So Jenna Bush has announced her engagement. And Wonkette notices that Jenna (unlike her sister, NotJenna) has been looking a little — shall we say — wide around the waist lately.
May 31, 2007:
June 17, 2007:
August 12, 2007 (Jenna, on the left, takes up most of the seat, yes?):
Susie at Suburban Guerilla:
Iraqi moms are prostituting themselves to feed their children.
But hey, at least they don’t have to live under Saddam Hussein!
Meanwhile, the “number of coalition military deaths in the war in Iraq has reached 4,000,” with the majority of the fatalities — 3,702 — suffered by U.S. soldiers. Forty-four U.S. troops have died this month.
Alberto Gonzales (under oath), July 24:
"When we got there, I would just say that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. We were there maybe five minutes, five or six minutes. Mr. Ashcroft talked about the legal issues in a lucid form."
Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was "feeble," "barely articulate" and "stressed" moments after a hospital room confrontation in March 2004 with Alberto R. Gonzales, who wanted Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program over Justice Department objections, according to notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that were released yesterday.
Gonzales lied, because Mueller would have no reason to lie to himself in his own notes.
Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and others — your message is getting through:
The video, filmed with night-vision equipment and low in quality, is not always easy to understand. Here is a detailed description:
The footage starts by showing a single figure wearing a backpack sneaking along a rugged desert trail. A male voice, off-camera, says: “I got him. He’s low crawling. Guy with a backpack. I betcha it’s probably full of dope.”
As the figure crests a hill, the man shouts out loud: “Hey, puto [“faggot”]!” The backpack-wearer ducks behind the far side of a rocky outcropping, then pops up and peers over it a few times. “I got him,” the off-camera voice says. “He’s prairie doggin’ now. He heard me.”
A walkie-talkie crackles and a second male voice that sounds like it’s coming from an off-camera walkie-talkie says: “All right, where you at? What’s your 20?”
“He’s up there on the, uh, smuggler’s trail,” the first voice responds.
The second male voice says, “I don’t have a visual.”
At this point in the video, the backpack-wearing figure begins to slowly emerge from behind the rock outcropping. “You know what? I’m going to take a fucking shot,” the first voice says. There are two flashes of light and the sound of two semi-automatic rifle shots in quick succession. The figure wearing the backpack appears to fly backward and drop from view.
“Oh fuck, I got him dude!’ the first voice says. “I fuckin’ got him!” There is a pause, then the first voice says, “Dude, what are we gonna do?” The voice on the walkie-talkie replies, “Get the shovel, get some lime, and hey, grab me a 12-pack, too, while you’re up there.”
“Roger that,” the first voice answers between chortles. “We fuckin’ nailed him, dude! We fuckin’ nailed him!” That’s where the video ends.
The Youtube video (now unavailable), if authentic, showed a murder — pure and simple. A murder.
I would be nice, at some point, to focus on mine safety and the people who appoint to oversee that:
It turns out that the guy in charge of mine safety for the federal government, Assistant Secretary of Labor Richard Stickler, couldn’t even get approved by the Senate back when it was under Republican control because his own record on safety issues was so questionable. President Bush had to put him in with a recess appointment.
Perhaps it’s not time to assign fault while active rescue operations are underway. But once that’s over, maybe it would be worth the networks taking a tenth of the time they use milking ratings from these mine sagas and cast a little light on how a lot of this is preventable if the mine owners would stop breaking the rules and the federal government stopped looking the other way.
WaPo:
Rove argues that Republicans win as activist reformers, in the tradition of Lincoln, McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. "We were founded as a reformist party," he said in our conversation this week, "not to be against something, but to help the little guy get ahead." The models he cites are 401(k)s and the mortgage interest deduction — government policies that encouraged individual wealth and ownership.
Excuse me. Milk just came out of my nose.
Rove cites 401(k)’s and the mortgage interest deduction as examples that Republicans like to help the little guy??
Okay. 401(k) plans are called "401(k) plans" because they were enacted under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 401(k) was enacted in 1978, when the President then was…. Jimmy Carter, and Congress was a Democratic majority (see here). Although it is true that there have been reforms and advances to Section 401(k) since that time, they have occurred under both Democratic and Republican leadership.
