Happy new year, everyone!
May 2006 bring you health and happiness!
Over at The Malcontent, you can read the new year’s resolutions of some of your favorite gay bloggers.
Enjoy the holiday. I’ll see you Monday.
« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
December 31, 2005
Can a wall staunch illegal immigration?
I had thought that the immigration reform measures passed earlier this month by the U.S. House were well short of what’s needed to stem the tide of illegal immigration. But one of those measures is the erection of another 700 miles of fence along the border in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas; reaction from the advocates of unlawful entry — “just complete fear and shock” — is encouraging. When you doubt whether your shaft has hit its target, listen for the screams.
And then there’s this endorsement:
Fernando Robledo, 42, of the western state of Zacatecas, says the proposals could stem migration and disrupt families by breaking cross-border ties. [Emphasis added.]
Okie, dokie.
Finally, lest we take the matter too seriously, a little comic relief from Luis Ernesto Derbez, foreign secretary to Mexican President Vicente Fox:
“Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall,” Derbez said.
Isn’t Luis cute? He’s going to huff and puff until he blows our house down, the sexy little bastard. Don’t you just want to pinch his cheeks?
The irony, of course, is that were Mexico powerful and prosperous enough to make credible threats, her people wouldn’t be exiting by the millions and the wall wouldn’t be necessary.
(Thanks to Polipundit.)
December 29, 2005
“Suspected Bush attacker in Georgia sews up mouth”
If we’re lucky, he’ll start a trend.
“Atrios blogging”
Comes now proof positive that your traffic is unrelated to how well or how poorly you blog.
“Snoopgate:” why can’t Democrats read?
Only minutes ago on Fox News, former Democratic congressman Martin Frost asserted that “… the Fourth Amendment says American citizens can’t be searched without a warrant.”
No, it does not.
The Fourth Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [Emphasis added.]
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, identifies twenty-eight instances in which federal law has long provided for warrantless searches and seizures. Among other things, the Government has the power to:
• Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
• Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
• Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
• Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
• Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
• Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;
• Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry and nuclear plants.
Moreover, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), an American citizen can be arrested and jailed for a fine-only offense not punishable by incarceration upon conviction!
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say that a warrant must precede every arrest or search. It says if you want a warrant, you have to show probable cause. And it doesn’t say that the Government cannot search or arrest people warrantlessly. It says the Government cannot search or arrest them unreasonably.
Is it unreasonable to listen for evidence of a plan to blow people up with a view to preventing it?
December 28, 2005
In the war on terror, Uncle Sam ass clowns
“Snoopgate” is not an example of the Government acting sleazily in the war on terror. But this is. From the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Judge Michael Luttig* writing:
Because of their evident gravity, we must believe that the consequences of the actions that the government has taken in this important case over the past several weeks, not only for the public perception of the war on terror but also for the government’s credibility before the courts in litigation ancillary to that war, have been carefully considered. But at the same time that we must believe this, we cannot help but believe that those consequences have been underestimated.
For, as the government surely must understand, although the various facts it has asserted are not necessarily inconsistent or without basis, its actions have left not only the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake –- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant. They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror –- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant. And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government’s credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be.
You’ll want to read all 14 pages.
(*Judge Luttig is no wide-eyed liberal. To the contrary, most conservatives would have preferred him to Sam Alito for the Supreme Court vacancy.)
Do the Democrats think burglars have a right to moonless nights?
In a comment to this post about the president’s warrantless surveillance of foreign communications, Jeff writes:
Shhhhh. Email Nancy Pelosi & tell her to keep up the good work. It’s always entertaining to watch political parties walk off a cliff.
Ain’t that it?
Let’s set aside for the moment the constitutional question, which resolves emphatically in the president’s favor, and consider only the political question, which also resolves emphatically in the president’s favor. Come next year, an election year, the Democrats want congressional hearings on “snoopgate.” They want to berate Mr. Bush, formally and publicly, for tapping the e-mails and phone calls of people who’d like to kill Americans by the thousands. They’re going to shout it to the country: “The president is listening to al-Qaeda — and we’ll have none of it!”
It’s amazingly stupid.
What’s next? Will Pelosi et al hold a press conference to announce themselves in favor of moonless nights for cat burglars?
Somebody told the Democrats, who are political nitwits, that they can win an election by providing ad footage to Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman. That person must be found and shot as an enemy of the people.
