joyfulchristian

Huh?

I'm still working on this:

RUSSIA slammed as "unlawful" Friday sanctions by the United States against seven Russian firms including the aircraft maker Sukhoi over their dealings with Iran.

Exactly what law are we violating here?

No freedom in Cuba

... until Castro's dead.

I heard on the radio in Vegas that a Cuban restaurant there is offering a free mojito to anyone who walks in and asks, "Is he dead yet?" (sorry, Vegas drinkers, but I don't remember the name of the place).

I wish it weren't so, but the people of Cuba have no chance of freedom until Castro's dead.  Given what's going on in Cuba lately, that may have happened already.

Sue them back

Wendy McElroy has some interesting news:

What would you do if a lawyer threatened, "Give me a million dollars or my client and I will publicly brand you as a rapist and destroy your life?"

       

On July 27, the California Supreme Court expanded the range of choices possible to one man who was presented with that threat.

     

The dance phenomenon Michael Flatley of Riverdance fame can proceed not only with a lawsuit for defamation against his accuser but also with one for extortion against her lawyer.

It's a very interesting story, but it's even more interesting as potential precedent.  If lawyers can be sued for extortive tactics, isn't this better for everyone?

Has Arnold read the Constitution?

Via Daily Pundit:

Tony Blair yesterday sidestepped the Bush administration's refusal to act on climate change by signing what was hailed as a ground-breaking agreement with California, the world's 12th largest carbon emitter, to fight global warming.

Bill Quick is pissed for other reasons.  I'm pissed because I'm having trouble squaring it with the Constitution:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

 

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

 

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Umm ... Am I missing something, or this an unconstitutional breach of state authority?  If I'm reading this right, I assume the Supreme Court would invalidate this compact, but does the federal government have an recourse against a governor who signs deals like this?

I understand the frustration, but ...

I have my doubts about this legislation:

Judy Vincent learned last year that Cpl. Scott Vincent's name is among about 1,700 included on a T-shirt being sold by an Arizona man over the Internet. The front of the shirt reads "Bush Lied" and the back reads "They Died."

The woman, whose son was killed in April 2004, pushed for Oklahoma legislators to pass a law that makes it a misdemeanor to use a soldier's name or likeness for advertising purposes without consent. The law goes into effect this November.

I certainly see why someone would be upset that her dead son's name is being used to advance a cause she doesn't believe in.  However, unless we're going to say that this law is couched in protecting the soldier's right of celebrity I don't see how this doesn't run afoul of the 1st amendment.  Also, Oklahoma doesn't exactly have jurisdiction over a guy working out of AZ, do they?  I guess they could control sales in OK, but what about direct sales?

This law may make Mom feel better, but I doubt it will accomplish much. And it may be unconstitutional to boot.

Opiate of the elite

Jonah Goldberg coins a new phrase. A rather apt description of the UN.

I knew she was weird, but

First Cynthia McKinney skipped some debates.  Now she's skipped a whole week of votes (and other Congressional business):

Rep. Cynthia McKinney was a no-show this week in the U.S. House, as WSB Washington Correspondent Jamie Dupree reports that the Georgia Democrat missed all four days of legislative business and every vote on the House floor as well.

[...]

McKinney missed 19 votes over four days on the House floor, including an attempted override of President Bush's veto of a bill dealing with embryonic stem cell research, a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and a bill designed to prevent federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

For someone running for re-election, she has a strange way of showing it.  The story does note that she had taken an official re-election for two of these days, but even so, this seems like strange behavior for someone in a tight re-election bid.

What about science

Perry de Havilland is sure to tick some people off with this post:

But within the meta-context that constrains Francis Harris' views, to oppose tax-funding for certain types of research on moral grounds is to turn your back on 'science' rather than turning your back on what you may regard as 'murder'. Just as a thought experiment, ponder this: if Bush managed to get a law enacted that allowed for the testing of dangerous experimental drugs on the inmates in Guantanamo Bay, would the title of Francis Harris' article be "Bush backs laws supporting the advancement of science"?

Somehow I do not think so, yet logically it should be.

He's got a point.

Party of God

David Bernstein asks a good question, "how much of the sympathy that Hezbollah is receiving from the far Left would dissipate if the media referred to "Hezbollah" by its English translation "Party of God," the way it refers to Israel's "Mafdal" party as the "National Religious Party?"

I never even knew that was the translation. I don't know if it would help or not, but it tells you something about the press, doesn't it?

Save the environment by killing it

Jonathan Last makes the case.

