Thursday, June 30, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Don't "Son" Me - End this silly talk about sacrificing children. By Christopher�Hitchens
Don't "Son" Me - End this silly talk about sacrificing children. By Christopher�Hitchens: "Christopher Hitchens"
BG: Hitchens is the top nominee so far for my "Most likely to be lying for money" contest.
BG: Hitchens is the top nominee so far for my "Most likely to be lying for money" contest.
ProfessorBainbridge.com: WSJ on 10 Commandments Cases
ProfessorBainbridge.com: WSJ on 10 Commandments Cases
BG: Things are be going down the tubes. It seems that I agree with Bainbridge and WSJ EB.
Of course, I'm sure if the question comes back to an ndividual State's ruling, things might get contentious.
BG: Things are be going down the tubes. It seems that I agree with Bainbridge and WSJ EB.
Of course, I'm sure if the question comes back to an ndividual State's ruling, things might get contentious.
A Supreme Court Conversation - The Miss Manners school of jurisprudence. By Walter�Dellinger, Charles�Fried, Dahlia�Lithwick, and Tim�Wu
BG: Scotus = Bonkers
Here's why... (not saying I completely agree with analysis, but the idea that this is our reality is just mind bending to me.)
A Supreme Court Conversation - The Miss Manners school of jurisprudence. By Walter�Dellinger, Charles�Fried, Dahlia�Lithwick, and Tim�Wu: "From: Tim Wu
To: Walter Dellinger, Dahlia Lithwick, and Charles Fried
Subject: The Miss Manners School of Jurisprudence
Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 7:31 AM PT
Dear Walter and Dahlia:
It may strike you as ambitious for me to suggest similarities between the Ten Commandments and Grokster cases (though in a certain sense both are about the distribution of forbidden content). But reading your posts, I do think the cases have something in common and reflect a theme that is particularly strong over the last five years in the writings of O'Connor and Breyer.
The theme is respectability and etiquette. The O'Connor-Breyer view is that there are sometimes well-mannered and ill-mannered ways to do something�and that in hard cases, how you do things can make all the difference. It's almost like the Miss Manners' School of Jurisprudence�be polite and ask nicely, and you'd be surprised what can be done. This view of the law has gained surprising influence over the last five years, particularly in hard cases. Consider the Michigan affirmative-action cases, where the court, in essence, said that while quotas are unseemly, a little nudge and wink, done quietly and discreetly, is a respectable way to handle racial preferences.
Grokster turns on these ideas to a degree. The P2P companies were loud scofflaws, foreigners, and college students who blatantly encouraged illegal acts. KaZaA's successor by contrast, Apple's iTunes, may ultimately pose a greater threat to the recording industry, but it operates in a respectable way. Steve Jobs is a rebel with manners. And that has made all the difference.
The Ten Commandments cases are even more clearly centered on etiquette. You can talk about Lemon all you want, but in Van Orden everything seems to turn on the dull respectability of the stone tablets near the Austin State Capitol. Kentucky's gold-framed courtroom commandments, on the other hand, have all the subtlety of Pat Robertson—they're flashy, aggressive, and even rude. The contrast between loud and quiet religiosity may be the key to understanding the differing outcomes in Van Orden and McCreary County.
It may seem strange to court-watchers and American citizens that something akin to etiquette can decide cases. It certainly drives people like Justice Scalia up the wall—he thinks that rules are rules and that it is ridiculous to worry about manners in a serious case. But of course those from the etiquette school (while they'd never say so) think Justice Scalia himself ill-mannered and brash (not personally, but judicially). Using the power of judicial etiquette, they have successfully contrived to isolate Scalia's views and mark them as inappropriate for the court to follow in important cases. There's a lesson here. As Amy Vanderbilt herself might have said: As powerful as law may be, the power of good manners should never be underestimated.
Here's why... (not saying I completely agree with analysis, but the idea that this is our reality is just mind bending to me.)