Congressional Republicans deserve a vigorous challenge in next year’s mid-terms. They’ve governed abysmally, and irresponsibly; they’ve been unfaithful to even their own principles. The American electorate should be given an opportunity to punish them. But congressional Democrats insist on portraying themselves as even more irresponsible than their GOP counterparts.
The Democrats are not serious about winning the mid-terms. Accordingly, they will not.
ADDED —
Relatedly, this from Rasmussen Reports (via Instapundit):
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.
Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.
Does this sound like a story Howard Dean & Co. can ride to victory?
December 27, 2005
“... this surveillance is fully within the president’s legal authority”
The pushback against the yap yap continues:
The president has the constitutional authority to acquire foreign intelligence without a warrant or any other type of judicial blessing. The courts have acknowledged this authority, and numerous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have espoused the same view. The purpose here is not to detect crime, or to build criminal prosecutions — areas where the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements are applicable — but to identify and prevent armed attacks on American interests at home and abroad. The attempt, by Democrats and Republicans alike, to dismantle the president’s core constitutional power in wartime is wrongheaded and should be vigorously resisted by the administration.
December 26, 2005
In the battle of ideas ...
The straight male as drama queen ...
Texas Republicans are cleaning house
Texas GOP to Republican lawmakers: if you can’t get with the program, get the hell out.
I’d surely also be targeted for defeat were I a Republican member of the Texas Legislature. Railing against the drug war, among other things, won’t endear you to paleoconservatives. But still I admire the state GOP for demanding party discipline. It helps to make elections clarifying events. “For this, we stand. All of us. If you don’t want it, don’t vote for us.”
So far, the people of Texas have wanted it.
What are we doing about Iran's plan to bomb us to hell?
If you believe these guys — and I do — the answer is “nothing,” or at least “nothing consequential.” But even the things they suggest — international sanctions or an oil embargo or both — are unlikely to work.
We need a full-on land invasion to find and destroy the elements of Iran’s nuclear program. But that’s not politically palatable just now, is it? It doesn’t help that Mr. Bush has said nary a word to the American people about the danger Iran poses to our friend Israel or to us.
If we won’t invade, shouldn’t we at least send a death squad to introduce a bullet to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s head? I think it contravenes U.S. law or policy to assassinate a foreign leader. If so, an operation on the qt is in good order here. In hindsight it’s impossible to argue that we shouldn’t have capped Hilter. Maybe the Mossad is suiting up.
The hour is late and the Bush Administration is dawdling. It’s horrible to say, but I fear we’ll do nothing useful until a nuclear device goes off in Tel Aviv or New York or both. The Iranian people will pay a terrible price for that. But so will we.
December 24, 2005
We love soldiers, yes we do!
From restaurant checks to first-class plane seats, we’re putting out for our troops:
In contrast to the hostile stares that greeted many Vietnam veterans 40 years ago, today’s soldiers are being treated as heroes throughout the year, in red states and blue, by peace activists and gung-ho supporters of the Iraq mission. The gestures are often spontaneous, affiliated with no association or cause, and credit is seldom claimed.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Have a bright and beautiful holiday! See you again Monday.
December 23, 2005
No way out: when it sucks to be you
Worried about a warrantless wiretap? Try this one on …
You were misclassified as an “enemy combatant.” Even the U.S. military agrees that you were misclassified and should be put at liberty. But you are not at liberty. Instead, you are in your fourth year of detention at the facility in Guantanamo. A federal judge says your detention is unlawful. He also says there’s nothing he can do about it.
Bush pardons 11
Three moonshiners were among the recipients of today’s pre-holiday presidential pardons. Story and full list here.
To learn more about presidential pardons and how to get one if you, ah, need it, visit the web site of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney.*
(*I should be more precise. You can learn from the DOJ how to apply for a presidential pardon. The odds of actually getting one, from this or any president, are rather long. Moreover, a president can grant pardons only for violations of federal law.)
December 22, 2005
Economic outlook bright for new year
Falling fuel costs helped Americans spend more on goods and services in November, reinforcing expectations that the U.S. economy will accelerate with inflation under control entering 2006.
[…]
Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, said its U.S. November sales rose 4.3 percent. The National Retail Federation is forecasting an industry wide sales gain of 6 percent for the November-December shopping season, the second-biggest increase since 1999.