Killing the environment will take time. This big ball of mud is pretty resilient. But if we love our planet--and really, who doesn't?--then we have to show corporate America how little we care about it. Only then will it be safe to be an environmentalist again.

This seems like a bad idea

The House has passed legislation that would prevent the courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge. State courts could still decide whether the pledge is valid within the state.

There's no doubt that Congress has the authority to deny jurisdiction on a subject to lower courts.  However I seriously doubt they can deny jurisdication over any legal matter to the Supreme Court.  I haven't researched that issue, it's just my off-the-cuff reaction.

Beyond that though, is this really a good idea?  There's no question that militant atheists are after the pledge, but I've never really seen this as a fight worth fighting.  But then, I've never had any great love for the Pledge anyway.

Even if I grant that this is a good fight, do we really want to start changing the rules like this?  Even if we have the numbers now, it's likely that we won't always be in that position.  How will we argue against our political opponents pulling the same tricks when they're in our position?

Update: A less charitable take.

Another: I'm really not sure what the point of this post is though.  While he's probably right about the motives of many people behind this bill, I'm really not sure what a history of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge adds to the discussion of whether the phrase should be removed from Constitution review.

Laying it on thick

On balance, despite disagreeing with him on many issues, I tend to like Bill Quick. He does tend toward hyperbole though, doesn't he:

I'm sure Bill would be okay with that, given that most polls indicate public preference would do away with much of the Bill of Rights, starting immediately with the First - and probably "save" marriage by making homosexuality a crime punishable by death.

Sure, I know he's not being literal, but this is going a bit far with the rhetoric, isn't it?

Heh

Funny stuff. At least someone can find humor in this.

Yes!

It's about time.

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

President Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

You've always got to hate it when you find yourself opposed to a nomination by a President that you really like.  I would have liked to support this nomination, but, frankly, the White House never produced anything that would make me think Miers was qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Hopefully, we can put this experience behind us and the President will nominate someone conservatives can really get behind.

One little problem

You know, when I hear this sort of thing, I want to cheer:

            Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department aims without exception to expel all those who enter the United States illegally.

"Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions.

"It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year," Chertoff told a Senate hearing.

Then, of course, I remember who Chertoff's boss is.  President Bush has made it pretty clear that this is not a priority of his.  He's even toyed with the idea of a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.  I like the rhetoric.  I'd like it more if thought that wasn't all it was.

And on a side note, I saw this towards the end of the story:

Chertoff's remarks in favor of returning "every illegal entrant, no exceptions" appeared to conflict directly with the US policy toward illegal Cuban migrants.

Though Cubans picked up at sea are returned to their country, those who reach US soil by air, sea or ground are allowed to stay and work -- a fact Cuba says encourages dangerous illegal emigration attempts.

Nothing like editorials in the news stories, is there?

Anyway, I'm not an attorney and haven't studied this, but it is my understanding that the "dry feet" policy is actually part of U.S. law.  If that's the case, anyone who's able to make it from Cuba to the U.S. on their own wouldn't be an illegal immigrant.  If my understanding is right, than his comments wouldn't be at all contradictory to U.S. policy on Cuban immigrants.

Vote her down

I've really been wanting to be able to support the Harriet Miers nomination.  I've been waiting for the White House to give me something, anything, to convince me that a) she's highly qualified, and b) she can be trusted to approach the Constitution in a textualist and originalist fashion.  To date, I've seen nothing remotely convincing in this regard.  The closest I've seen is Dick Cheney on the Rush Limbaugh show saying, basically, "Trust us."

Sorry, that's just not going to cut it.  At this point I'm going to have to oppose the nomination.  I intend to contact my senators and express that opinion.  That's going to have to wait until next week, however, as this week is CRAZY.

Heads up

Apparently, in the city commission meeting of Stillwater, Oklahoma last night, two of our commissioners started rumblings about denying certain hardship benefits to reservists who have drastic drops in income due to being called to active service.  At the moment, I'm waiting to get a transcript of the meeting so I can make sure that I know exactly what was said.  Once that's done, I'm hoping I can get some blogosphere help to get out the word and mount up some pressure against this lunacy.

I'll keep you posted.

The next time someone tells you that the rich don't pay taxes ...

... remember this.

The top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers, who earn a minimum annual income of at least $300,000, paid more than a third of personal income taxes in 2003, according to new IRS data.

