salesmen and revival sermons.

A uniter of global proportions

2008-11-05T14:25:00.001-08:00

Not that anyone in the U.S. cares, but here's what the rest of the world is saying about the election of Barack Obama.

Yes We Can, No You Can't

2008-11-05T07:38:00.000-08:00

Obama's victory speech reminded me that he is pretty damn awesome. I actually believe we could be seeing our first country's first truly enlightened leader in who knows how long. It is imperative, though, that those of us who have so much admiration for our next president be objective in our evaluation of his actions.

I'm so glad I was wrong, way wrong, that this country wouldn't elect a black president. Today I've become a little less cynical person.
------------------------

I can't say I'm surprised that a church which banned blacks for 150 years would rejoice in having helped write discrimination into California's Constitution. It does sadden me that a church with so many wonderful members I've come to respect for their kindness, tolerance, and integrity took it upon itself to help pass a law that has devastated thousands of California families.

I wonder how many Yes on 8 voters would change their minds if they had to see any of the thousands of same sex couples react to being told their fellow citizens don't think their love is worth equal recognition.

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

I love that on Fox News this morning, in their discussion about Sarah Palin's value to the McCain ticket, they divided the country into "conservatives, moderates, and Democrats."

White People love Sarah Palin

2008-11-04T18:30:00.000-08:00

A senior advisor to John McCain is on Fox News right now, and just said, "Sarah Palin electrified our race."

Which is true.

I am keeping my TV on Fox News in hopes of seeing someone on their panel cry.

SWIFT JUSTICE: THE LOGAN SWIFT STORY, Episode 14 "Broken Wingman"

2008-10-31T21:21:00.000-07:00

When I'm on tour promoting Notes from the Hovel, one of the most frequently asked questions I get is, "Your life is exciting and interesting, why hasn't someone made a movie about it yet?"

I usually tell them, "Wow. I think you're being sarcastic. Especially since this promotional tour is really just me standing on street corners all over the central coast and shouting at people to read my blog and/or give me change for bus fare."

Then before they can respond, I say, "actually there is a prime time television drama currently being produced based on me. Hey, do you know where the nearest public restroom is?" And in that way I can sneak off before they ask too many questions and discover there is not movie being made about my life.

So without further ado, I present the first installment of arbitrarily selected scenes from the unforthcoming biopic based on my life, "SWIFT JUSTICE: THE LOGAN SWIFT STORY." (I like that title, so I'm just going to go ahead and call my self Logan Swift. Also, names have been changed.) Hopefully this will entertain the 10 or so friends of mine who read this. Take pleasure in my sorry.

EPISODE 14: BROKEN WINGMAN

EXT: A bar in beautiful Santa Barbara, California

(LOGAN returns from the restroom to find his friend STEVE talking to a GIRL. The GIRL'S FRIEND looks bored.)

LOGAN: Hey, STEVE, I see you are talking to a girl.

STEVE: Yes, her name is WILLOW.

LOGAN: I guess that means I've got to entertain her friend.

STEVE: Pretty much.

(LOGAN introduces himself to the FRIEND.)

LOGAN: Hi, my job is to engage in meaningless conversation with you for the next hour or so. I'm guessing you've got the same job.

FRIEND: Pretty much. My names ALLIE by the way.

LOGAN: Alright, ALLIE, I really just want to be watching the Lakers right now, and you seem to just want to text your friends about makeup or whatever, but how about we just make the best of this.

ALLIE: No. I'm going to make the rest of the evening as tedious as possible. And, since it's only like 9:30, this could end up being a long, terrible night for all involved.

LOGAN: Weak. So lets at least see if we can find something we have in common to talk about.

ALLIE: No, I'd really rather talk about my hardcore Republican values. You will have to be polite while I do this, because STEVE is getting along with my friend.

LOGAN: That sounds awful.

ALLIE: It will be.

LOGAN: How about we all at least go to the bar across the street, there's a loud band there so we can just pretend we hear what each other are saying and just nod and smile.

(They do.)

EXT: A bar across the street - an hour later.

FADE IN

ALLIE: ...so that's why Sarah Palin is a true American hero.

LOGAN: Exactly. (He nods and smiles.) So, where did WILLOW go?

ALLIE: WILLOW? You mean the girl who STEVE has been talking to all night? You mean the whole reason you have had to sit through this hellish conversation we've been having?

LOGAN: Right.

ALLIE: Oh, she's probably calling her boyfriend.

LOGAN: I hate my life.

FADE OUT

Literally the funniest picture in the history of the world

2008-10-30T13:11:00.000-07:00

Is right here.

More proof the 90's was God punishing us for inventing day-glo

2008-10-28T23:57:00.001-07:00

I'm pretty sure this won the Grammy for best hip-hop video of 1991:

Why yes, that is Jesse Jaymes "Shake it like a White Girl."

Remember how Al Gore said he invented global warming in 2006?

2008-10-22T20:33:00.000-07:00

well, he lied. Global warming was invented in 1958 by some bald guy. If climate change destroys civilization, he is to blame. View the video evidence.

Nothing is certain but death, taxes, and the constant erosion of civil liberties under the Bush Administration

2008-10-21T10:45:00.000-07:00

Want to see what your Obama tax cut will look like vs. your McCain tax cut based on your income?

Here you go.