“The last few weeks have been very strong,”’ said John Barbour, president of U.S. stores for Toys “R” Us, in a Dec. 19 interview. “We’re feeling very good about how the holiday season is developing.”
Lower gasoline prices may increase demand, economists said. The average retail price of all grades of gas dropped to $2.30 a gallon in November from $2.77 the prior month.
In other words, the economy will still be coming on like gangbusters in 2006.
What a truly wonderful country this could be if only the president would stop prophylactically reading the e-mails of people who plan to kill us …
Are 54% of Americans “outside the mainstream”?
Once again, the liberal world view is inconvenienced by the facts.
December 21, 2005
Taps OK’d by Bush legal
So says John Schmidt, former associate attorney general under President Clinton:
President Bush’s post-Sept. 11, 2001 authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
[…]
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”
For clear, concise and authoritative commentary on this “controversy,” read the rest.
Note especially Mr. Schmidt’s argument about FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Even if the surveillance at issue here violates the Act, it’s irrelevant. For Congress cannot by statute limit the president’s constitutional authority.
December 20, 2005
Bush approval up to 47%
Washington Post:
President Bush’s approval rating has surged in recent weeks, reversing what had been an extended period of decline, with Americans now expressing renewed optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq, the campaign against terrorism and the U.S. economy, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll.
The shrieking you hear is the sound of disappointed moonbats who thought they had this president on the run. Between now and November, the news isn’t going to get any better for them.
Pace the conventional wisdom, the GOP will at least hold its own, and maybe pick up a few seats, in next year’s mid-terms. The economy is performing well and national security will again — at the insistence of both Democrats and Iranians — play a central role in the campaign. That translates into a Republican lock. Yes, a lock.* You heard it here first, yes? If you want to tell me now that I’m wrong and if I turn out to be wrong, you’ll have gloating rights. (I’ll even put your gloat in a post.) But if I turn out to be right, expect me to serve big slices of humble pie.
*Meaning Republicans suffer no net loss of seats in the House or Senate.
(I’ll concede this as a potentially small hiccup for Republicans, depending on how it plays out. But it doesn’t change my prediction.)
December 19, 2005
Does the Constitution live for Bush?
Over at The Volokh Conspriacy, there’s a passionate exchange in the comments over the legality and constitutionality of the president’s decision to authorize warrantless surveillance of electronic communications. I love this observation from a lawyer in Houston:
I don’t really have an opinion on whether the intelligence gathering that Bush authorized is permitted under the Constitution, but any Constitution flexible enough to have a right to abortion contained therein without express or implied wording is going to accomodate a lot of things.
Indeed. If the Constitution is a living, evolving document, perhaps its also lives and evolves under the ministrations of the executive and not just the judiciary. Why not?
This one left me scatching my head:
It’s going to be interesting seeing John Roberts presiding over the trial of his sponsor’s impeachment.
You know what would be even more interesting? To know where this dude gets the notion that a Republican-controlled House of Representatives is going to impeach this president over a hotly contested point of law and policy.
Even if we grant, arguendo, that the president’s authorization of warrantless domestic eavesdropping exceeds what the Constitution allows, so what? If the Government has used the information to bring criminal charges against a U.S. citizen, the defendant can challenge the validity of the search and, under the exclusionary rule, have the fruits of it suppressed. That’s the remedy. If, on the hand, the Government has used the information only to disrupt terrorist plots, isn’t that what the Government is supposed to do?
This is a fact-intensive matter. And there’s quite a bit that we — meaning the American public — just don’t know.
Relatedly, this from law professor Orin Kerr:
Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don’t know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons. First, there is some wiggle room in FISA, depending on technical details we don’t know of how the surveillance was done. Second, there is at least a colorable argument — if, I think in the end, an unpersuasive one — that the surveillance was authorized by the Authorization to Use Miltary Force as construed in the Hamdi opinion. (Link) [Emphasis added.]
Officers of the Government are forever doing things only to be told later by (often divided) courts that they weren’t supposed to be doing them, either because they violated the Constitution or statutory law; this is true even when the extant law was clearly in the Government’s favor. Here are some examples.
A president’s policy decisions may be unlawful or even unconstitutional and still not be criminal. Even if Mr. Bush’s policy decisions relating to domestic surveillance exceed what the Constitution or federal law allows, he has hardly done anything for which Republicans would impeach him. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a political bed wetter.
Fugetaboutit. It ain’t happening.