The new figures reveal that the top half of all U.S. taxpayers accounted for all but 4 percent of the 2003 individual income tax receipts. The top 10 percent of taxpayers, with an income of at least $95,000, were responsible for two-thirds of personal income taxes paid for the year, the figures show.

The new data illustrates the “steeply progressive nature of the federal income tax,” according to Joint Economic Committee Chair Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J. In a press release issued October 4, Saxton noted that the share of taxes paid by the top half of taxpayers had climbed a percentage point since 1993, while the share paid by the bottom half accounted for a percentage point less.

It is true that, with proper planning, the rich have a greater opportunity to minimize the taxes they pay.  However, for most people, no matter how rich they are, their finances are not flexible enough to avoid paying substantial sums of money.  Unless, of course, they simply stop making money at all.

This doesn't make me hopeful

Rush Limbaugh interviewed Dick Cheney today. A lot of the conversation was regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I scanned through the transcript and it appears that Rush kept asking, "How can we be sure she's a conservative?" and Cheney kept saying, "Oh, she is! Trust us."

Either they're missing the point on purpose or through political deafness.  The point is not that  conservatives think she's not one of them.  The problem is that we don't have enough information to know one way or the other. 

I'm sure that most conservatives would like to believe that "Trust us" is enough, but it's not.  For one thing, that's what we were told about Souter.  Another problem, as David Frum points out, is that while Bush has done a decent job of choosing judges, his record in choosing people to fill other slots is not that great.

If you want us to support your nominee, Mr. President, you're going to have to do better than, "Trust me!"  It's not your sincerity I doubt; it's your judgment on personnel matters.

A Supreme?

I see that InstaPundit has plenty of links discussing the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.  I don't have time to dive into this issue right now, but so far I'm underwhelmed.  I'd like to believe that she'd be a good Justice.  I'd like even more to believe that she'd be an originalist when it comes to the Constitution.  The evidence, however, is pretty thin.

I wish I could say I support this nomination, but I can't think of one good reason to do so.  That doesn't mean I have, at the moment, any reason to oppose it; I just can't think of any reason to support it.

Time will tell, I suppose.

It's about time

Roberts has been confirmed as Chief Justice.

Despite lots of bluster from leftist Democrats, the vote wasn't even close.  A substantial portion of the Senate Democrats (nearly half) put party politics aside and confirmed the man because he was well qualified.  Good for them.

I don't get it

Human rights groups are freaking out over this:

Mr Musharraf reportedly said some Pakistanis believed rape was a ticket to escape the country.

"It was shocking to read that General Musharraf had publicly aired his low opinion of women...," opposition MP Sherry Rehman said about Mr Musharraf's comments in an interview with the Washington Post this week.

"This is very frivolous way of looking at rape cases in the country," human rights activist Kamila Hyat said.

Mr Musharraf made the comments after being asked about the high-profile case of Mukhtaran Mai, who was gang raped on the orders of a tribal council in 2002 as punishment for her brother's alleged love affair with a woman from another tribe.

Her treatment by the Pakistani Government, which tried to bar her from addressing US rights groups about her ordeal, earned the conservative Islamic country international wrath.

"You must understand the environment in Pakistan," Mr Musharraf said to the Washington Post.

"This has become a money-making concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped," he said.

Mr Musharraf, a general who seized power in 1999, later said he had been quoting someone else, Pakistani media reported.

But "it is true that the issue is used to defame Pakistan," the Dawn daily quoted him as telling reporters in New York.

Mr Musharraf banned Ms Mai, 33, from addressing US rights groups reportedly because he thought it would give Pakistan bad publicity. He later lifted the ban under pressure from Washington.

I've read some about Mai's case before and I would have to agree that her treatment by the Pakistani government has been shameful.  All the same, I don't see how Mussharraf's is either frivolous of demeaning to women.  Given the conditions in some parts of Pakistan and the treatment of women in some of the tribal regions, his statement doesn't seem entirely implausible.  That's much more of a condmentation of the treatment of women in Pakistan than it is of the women in that country.

I really don't understand why people find this statement so horrific.  I also wonder why they're resorting to lashing out at Mussharraf rather than attempting to debunk his statement.

It's official

Tom Delay has been in Congress too long. Way too long.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.

Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.

"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.

Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

It's become increasingly obvious that the Republican leadership's dedication to small government has been waning for quite some time.  I think we can now declare that dedication officially dead. 

The House Majority Leader can't find anything left in the budget to cut?  This is absurd.  Even more absurd is his assertion that no one has been able to come up with anything to cut in the budget.  Apparently he's never heard of Citizen's Against Government Waste who's published a whole list of projects they think can be cut.