A Supreme Court Conversation - The Miss Manners school of jurisprudence. By Walter�Dellinger, Charles�Fried, Dahlia�Lithwick, and Tim�Wu: "From: Tim Wu
To: Walter Dellinger, Dahlia Lithwick, and Charles Fried
Subject: The Miss Manners School of Jurisprudence
Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 7:31 AM PT
Dear Walter and Dahlia:
It may strike you as ambitious for me to suggest similarities between the Ten Commandments and Grokster cases (though in a certain sense both are about the distribution of forbidden content). But reading your posts, I do think the cases have something in common and reflect a theme that is particularly strong over the last five years in the writings of O'Connor and Breyer.
The theme is respectability and etiquette. The O'Connor-Breyer view is that there are sometimes well-mannered and ill-mannered ways to do something�and that in hard cases, how you do things can make all the difference. It's almost like the Miss Manners' School of Jurisprudence�be polite and ask nicely, and you'd be surprised what can be done. This view of the law has gained surprising influence over the last five years, particularly in hard cases. Consider the Michigan affirmative-action cases, where the court, in essence, said that while quotas are unseemly, a little nudge and wink, done quietly and discreetly, is a respectable way to handle racial preferences.
Grokster turns on these ideas to a degree. The P2P companies were loud scofflaws, foreigners, and college students who blatantly encouraged illegal acts. KaZaA's successor by contrast, Apple's iTunes, may ultimately pose a greater threat to the recording industry, but it operates in a respectable way. Steve Jobs is a rebel with manners. And that has made all the difference.
The Ten Commandments cases are even more clearly centered on etiquette. You can talk about Lemon all you want, but in Van Orden everything seems to turn on the dull respectability of the stone tablets near the Austin State Capitol. Kentucky's gold-framed courtroom commandments, on the other hand, have all the subtlety of Pat Robertson—they're flashy, aggressive, and even rude. The contrast between loud and quiet religiosity may be the key to understanding the differing outcomes in Van Orden and McCreary County.
It may seem strange to court-watchers and American citizens that something akin to etiquette can decide cases. It certainly drives people like Justice Scalia up the wall—he thinks that rules are rules and that it is ridiculous to worry about manners in a serious case. But of course those from the etiquette school (while they'd never say so) think Justice Scalia himself ill-mannered and brash (not personally, but judicially). Using the power of judicial etiquette, they have successfully contrived to isolate Scalia's views and mark them as inappropriate for the court to follow in important cases. There's a lesson here. As Amy Vanderbilt herself might have said: As powerful as law may be, the power of good manners should never be underestimated.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
GLOBAL ANTIWAR MOVEMENT DECLARES SUPPORT FOR TERRORISTS AGAINST US, UK
GLOBAL ANTIWAR MOVEMENT DECLARES SUPPORT FOR TERRORISTS AGAINST US, UK: "THE ENEMY IS WITHIN"
BG: The Freepers would be funny if they weren't stone cold serious.
BG: The Freepers would be funny if they weren't stone cold serious.
Breyer casts decisive vote on religious displays - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com
Breyer casts decisive vote on religious displays - Tom Curry - MSNBC.com
BG: I find myself in the extremely usual position of thinking Thomas has this right:
[Joining Scalia in Monday’s Ten Commandments decisions was Clarence Thomas.
In his view, when the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it means exactly that and nothing more than that. Congress “shall make no law,” but the states may do so, if they choose to.
“This case would be easy,” Thomas said, if the court would simply “return to the original meaning of the (Establishment) Clause.” ]
Instead of a logical approach to this question, look what a muddle has been created. Check out this paragraph:
[Hinting at practical political consequences, Breyer also worried that if the court banned long-standing displays of the Ten Commandments, it might spark public outrage, “the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.]
The highest court in the land ends up with a split-the-middle ruling with logic that amounts to deciding what rules should govern the kindergarten based on what might cause too many tantrums. (Perhaps if I'd ever been a K-school teach, I be more inclined toward this compromise).