The gist: everyone saves more under Obama's plan, except those who are really, really rich - they save a shit ton more under McCain.
-------------------------
Haven't seen this story get much attention, but there is no longer any separation of church and state in our country:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- The U.S. Bush administration says it is legally free to give taxpayer funds to religious groups that discriminate against non-believers in their hiring.
The legal opinion on funding of faith-based organizations was issued last year by the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and was quietly posted on the department's Web site last week, The New York Times (NYSE:NYT) reported Saturday.

So that's nice.
----------------------

Dana Perino on August 1 of this year:

And so another stimulus package -- one, if it was not stimulative to the economy and was more giving out campaign benefits, basically, in an election year and then adding to the deficit, but not really having an impact on the economy, does not seem like it would be responsible.

Just something to keep in mind as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke advocates sending a second round of checks to taxpayers 14 days before the election.

Your Half-Assed Guide to the Third Presidential Debate

2008-10-16T11:19:00.000-07:00

I caught the debate between catching up with a friend and eating liberal elitist salmon poke salad ($3!) and drinking liberal elitist merlot ($3!). (Yes, merlot and salmon don't go together, but poor wine/food pairings are how I keep in touch with the common man.) So I can't provide the sort of in-depth analysis you've all come to depend on. I did, however get the gist of McCain's message, which as far as I can tell is:

"Barack Obama sure does talk pretty, but unless he's assassinated like Bobby Kennedy he will raise taxes, resulting in class warfare, which will end with women being impregnated by Joe the Plumber and having needless partial birth abortions in the back of Cadillacs."

I'm pretty sure that about sums it up.

The rest of my thoughts on the debate:

My favorite exchange of the evening:

Obama: Some of the people at Senator McCain's rallies have said some pretty terrible things when my name is mentioned, like "terrorist" and "kill him."

McCain: I'm not going to sit here and let Senator Obama insult mothers with children and veterans who wear hats.

I'm glad McCain is "proud" of his vice presidential candidate. She's tryin' so hard!
This voter fraud thing is going to piss me off to no end. Could it be any more obvious that Republicans are just going to try to use this to push through voter ID laws and other suppression mechanisms?
I don't think McCain mentioned being a POW the entire time. Unbelievable.
I find it amusing that for every debate we have to have a new "format" which just means the candidates are either a) standing behind a podium, b) standing in front of someone reading a question off a card, or c) sitting at a table. How is this helpful?

Yeah, that's it. I really didn't pay all that much attention. But I highly recommend the salmon salad. Three dollars!

Just a thought

2008-10-14T10:29:00.000-07:00

So I was listening to some radio show on NPR or whatever, and the topic was how the U.S. was dealing with insurgents in Afghanistan. Anyway, one of the panel members noted that although many of our allies are involved in the country, over half of the soldiers there are from the U.S. The panelist noted that although our NATO allies are quite willing to provide financial or logistical support, their citizens don't have nearly the tolerance we do for taking casualties.

Which led me to think how interesting it is that in the U.S., supporting the troops means making hyperbolic statements about their heroism and abilities, and never missing a chance to thank them for their sacrifice, elsewhere it means not sending them to die unless absolutely necessary.

If you're surprised to hear your government is spying on Americans abroad, you might be a redneck

2008-10-10T10:12:00.000-07:00

Surprised by the ABC News story yesterday that our government was spying on Americans abroad?

You shouldn't be. Senator Shelden Whitehouse warned us about this back in April. Whitehouse, on the Senate floor, discussing a secret DOJ legal opinion:

“In other words, the only thing standing between Americans traveling overseas and government wiretap is an executive order. An order this president, under the first legal theory I cited, claims he has no legal obligation to obey.”

The legal propositions of which Whitehouse was speaking:

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Here's some other scary ramifications of the opinion.
------------------------

Oh, and look at this - Connecticut's Supreme Court overturns same-sex marriage ban. Or to put it in more politically correct terms, the right of one girl wearing a skirt as a top to wed another girl wearing a skirt as a top. Congratulations all the committed same-sex couples out there.

Top 5 John McCain Quotes from Last Night's Debate, as Interpreted by Me

2008-10-08T12:34:00.000-07:00

5. "Barack Obama says we should attack Pakistan." - "What, that sounds totally implausible? If he'd actually said that it would have been front page news for a week and caused a major international incident? You're tired of me making up bald-faced lies about Obama? Barack Obama says we should attack Pakistan. And raise taxes. And abort babies unless their parents agree to raise them gay and give them government health insurance"

4. "I know how to get Bin Laden." - "But for the last six years I've thought it best to keep this plan to myself. Also, the plan involves unfreezing an alien predator buried deep beneath Antarctica. Currently it is impossible to reach the mysterious grave site, but if we give global warming a couple more years, it should be doable. This also explains my environmental policy for the last 26 years."

3. "My African-American friend, I know you probably thought Freddie Mac was some famous Washington, D.C. pimp, and Fannie Mae just a popular name for White women, but in reality, they are two financial entities which are vital to securing the entitlement programs you people need to get by."

2. "Barack Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq has us leaving in defeat, turning Iraq into a terrorist haven." - "Please ignore the fact that it has been endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki."

1. "I know what it's like to depend on others for love and support." - "My first wife, on the other hand, knows only heartbreak and betrayal."