Reasonable people can disagree about what can and can't be cut from the budget, but to assert that there is nothing that can be cut and that no one has been able to list anything to cut is about as bold-faced a lie as you can come up with.

It's time for Delay to go!

Update: Even more things Delay could do to clean up the budget.

Update: Slate has several links regarding this issue. (Including, I was shocked to find, my own.)

How do you even respond to stuff like this?

Jimmy Peanut in charge of rebuilding?

This morning on Fox's "Fox and Friends," former Indiana Democrat congressman and 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer called on President Bush to name former President Jimmy Carter to the head of efforts to rebuild New Orleans.

Roemer told the stunned hosts: "The second thing we should do is put somebody like former President Jimmy Carter in charge of rebuilding New Orleans."

Yeah, there's a good idea.
 

I wish more peope understood this

Jonah Goldberg has a great article about people's "right" to speak their mind:

All this can get a little confusing because there are a few other exceptions to the whole say-whatever-you-want free-speech rule. If you're confused, though, here's a nifty little hint for how to figure out if your speech is permitted under our Constitution: If nobody says "it's against the law for you to say that!" it's probably not against the law for you to say that!

Look: It's deep August and Washington is about as hot and moist as the air pocket underneath one of those dudes you occasionally see on the evening news being pried from his bed with the jaws of life. So maybe I'm just being cranky. But, if you want to defend somebody's controversial statements, saying "so-and-so has the right to his opinion" doesn't get you out of the gate. It just sucks up air and fills space. Intellectually, it's got the nutritional value of Styrofoam. You might as well say "Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah, ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang" instead and then move on to your next point. It's not interesting, not smart, not insightful. Saying Cindy Sheehan has a right to criticize the president is like saying she's a carbon-based life form: True, but utterly beside the point.

Yes, Virginia, you do have the right to free speech.  But so what?

Like Jonah, I get extremely irritated by people who think the right to free speech is the right to not be criticized.

Tax Policy

Yeah, this was over the top, but I liked it: (Subscription Link)

Seven members of the Finance Committee and one senator not on that committee have introduced legislation repealing the AMT. That list includes Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Senate Finance leaders Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and ranking member Max Baucus (D-MT), who recently equated the tax to evil-doer Darth Vader.

“The AMT has many of the same qualities as Anakin Skywalker,” he said. “The AMT was supposed to bring order and fairness to the tax world, but it eventually got off on the wrong path and became a threat to middle-income taxpayers. Both Skywalker and the AMT started off with great intentions, but eventually they went astray. And now we have the Darth Vader of the Tax Code bearing down on millions of unsuspecting families.”

This is humorous and, in this case, I would tend to agree with Baucus.  I will note, however, that Democratic senators have, of late, shown an alarming tendency to substitute parallels from Star Wars for actual policy analysis in their public speaking.  Very odd.

For as long as I can remember ...

... I've been against renaming existing streets after famous people.  It doesn't matter how famous they were, how much they accomplished, or how much I like them; I'm against it.  It adds unnecessary expenses and inconvenience to those who live or run businesses on the affected streets and cost the city money reworking signs and maps.  It's just way to much trouble for a purely symbolic gesture.

Which is why I oppose changing a street name to that of a former president; even if that president is Ronald Reagan.

You know, I'm opposed to the whole "electing Supreme Court Justices thing ...

... but I'm starting to think that  we might want to consider something along the lines of the 25th Amendment (section 4) for Justices.  I mean, if we had some way to remove Justices for health reasons, things like this wouldn't bother me so much:

William Rehnquist developed a fever on Thursday and was taken to a Virginia hospital for evaluation,  U.S. Supreme Court spokesman Ed Turner said.

I respect Rehnquist, but this is getting absurd.  It's time he admits that he can't continue doing this.

Ted Kennedy is either an idiot or a liar ... or both

Part 823,333.

Regarding the recess appointment of John Bolton to the post of UN Ambassador, our esteemed Senator said the following:

"The abuse of power and the cloak of secrecy from the White House continues. ... It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent and only further darkens the cloud over Mr. Bolton's credibility at the U.N."

So let me get this straight: Kennedy is claiming that a recess appointment is an abuse of power?  Since when?  If it's so bad, why is it in the Constitution?  It's right there in Article II, Section 2.  In the paragraph right after the one about "Advice and Consent."  Recess appointments in no way "evade" the requirement for advice and consent.  They were designed as temporary appointments until that advice could be obtained.  (On the very sensible grounds that someone needs to be in position to do the job.)