I can't remeber which Justices I most often agree with, nor do I have Breyer's record in mind. All indications to this observer are that Breyer's reasoning, using whimpy logic and prose as shown above, sets a lower tone than even the Court's low standard. Guessing (prior to looking at the details) Scalia is on the side of 10 Commandments in public buildings, it's interesting that one of the best minds who could excoriate Breyer for his "how can we all just get along" reasoning, is in fact on his side (for logical reasons one would hope).
... looking up Scalia... in news article....
Logical Reasons, perhaps not: examine Scalia....
[What Justice Antonin Scalia wanted — and could not get from most of his colleagues — was a robust statement that religion is not merely part of America’s heritage but a vibrant part of American society and government today.]
Using this from Scalia, you have nothing standing out as logic being applied to the situation. Rather, you simply have a cultural bias being expressed as right because of it's imputed value (in the jurist's mind, i.e. public emphasis on historically embraced religious values and symbols being more valuable to our Republic over neutrality on such matters).
Whatever the dubious quality of this ruling, given the current political climate I think it can be assumed that future rulings will fall further from reasoned enlightenment.
All in all, this ruling is not unexpected (muddled, illogical, and unlikely to stand for long), considering that decisions such as Bush v. Gore are part of this Court's legacy.
BG: I find myself in the extremely usual position of thinking Thomas has this right:
[Joining Scalia in Monday’s Ten Commandments decisions was Clarence Thomas.
In his view, when the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it means exactly that and nothing more than that. Congress “shall make no law,” but the states may do so, if they choose to.
“This case would be easy,” Thomas said, if the court would simply “return to the original meaning of the (Establishment) Clause.” ]
Instead of a logical approach to this question, look what a muddle has been created. Check out this paragraph:
[Hinting at practical political consequences, Breyer also worried that if the court banned long-standing displays of the Ten Commandments, it might spark public outrage, “the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.]
The highest court in the land ends up with a split-the-middle ruling with logic that amounts to deciding what rules should govern the kindergarten based on what might cause too many tantrums. (Perhaps if I'd ever been a K-school teach, I be more inclined toward this compromise).
I can't remeber which Justices I most often agree with, nor do I have Breyer's record in mind. All indications to this observer are that Breyer's reasoning, using whimpy logic and prose as shown above, sets a lower tone than even the Court's low standard. Guessing (prior to looking at the details) Scalia is on the side of 10 Commandments in public buildings, it's interesting that one of the best minds who could excoriate Breyer for his "how can we all just get along" reasoning, is in fact on his side (for logical reasons one would hope).
... looking up Scalia... in news article....
Logical Reasons, perhaps not: examine Scalia....
[What Justice Antonin Scalia wanted — and could not get from most of his colleagues — was a robust statement that religion is not merely part of America’s heritage but a vibrant part of American society and government today.]
Using this from Scalia, you have nothing standing out as logic being applied to the situation. Rather, you simply have a cultural bias being expressed as right because of it's imputed value (in the jurist's mind, i.e. public emphasis on historically embraced religious values and symbols being more valuable to our Republic over neutrality on such matters).
Whatever the dubious quality of this ruling, given the current political climate I think it can be assumed that future rulings will fall further from reasoned enlightenment.
All in all, this ruling is not unexpected (muddled, illogical, and unlikely to stand for long), considering that decisions such as Bush v. Gore are part of this Court's legacy.
Audio: Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling
I wondered if I should post this. But now that I listen, it is just devastating.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Video: Cross Posted from Crooks and Liars: Republican Porn Biz
Had no idea this would be quite so low brow.....
Friday, June 24, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Stick a Fork in this Blog, It's Done
If simply 10% of the 911 Truth information posted or referred to in this blog is true, then, logically, those behind the crimes would need to be somewhat agressive in guarding their secrets.
My plan and hope has been this blog and the internet could "light one candle" and shine as brightly as possible. For reasons that anyone could understand, and I think my rotation for candle lighting is done for a while. I need to focus on taking care of other areas in life.