December 18, 2005
Iran readies for Armageddon
Just in case you have any doubt that Iran intends nuclear war against Israel or the United States or both, this video should erase it. [Link launches media player]
Meanwhile, there are murmurs of an assassination attempt against Iran’s president. (Identity of would-be assassins unknown.) But this attempt, if even it occurred, apparently failed. I have an RSS feed devoted to all things Iran — one should keep tabs on the planners of the Apocalypse — and no conventional media outlet has report of it.
Did the NYT’s leakers violate federal law?
Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it …
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. [Emph. added]
Who leaked this to the New York Times? The Times says it got the information from “government officials.” Who are those officials? Shouldn’t the Justice Department find out — and then put them in front of a grand jury?
Bush to give prime-time address on Iraq war
President Bush will address the Nation tonight at 8 p.m. CST on the war in Iraq. He’ll speak from the Oval Office.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the United States is “now entering a critical period for our mission in Iraq, and the president will talk about what we’ve accomplished and where we’re headed.”
December 17, 2005
WTO protestors demand secret sauce
And the Hong Kong police give it:
Helmeted police with riot shields used pepper spray foam and high-pressure water hoses to drive back the demonstrators as the clashes escalated.
And here you’ll notice the police have batons the size of baseball bats:
A good time was had by all.
“No real legal definition of homosexuality exists”
If you say you’re gay, can anyone prove you’re not?
Did you know you’re a cat to be skinned?
According to county treasurer Frank O’Leary, “It’s our dream come true:”
Property-tax evaders and parking-ticket scofflaws in Arlington County take notice: Officials are collecting outstanding taxes and fines at the rate of about $900 an hour with the help of an electronic roving eye.
County officials last month began using the BootFinder, a small, hand-held camera that scans license plates of parked cars to identify people with delinquent property-tax bills and unpaid parking tickets.
[…]
Two treasury workers patrol the city in a van, aiming the camera at the license plates of parked cars. The camera is connected to a laptop computer that compares the license owner’s name against a database of persons with outstanding taxes or fines.
If a car’s owner has any unpaid taxes or fines, the computer audibly informs the camera’s operator, who calls the treasurer’s office for verification. After the information is verified, the workers remove the car’s license plates and place a bright green levy sticker on the driver’s side windshield.
[…]
Arlington isn’t using the camera because it has an unusual problem with outstanding debts, Mr. O’Leary said. “We’re just always looking for new ways to skin the cat.” [Emph. added]
This is why I’ll never serve on a traffic court jury. I won’t convict. Traffic citations aren’t about public safety — ever notice how ticket-proof cops drive? — they’re about revenue generation.
(Thanks to Joshua.)
House acts on immigration reform
The House acted Friday to stem the tide of illegal immigration by taking steps to tighten border controls and stop unlawful immigrants from getting jobs.
But lawmakers left for next year the tougher issue of what to do with the 11 million undocumented people already in the country.
The House legislation, billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes such measures as enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers.
It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.
But it put off consideration of a guest worker program, which President Bush and many in Congress say must be part of a lasting solution to the illegal immigrant crisis. [Emph. added]
The vote was 239-182. Roll call.
And as for the millions of illegals already here?
Nobody is advocating the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants, said Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, sponsor of a guest worker measure.
Without a temporary worker program, he said, “We simply won’t enforce the law, and that’s the dirty little secret here.”
We don’t have to deport them, Rep. Flake. We can induce them to deport themselves. Launch a massive guest worker program but open it only to those who make application from outside the United States, just as several lawmakers have proposed. Give illegal immigrants competition and then put them at a competitive disadvantage, i.e. offer their employers the easy choice of cheap, legal labor from a guest worker program, or the prospect of time in the penitentiary for hiring the undocumented.* People at a competitive disadvantage usually go out of business.
(*The bill passed yesterday provides criminal penalties for hiring illegals.)
December 16, 2005
Red rover, red rover
Bob Novak is an ass clown extraordinaire and now he’s leaving CNN and taking his antics to Fox:
Novak walked off the set in August during a political debate after James Carville said that he’s “got to show these right-wingers that he’s got a backbone.”
Novak quickly apologized, but CNN never let him back on the air.
Storming off the set at CNN is not the funniest thing Mr. Novak has ever done. The funniest thing he’s ever done was to suggest that Senate Democrats were attempting to kill the late Strom Thurmond, then frail and elderly, by voting him to death with repeated calls for cloture!