That John Howard

... he's not one for pulling punches, is he?

"The IRA were terrorists and they murdered people and the reason that the British security forces and police are so effective in responding to terrorist attacks is the bitter 30 years' experience of dealing with the IRA," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"There was nothing heroic about the IRA campaign, although it is still shrouded in romanticism in the eyes of some."

Preach on!

The 9th Amendment

I've longed believe that we conseratives don't take the 9th Amendment anywhere seriously enough.  For that reason I was glad to see this in depth discussion of the issue by Ed Brayton.

Tragic, but justified

Ireland Online is carrying this story:

The man shot dead by police in south London yesterday is not connected to attempted terror attacks on the capital, Scotland Yard said today.

“For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets,” said a spokesman.

It is both tragic and unfortunate that someone lost his life over an incident that began as a case of mistaken identity.  Even so, the police were perfectly justified in their actions.  The same story describeds the incident like this:

The fatal shooting happened in Stockwell at 10am yesterday when armed plain clothes police officers shot a man as he tried to board a train at the underground station.

He had emerged from a nearby house that was under surveillance because of a suspected link to Thursday’s attempted bomb attacks on three Tube trains and a bus.

[...]

The man, who is believed to be of South American appearance, then bolted down an escalator, according to witnesses.

He apparently tried to get on a train before he was, according to witnesses, shot five times in the head by an officer with an automatic pistol.

As far as I can tell, the police acted the only way they could under the circumstances.   The man was seen coming out of a house that they believed (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) to be connected to previous train bombings.  When challenged the man ran from the police and towards the train.  Given their suspicions, it was vital that the man be kept as far from the trains as possible.  They did what they had to do.

As for the man, as far as I'm concerned, he took his life into his own hands when he ran away from the police and towards the  trains so close after two separate sets of train bombings.

I am ignorant about John Roberts

... but the Powerline guys are partying and that's got to be good.

I don't get it

I've got to confess that I don't see what the big deal about this story is:

American defense chiefs faced condemnation last night for banning U.S. airmen from entering London, the Uk's DAILY MAIL will report on Tueday.

All 12,000 members of the U.S. Air Force stationed in Britain have been told not to travel inside inner London because of the risk of further bomb attacks.

The news provoked fury from British MPs who pointed out that the UK had been America's staunchest ally in the wake of September 11.

They said it handed a symbolic victory to the terrorists.

What am I missing here.  This seems a perfectly reasonable step to me.  It's probably not what I would have done, but I don't understand what everyone's so hot about.
 

And for their next trick ...

... Congress will pass legislation mandating required procedures for brain surgery.

OK, so it's not that bad, but it's not good.  Congress is considering overruling the Financial Accounting Standards Board's rules on expensing employee stock options.  (Link requires registration.)

WASHINGTON -- The ink is barely dry on new rules governing the treatment of employee stock options and already opponents are preparing to lobby the new Congress with an eye towards derailing them.

Since the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is moving ahead with its proposal, "we will continue to aggressively lobby the U.S. House and Senate to seek an appropriate legislative solution in the 109th Congress," said John Palafoutas, senior vice president of domestic policy for the AeA, a Washington-based technology trade association. He called the proposal "fundamentally flawed."

And why is Congress considering doing this?  Because  they have constituents throwing temper tantrums:

After two years of bitter fighting, the standards board published a 27-page rule on Dec. 16 to force companies to deduct the cost of employee stock options from profits. Many in the high-tech sector say it would seriously curtail their operations and cut their reported profits because of their heavy use of stock options as a compensation tool.

The board "is continuing to disregard the legitimate concerns of the high-tech industry," Palafoutas said.

[rant] OK, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the requirement that companies expense employee stock options, but I get so sick of people protesting accounting rules because  it would make their  income statements look worse.   It's a stupid argument because that's often the whole point of the accounting rule.  It is, as they say, a feature, not a bug.  I don't mean that the FASB is targetting certain sectors or companies specifically, but when they pass a rule like this it means that they've decided the way people had been doing things doesn't properly reflect the true cost of their operations.  In other words, it's designed to  make their income look smaller; that's the whole point!

Second, issues like this are extremely complicated and require a detailed understanding of the established framework of financial accounting rules.   In other words, if you haven't studied accounting theory, chances are you don't even understand what the issue is.  Since most members of Congress haven't studied accounting at all, the chances that they would draft a rule that properly reflected income, to say nothing of even making sense, are remote.  For Congress to get involved in something like this is just idiotic.