To my knowledge, I've not be harassed in any way for exercising using my free speech here. There are several alternative explanations that would seem to apply:
1) My "truth" is not anything except wild speculation, and since there is not truth, no smoking gun, I'm only a danger to those who would mistakenly waste time following the trail of false belief.
2) Those who are charged with "keeping the lid on" have bigger fish to fry, or are using approaches I'm not aware of to manage to Psyops and coverup.
3) Some other explanation that I don't have enough insight to explore.
My plan will be to return and augment this post with a list of websites that forward the cause of exposing the Truth of 09/11/2001. In the mean time, I can only hope that #2 or #3 explains why all the previous blog is allowed to continue as posted.
=========================
In closing here are gif file linked which together (that I just ran across today), which point to 911 Coverup
gif (hat tip to www.whatreallyhappened.com)
This is showing the news articles archived at archive.org
(to be continued...)
My plan and hope has been this blog and the internet could "light one candle" and shine as brightly as possible. For reasons that anyone could understand, and I think my rotation for candle lighting is done for a while. I need to focus on taking care of other areas in life.
To my knowledge, I've not be harassed in any way for exercising using my free speech here. There are several alternative explanations that would seem to apply:
1) My "truth" is not anything except wild speculation, and since there is not truth, no smoking gun, I'm only a danger to those who would mistakenly waste time following the trail of false belief.
2) Those who are charged with "keeping the lid on" have bigger fish to fry, or are using approaches I'm not aware of to manage to Psyops and coverup.
3) Some other explanation that I don't have enough insight to explore.
My plan will be to return and augment this post with a list of websites that forward the cause of exposing the Truth of 09/11/2001. In the mean time, I can only hope that #2 or #3 explains why all the previous blog is allowed to continue as posted.
=========================
In closing here are gif file linked which together (that I just ran across today), which point to 911 Coverup
gif (hat tip to www.whatreallyhappened.com)
This is showing the news articles archived at archive.org
(to be continued...)
Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
BG: This gent seems kinda dangerous. (Saw him on the Daily Show).
BG: This gent seems kinda dangerous. (Saw him on the Daily Show).
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
assassination policy
International News Article | Reuters.com
BG: Not posting this to condemn, only to document seeming sad downward spiral.
BG: Not posting this to condemn, only to document seeming sad downward spiral.
Old News (2004) Max Cleland: Bush 'flat-out lied' on Iraq
Max Cleland: Bush 'flat-out lied' on Iraq
BG: This seems so familiar, where have I heard this before? Notice how the Bush defenders that were posting comment look in today's light.
BG: This seems so familiar, where have I heard this before? Notice how the Bush defenders that were posting comment look in today's light.
Old News: Scoop: UQ Wire: Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up?
Scoop: UQ Wire: Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up?: " Bush Bribes Max Cleland To Shut Up"
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry - New York Times
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry - New York Times: "June 22, 2005
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry"
Social Security Opened Its Files for 9/11 Inquiry"
News Hounds: Bill O'Reilly Unhappy - "Due Process" Takes Too Long
News Hounds: Bill O'Reilly Unhappy - "Due Process" Takes Too Long
You'd think such idiots as O'Reily would discredit Fox's pretense of being a fair and balances news org. You'd think.......
You'd think such idiots as O'Reily would discredit Fox's pretense of being a fair and balances news org. You'd think.......
The Secret World of Jack Abramoff
The Secret World of Jack AbramoffJune 21, 2005 -Venice, FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker
The MadCowMorningNews has learned exclusive new details about the gangland-style hit in Florida of Gus Boulis, whose murder figures prominently in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s rise to power.
The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.
So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.
One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.
Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats.
What were they doing there? No one knows.
Wrestling with alligators
There remains a strong suspicion that Atta’s terrorist cadre—supposedly unknown and friendless and burrowing into the woodwork—was able to call on the assistance, when necessary, of a friendly global network.
Could it be that this network is the same one being probed so gingerly today by investigators looking into Jack Abramoff?
What could a scandal involving Indian casinos and gambling boat “cruises to nowhere” & pay-for-play government officials have to do with the story of 19 hijackers planning a mass murder in supposed isolation in Florida?