“Then Bush has said it correctly”
“Before, we had a dictator, and now we have this freedom, this democracy,” said Emad Abdul Jabbar, 38, a teacher acting as supervisor at the Ahrar school polling site. “This time, we have a real election, not just the sham elections we had under Saddam, and we Sunnis want to participate in the political process.”
A 60-year-old merchant, Abdul Kader al-Saffar, and his wife, Ammal Abdul Razzaq, 40, who voted with their three sons, agreed. “We have found candidates in this election we can trust,” Mr. Saffar said, referring to the Iraqi Consensus Front, a moderate Sunni group that had several of its political workers killed during the campaign.
Another thing many Sunnis seemed to agree on was the possibility of a reconciliation between the Americans and the Sunnis, and a distancing of the Sunnis from some of the Al Qaeda-linked insurgent groups. Many were critical of American troops, saying, as Mr. Saleh did, that “they came as liberators, but stayed on as occupiers.” But pressed on the question of an American troop withdrawal, most seemed cautious, favoring a gradual drawdown.
“Let’s have stability, and then the Americans can go home,” said Mr. Sattar, the store owner. Told that this sounded similar to President Bush’s formula for a troop withdrawal, he replied: “Then Bush has said it correctly.”
(Thanks to Blogs for Bush.)
Why it’s okay for gun owners to vote for Rudy
In a comment to this post, a reader writes:
Giuliani? Are you kidding? You’d vote for that gun-grabber?
Indeed I would. Let me explain.
I proceed from the assumption that context matters. In 2004, I — and 1.1 million other gays and lesbians — voted to re-elect George W. Bush even though Mr. Bush had announced his putative support for a Federal Marriage Amendment. How could I — how could we — do that? For starters, the FMA was hardly the most pressing issue facing the American electorate. If you believe, as I do, that as citizens we have some obligation to consider things beyond our own self-interests, then you’ll look at the big picture when deciding for whom to vote. In 2004, the war on terror was the big picture; and there was no serious case to be made for John Kerry as the prosecutor of it.
Secondly, two things were as clear then as they are now. 1) Mr. Bush isn’t going to do much to get the FMA passed. Yes, he’s made favorable mention of it in a couple of speeches. But that’s been the extent of his “effort.” And in any case, there just isn’t a lot a president can do about constitutional amendments. He can lend his moral support to them, but he plays no formal role in their ratification. Relatedly, 2) there aren’t the votes in the Senate to pass the Amendment. So if we allow ourselves to be practical for a moment, we’ll admit that George Bush’s nominal support for the FMA just doesn’t matter. We could hardly say the same about his views on the war on terror generally or the war in Iraq particularly.
As a gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment, I most assuredly do not share Rudy Giuliani’s sympathy for gun control. But gun control isn’t going to play an important role in the 2008 presidential election; indeed, outside of liberal enclaves like San Francisco or Chicago, gun control is dead. And even the Democrats have no inclination to exhume it. As candidate or president, Mr. Giuliani isn’t going to champion any new gun-grabbing measures, and if he did, a Republican-controlled Congress isn’t going to enact them. In short, like Mr. Bush’s support for the FMA, Mr. Giuliani’s support for gun control is functionally irrelevant. That may not make him an ideal vote for gun owners. But it makes him a safe vote.
William F. Buckley Jr. once admonished conservatives to vote for the “rightward-most viable candidate.” But how to judge the candidate’s rightwardness (or viability)? We judge it in context, of course. In a campaign wherein it was a live question whether the United States should return to the gold standard, the candidate in favor would be the rightward-most. But do you think we’ll be talking about that in 2008? We won’t be talking about gun control, either.
ADDED — It’s all academic. It looks like Giuliani won’t run.
Senate rejects renewal of Patriot Act
You’ll note that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was one of five Republicans who voted “no.” Be not deceived. His vote was purely procedural. Under Senate rules, as under Robert’s Rules of Order, a member who votes with the prevailing side can subsequently ask for a reconsideration of the motion. Members who vote with the losing side cannot.
Iraqis send a message to Democrats
(Note to Mr. Bush: take the Journal’s advice. Go to Baghdad and address parliament.)
December 15, 2005
Run, Rudy, run!
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the favorite for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, according to a CNN/USA Today poll.