Not that that's likely to stop them.

Which brings me to my next gripe.  Why is it that people seem to think that getting elected to Congress makes someone an instant expert on everything?  Their just human beings folks.  Getting elected doesn't get them an invisble hat that magically gives them immense wisdom and understanding of every issue.  Most of them have no business meddling in, well, ..., anything.[/rant]

I've been trying not to think about the London bombings

... but it's kind of hard to not think about stuff like this.  Every time something like this happens I just want to scream.  In a way that's good.  It means that I've not grown used to these types of attacks.  Anytime carnage like this starts seeming "normal" is, in my opinion, a very bad thing.  We should never just casually accept things like this.

I've seen lots of speculation regarding whether this was related to an economic conference Netanyahu was attending or the G8 summit.  Personally, I suspect they've been waiting to hit whatever city was awarded the 2012 Olympics.  To me, it seems logical that if they really want to strike fear in the world populace at large, singling out international events like this would be a likely target.

We may never know the reasoning that went into this attack.  At the moment I take solace in the fact that these were not nearly as devastating as the Madrid bombings.

Update:  Well, I might have spoke too soon.  Early reports I read put confirmed fatalities between 2 and 10.  Fox is now reporting 33 confirmed deaths and I've seen numbers as high as 70.  Unfortunately, these numbers may go up further.

Another Update: According to the Mirror:

An Islamist website has posted a statement - purportedly from al-Qaeda - claiming it was behind the attacks.

This could just be bluster; my recollection is that the Palestinian Liberation Front briefly, until realizing that was not a line they wanted to cross, claimed responsibility for 9/11.  Still, if we find that al-Qaeda was responsible, I don't think anyone will be surprised.

Even More:

Al Qaida terrorists today claimed responsibility for the London blasts on an Islamic website and said that "Britain is burning with fear".

The unverified claim, made on the Al-Qal'ah - Fortress - internet site, was posted by a group calling themselves the Secret Organisation Group of Al-Qa'ida of Jihad Organisation in Europe.

The message, posted this morning, said: "The heroic mujahidin have carried out a blessed raid in London.

"Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters."

[...]

"We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahidin exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid," the website posting read.

"We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused."

This is pretty typical ranting, but it seems the group mentioned in the warning has not been previously heard from.  I guess we'll see if this is for real soon enough.

The last sentence seems the be their way of justifying future attacks.  I don't know the exact contents, but I know that the phrase appears in several Islamic tales.  This phrase has been used to justify other attacks in the past.

I've got a better idea

Fred Thompson is supposed to help the upcoming SC nominee through the process:

GLENEAGLES, Scotland -- President Bush has named former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson to help shepherd his yet-to-be named Supreme Court nominee through the Senate, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.

Thompson, a Republican and actor on the NBC television series "Law & Order," agreed to accept the post in a telephone conversation with the president on Monday, McClellan said.

He said Thompson would serve as an informal adviser to shepherd the nomination through the Senate.

"Senator Thompson will guide the nominee through the confirmation process," McClellan said.

Personally, I wouldn't mind it if he were the nominee.

Bye-Bye Sandra

Well, O'Connor is resigning.  She's been a swing vote on a ton of cases the last few years.  That makes her replacement a huge deal.  Let's get ready to rumble folks!  It's about to get interesting.

In other news, married life is going pretty well so far, but between the wedding and the move, it's been pretty hectic.  Hopefully blogging will return to normal some time next week. 

Have a gread Independence Day!

I hope know one is jumping

... onto this bandwagon.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter Chelsea Clinton!

[...]

"I'm going back to my cottage to rape my wife,"  Klein quotes Bill Clinton as saying during a Bermuda getaway in 1979.

In the morning, the Clintons' room "looked like World War III. There are pillows and busted-up furniture all over the place," an unnamed source tells Klein.

Okay, a few points here.

1. Have we not learned our lesson about anonymous sourcing?  Klein better be able to back this up.  If not, he should be sued.
2. Legal question.  Drudge says that Hillary is considering suing for libel.  On what basis would such a suit be based?  I can see where Bill would have grounds to sue for libel, but Hillary?  Doesn't libel usually indicate the person has been defamed?  If so, what sort of message does this send to genuine rape victims?
3. Maybe I'm just being naive here, but while I can easily believe a great deal about Bill Clinton on the subject of sex, I just can't seem buy rape.