Let’s take a look
by Daniel Hopsicker
The MadCowMorningNews has learned exclusive new details about the gangland-style hit in Florida of Gus Boulis, whose murder figures prominently in lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s rise to power.
The 'secret world' of Jack Abramoff being probed by investigators today has definite connections and unmistakable links to the one inhabited during their final year in the U.S by Mohamed Atta and the other hijackers.
So as the scandal embroiling House Major Domo Tom Delay and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff grows hotter, there may be new revelations about the 9.11 attack.
One of the most amazing thing about this most amazing scandal—hundreds of millions in slush funds beats Oval Office blowjobs by a mile—is that some of the same names in the Abramoff scandal also surface in connection with Mohamed Atta’s.
Less than a week before the 9.11 attack, for example, Atta and several other hijackers made a still-unexplained visit onboard one of Abramoff’s casino boats.
What were they doing there? No one knows.
Wrestling with alligators
There remains a strong suspicion that Atta’s terrorist cadre—supposedly unknown and friendless and burrowing into the woodwork—was able to call on the assistance, when necessary, of a friendly global network.
Could it be that this network is the same one being probed so gingerly today by investigators looking into Jack Abramoff?
What could a scandal involving Indian casinos and gambling boat “cruises to nowhere” & pay-for-play government officials have to do with the story of 19 hijackers planning a mass murder in supposed isolation in Florida?
Let’s take a look
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics
BG: It won't take long before they engineer an atrocity to cure this.
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics: "Scary news for Bush: We're not afraid anymore
The polls keep bringing bad news for the Republicans, and the new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll may bring the worst news for the White House yet.
Americans aren't afraid anymore.
The Bush administration has made fear its stock in trade. The White House used fear -- of another 9/11, of a Saddam Hussein with WMDs -- to sell the war in Iraq, and it used fear to get the president re-elected. Remember Dick Cheney's warning about John Kerry? 'It's absolutely essential that . . . on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. . . .'
But how do you sell fear when the people aren't buying it? According to Gallup, fewer Americans fear that terrorists will strike in the United States soon than they have at any point since 9/11. Only 35 percent of Gallup's respondents fear such an attack, down from 39 percent in January and from 85 percent in the days after 9/11.
It's not that Americans are suddenly thinking that the Bush administration is doing a great job of protecting them from a terrorist attack. To the contrary, confidence in the ability of the administration to fend off an attack is slipping. While a majority of respondents still say they have at least a moderate degree of confidence that the administration will protect them, 38 percent now say they have little or no such confidence. Only 52 percent of the public is satisfied with how things are going in the war on terrorism, down from 75 percent two years ago.
But the war in Iraq is making the world a safer place, right? That's wha"
Salon.com Politics War Room | Politics: "Scary news for Bush: We're not afraid anymore
The polls keep bringing bad news for the Republicans, and the new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll may bring the worst news for the White House yet.
Americans aren't afraid anymore.
The Bush administration has made fear its stock in trade. The White House used fear -- of another 9/11, of a Saddam Hussein with WMDs -- to sell the war in Iraq, and it used fear to get the president re-elected. Remember Dick Cheney's warning about John Kerry? 'It's absolutely essential that . . . on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. . . .'
But how do you sell fear when the people aren't buying it? According to Gallup, fewer Americans fear that terrorists will strike in the United States soon than they have at any point since 9/11. Only 35 percent of Gallup's respondents fear such an attack, down from 39 percent in January and from 85 percent in the days after 9/11.
It's not that Americans are suddenly thinking that the Bush administration is doing a great job of protecting them from a terrorist attack. To the contrary, confidence in the ability of the administration to fend off an attack is slipping. While a majority of respondents still say they have at least a moderate degree of confidence that the administration will protect them, 38 percent now say they have little or no such confidence. Only 52 percent of the public is satisfied with how things are going in the war on terrorism, down from 75 percent two years ago.
But the war in Iraq is making the world a safer place, right? That's wha"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)