In the big picture, Mr. Giuliani is a strong leader and would make for a fine president; in the small picture, he can mop the floor with John McCain’s ass. Both are reasons to vote for him.
White House agrees to “torture” ban
How, exactly, does this differ from existing U.S. law and policy?
ADDED — I intented that question expositorially. Perhaps the new measure does differ from existing law and policy. But if so, how it differs is not readily apparent.
ADDED II — Perhaps this is the answer. John McCain’s proposal goes beyond torture, already illegal, and bans the unpleasant :
Because we’ve been able to use techniques like stress positions, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding on terrorists for the last few years, we have undoubtedly had a lot of success in getting information out of key terrorists that we’ve captured. In fact, the use of those sort of interrogation techniques probably has a lot to do with why Al-Qaeda hasn’t been able to follow-up on 9/11 in the United States.
However, now that we’ve put political grandstanding above national security and completely handcuffed our military investigators, we can expect a big slow down in the amount of intelligence we’re getting from captured Al-Qaeda operatives…
More here.
A wookie sings
Let Chewbacca add a note to your Christmas.
(Thanks to Ace of Spades.)
Quagmire! Quagmire!
How small and petty opponents of the war should feel today:
Iraqis voted in a historic parliamentary election Thursday, with strong turnout reported in Sunni Arab areas and even a shortage of ballots in some precincts. Because of the large turnout, the Iraqi election commission met in emergency session and extended voting for one hour after long lines were reported at some sites …
December 14, 2005
It looks like Mitt Romney is running for president
Associated Press (via Yahoo News):
BOSTON — Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he will not run for a second term next year, fueling speculation he will seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
According to the article, Gov. Romney’s Mormon faith may spell trouble:
“His religion is a significant problem because many evangelical Christians do not believe that Mormons are Christians,” [political analysis Stuart] Rothenberg said. “To the extent that we have controversial religions in this country, LDS (Latter Day Saints) is one of them.”
I’m not so sure. I was raised in the Church of Christ, a deeply conservative and evangelical sect. Its members refer to their church as the church and think of themselves as the only true Christians. George Bush, they will tell you, is going to hell. He is, after all, a Methodist. But I would wager that Mr. Bush carried the Church of Christ vote handily.
People have to have something to bitch about
Planet Out:
WASHINGTON — Gay and lesbian advocacy groups believe gay aging issues were purposefully left off the table in this week’s White House Conference on Aging.
The White House conference, held every 10 years, was strongly scripted this week to eliminate resolutions from the floor or other avenues for gay rights advocates to bring community concerns to light, gay organizational leaders said. They had hoped to broach issues like funding of elder care services for gays and lesbians and economic security for a growing number of gay seniors. [Emphasis added.]
Those are gay-specific issues? Who knew? Somebody tell these clowns to get off our turf.
Rigoberto Alpizar would not have done well with you
A few days ago, I ran a poll and asked whether, based on what was known at the time, you would have shot Rigoberto Alpizar. As you’ll recall, Mr. Alpizar was the manic depressive shot dead by federal air marshals after claiming he had a bomb.
Two hundred thirty-three readers voted. The results are here. In brief, ya’ll are a tough crowd.
Big Brother is watching you
I don’t agree that this is “stifling free speech.” After all, the protests did occur and they will again, even if people suspect they’re being watched. But I do agree that it’s creepy for the military to be monitoring the constitutionally protected conduct of U.S. citizens.
Relatedly, for the reasons cited here, I would have voted “no” on renewal of the Patriot Act. But I didn’t get to vote. Your congressman did. The roll call is here.
December 13, 2005
Report questions drug war claims
Knight Ridder Newspapers:
WASHINGTON - A new congressional report questions the reliability of key U.S. government data on cocaine trafficking, price and purity levels, raising fresh doubts about Bush administration claims that it is making progress in the war on drugs.
[…]
Since 2000, the U.S. government has spent $6 billion in an effort to disrupt the international drug trade. Most of the money has been directed at Colombia, which supplies about 90 percent of the cocaine available in the United States.
[…]
Cocaine seizures reportedly rose from 117 metric tons in 2001 to 196 in 2004. And just last month, [drug war czar] John Walters triumphantly announced the price of cocaine rose 19 percent and purity declined 15 percent over a seven-month period this year - evidence to him that cocaine is getting scarcer.
But by the Government’s own admission, as much as 675 metric tons of cocaine entered the U.S. last year. Does that sound “s