 

One step at a time

This looks promising:

Kuwait appointed a woman to its cabinet for the first time in its history today, marking another victory for women's rights activists just a month after they won the right to vote in the Persian Gulf state.    

Prime Minister Sheik Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah appointed Massouma al-Mubarak as minister of planning and as minister of state for administrative development affairs, Kuwait's state news agency KUNA reported today. Ms. Mubarak, 54, is a political science professor at Kuwait University and has been a leading advocate for women's rights in the country. She replaces Sheik Ahmad al-Abdullah al-Sabah in both posts.

Let's hope this is substance rather than show.

Quick thought

Since the Dutch and the French votes rejecting the EU constitution I've seen the results chalked up to all sorts of reasons.  Except one.  No one in the chattering classes seem to think that the no votes had anything to do with people thinking that the resulting super-state would be a bad idea.

Can I get an interpreter here?

So the Dutch voted against the  EU constitution.  Let's see what the Prime Minister has to say:

Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch Prime Minister, said that the ratification process should continue, but admitted: “I am extremely disappointed. This is a result you can’t misunderstand. It is clear we have to fully respect this result.”

Well, I'm glad  that he recognizes that this result can't be misunderstood (though I'm sure a few folks will try), but I'm confused what he means by "fully respect" the result.  Why do I have this nagging suspicion that that doesn't necessarily mean "abide by"?

Yeah, that could be a problem

All is not well in Euroland:

The under-fire euro fell further on Wednesday, slumping to an eight-month low against the US dollar amid rumblings over the long-term future of the eurozone.

The fresh selling was prompted by a report claiming that Hans Eichel, the German finance minister, and Axel Weber, the president of the Bundesbank, were present at a meeting at which the possible break-up of European Monetary Union was discussed.

The German Bundestag is also said to have commissioned a report on the legal repercussions of a country wishing to leave the EMU.

Germany’s finance ministry labelled the talk “absurd”, while Mr Eichel and Mr Weber issued a statement saying the euro was a “unique success story”. But the damage had been done.

Although most currency analysts regard the break-up of the eurozone as an extremely faint prospect, they said the potentially disastrous repercussions of such an event mean it could not be totally ignored.

I would still call the break-up of the Euro an extremely faint possibility.  Still, I find it quite remarkable that people are discussing it at all.  I don't know what will happen from all this, but I find it quite remarkable that the European governments are suddenly being forced to hear from their people.  That's always a good thing.

Memorial Day

I wish I had something terribly profound to say about Memorial Day, but I don't.  I will say that I am eternally grateful for the incredible sacrifice our military, veterans, and honored dead have made for this country.  It's really remarkable that so many people have been willing to give large portions of their life, not to mention those that have in fact laid down their lives to protect us and our freedom.

My dad's father served in WWII.  As memory serves, my Gramma was told he was a cook, but he actually worked in reconnaissance behind enemy lines.  On more than one occasion she received a notice that he was MIA.  The war had an affect on his personality as I understand it, but he at least wasn't killed.  I never met him as he died before I was born.   As far as I know, that's the closest my own family has come to losing someone in war. 

We've gotten off lucky.  Other families have given much more.  May God be with them all.

For some strange reason ...

John Cole is suspicious of the motives of law enforcement officers who are trying to get more authority to fight intellectual property piracy under the guise of fighting terrorism. 

I've got to go along with him on this.  I agree that intellectual property piracy is a serious crime.  I know that I constantly bump into sites, while looking for legitimate downloads online, that contain what appear to be pirated content.  For that matter, I've seen sites carrying what is clearly pirated material proudly proclaiming that what they do is legal.  Generally, the factual statements they make are true, but are clearly made in such a way as to be misleading.

And that's just the stuff I've found on the internet without looking for it.  I can't imagine what you'd find on the net and off if you were genuinely looking to pirate stuff. 

So, I've got no problem believing that there is a serious problem out there.  However, as John points out, based solely on the fact that people who've been caught engaged in piracy have shown an affinity for certain terorrist organizations, some people are expecting us to just hand them a bunch more power to go after intellectual property crimes.  This is just absurd.

Can I get an Amen?

I tend not to read Peggy Noonan very much.  It's not that I dislike her or think her points are off-base or anything.  No, it's just that almost every column I read of hers is about 35% longer than it really needs to be to make succesfully argue the point she's making.  However, when I read this, I knew I'd read the whole thing:

You've heard the mindless braying and fruitless arguments, but I'm here to tell you the facts, no matter what brickbats and catcalls may come my way. Lindsey Graham defied the biases of his constituency to do what was right, not what was easy. Robert Byrd put aside personal gain to save our Republic. David Pryor ignored the counsels of hate to stand firm for our hopes and dreams. Mike DeWine protected our way of life. These men are uniters, not dividers.

How do I know?

Because they told me. Again and again, and at great length, as they announced The Deal. And I believed them, because I am an idiot. Or as they might put it, your basic "folk" from "back home."

Listening to them I thought of some of the great and hallowed phrases of our Republic. "The rooster who thought he brought the dawn." "The only man who can strut sitting down."

You should probably read the whole thing too.

Brilliant!

Imagine for a moment that you're an impotent convicted sex offender.  What could you possibly need?  Why, Viagra of course!

And where are you going to get it?  You've got it!  From Medicaid.

Missouri’s Medicaid program paid for sexual performance drugs to treat impotence in 26 convicted sex offenders during the last year, state officials said Wednesday.

Medicaid officials said the prescriptions would not be refilled and future orders for Viagra, Cialis and other drugs that treat erectile dysfunction will be screened to make sure the recipient is not on the sex offender registry.

The prescriptions cost the Medicaid program $1,977 in state money and $5,083 in federal and other matching funds.

“The ability for Missouri sex offenders to get impotence treatment funded through Medicaid has now been eliminated,” Social Services director Gary Sherman said in a written statement.

Well, that's good to know!

So how's that working out for you

Right after the train bombings in Spain the Spanish people had a huge protest demonstrating their resolve to not give in to terrorists.  Then a couple of  weeks later they elected a bunch of leftist peaceniks.   The new plan is to negotiate with terrorists.

Suspected Basque rebels detonated a powerful car bomb during rush-hour in Madrid Wednesday, injuring 52 people in the sixth attack since Spain's prime minister offered the group negotiations if it renounces violence, authorities said.

An anonymous warning on behalf of the separatist group ETA to a pro-independence Basque newspaper preceded the morning blast in an area of office buildings and shops in a working-class neighborhood in Spain's capital, officials said. Police had time to cordon off the area before the blast.

The explosion the first blamed on ETA in Madrid since February shattered windows and damaged building facades and cars, but none of the 52 people injured were critically wounded and only five of them were hospitalized, the city's emergency medical services said.

Working out real well, ain't it?

It must be wonderful to be this sure of yourself

I can't say I'm surprised:

France and the Netherlands should re-run their referendums to obtain the "right answer" if their voters reject Europe's constitutional treaty in imminent national ballots, Jean-Claude Juncker, the holder of the EU presidency, said on Wednesday.

The Luxembourg prime minister said all 25 EU member countries should continue their attempts to ratify the treaty whatever the outcome of the French and Dutch votes.

His comments reflect a mood of deepening pessimism among Europe's leaders about the outcome of the referendums.

"The countries which have said No will have to ask themselves the question again. And if we don't manage to find the right answer, the treaty will not enter into force," he said in an interview with the Belgian Le Soir newspaper. (Emphasis added.)

Why stop at one re-vote?  Why not just keep on voting  once a month until you get the answer you want?

Riddle me this Batman ...

Is there anything John McCain doesn't believe should be controlled by the government?

WASHINGTON, May 24 - Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, unveiled the much-anticipated proposal for a Clean Sports Act on Tuesday, the culmination of a series of hearings full of discontent with steroid testing in professional sports. The legislation aims to require standardized testing procedures and stiffer punishments for athletes who test positive for banned substances.

McCain, joined by fellow Republican Congressmen Mark Souder of Indiana and Thomas Davis of Virginia and Democrats Henry A. Waxman of California and Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, called at a news conference for the four major professional leagues to institute a system at least as tough as the one for the Olympics.

Earlier Tuesday, Olympics officials enjoyed being on the nonhostile side of this debate in a hearing conducted by McCain to review the annual federal government financing of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which administers Olympic drug testing. Although McCain lauded the efforts of the agency, he stopped short of announcing that it should conduct the testing for the pro sports leagues.

"It's obvious that a vital component of this whole business is who does the testing," McCain said after the morning hearing. "U.S.A.D.A. seems to me to be a likely candidate for that, but I'm not dictating that nor do I think Congress should."

On national defense, McCain is generally right on.  However, his pursuit of federal control of  pretty much everything  is almost maniacal.

Update:  You know, sometimes I think the Bill of Rights is about 457 words too long.