And the mortgage intrest deduction? Well, when the tax law was created over a century ago, it allowed for general deduction of all interest. Back then, most people who owned a home didn’t even have a mortgage. But as time went forward, and mortgages became a way to get home ownership, the mortgage interest deduction simply fell in as a natural outgrowth of the generic interest deduction in the tax code. It wasn’t a "Republican" innovation, nor was it initially intended to benefit "the little guy".
Are those the best two examples that Rove could come with to show that Republicans care about "the little guy"? Two advances that were not "Republican" and merely accidental in their development?
I guess not.
One wonders why he didn’t mention "tax cuts". I guess he knows that nobody is buying the "It’s not just for the rich. Really!" meme anymore.
Sigh. Another day, another scandal:
A Franklin County commissioner was arrested late Wednesday on charges of drug possession and assault after a 911 call was placed from a boat in the Pamlico Sound.
Harry Foy is charged with one count of assault on a female, possessing less than half an once of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia, said Dare County Sheriff Rodney Midgett.
Sheriff’s deputies received the 911 call from the alleged assault victim while she was on board a 25-foot boat three miles off shore of the Outer Banks town of Hatteras, Midgett said..
The call was dispatched to the Coast Guard, who brought Foy and three others to shore. The other people in the boat were charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
Foy could not be reached immediately for comment. He was released early Thursday morning on a $2,000 bond.
Yes, he’s a Republican.
Wow:
A small South Carolina parts supplier collected about $20.5 million over six years from the Pentagon for fraudulent shipping costs, including $998,798 for sending two 19-cent washers to an Army base in Texas, U.S. officials said.
The company also billed and was paid $455,009 to ship three machine screws costing $1.31 each to Marines in Habbaniyah, Iraq, and $293,451 to ship an 89-cent split washer to Patrick Air Force Base in Cape Canaveral, Florida, Pentagon records show.
What I wonder is why it took so long for them to get caught.
Background: The Bush administration accused Padilla after his 2002 arrest of plotting to set off a radioactive bomb. Bush ordered him imprisoned by the military as an "enemy combatant." He languished in jail for years, without so much as a trial (or even an indictment). Amid court challenges to the president’s authority to do that, Padilla was indicted in a civilian court in November 2005 on charges that do not mention any bomb plot.
The charges:
Count 1 – Conspiracy to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim Persons in a Foreign Country as part of a conspiracy to advance violent jihad
Count 2 – Conspiracy to Provide Material Support for Terrorists
Count 3 – Material Support for Terrorists
Counts 4 and 5 are against alleged co-conspirator Adham Amin Hassoun for unlawful possession of a weapon and making a false statement
Counts 6 through 10 are against Hassoun for multiple charges of perjury
Count 11 is against Hassoun for obstruction
The jury has reached a verdict, to be announced at 2:00 pm ET. Orin Kerr, I think, has it right when he writes:
The Jose Padilla case is complicated, and those who need a script for commentary when the verdict is handed down in an hour or so should follow these simple guidelines:
Script for Supporters of the Bush Administration: If the jury convicts, this proves how strong the government’s case has been all along. If the jury acquits, this proves that you can’t try to bring terrorism cases in a criminal court system.
Script for Opponents of the Bush Administration: If the jury convicts, this shows how the criminal justice system can indeed handle terrorism cases. If the jury acquits, this shows just how weak the case against Padilla has been all along.
I tend to think he’s right. Personally, I think the big issue surrounding Padilla is not whether or not he is guilty, but whether or not he (a U.S. citizen) is entltled to due process. The Constitution, of course, says he is. And at this point, he finally has received it. So the verdict itself is reather meaningless.
UPDATE: He’s guilty. See, the criminal system works (following the script…)
ANOTHER UPDATE: Orin Kerr follows his own script (somewhat) and agrees with me:
Every case is different, and no one verdict can settle very much in this debate; each verdict can only be a single data point in a broader set. But this case adds a data point in favor of using the criminal justice system. Beyond that, though, this verdict doesn’t settle very much. Most importantly, it doesn’t change how Padilla has been treated all this time; it doesn’t erase the last six years. So while this one case is over, the questions it raised should and will continue.
To all the nay-sayers who think health care in this country is just hunky-dory:
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (AP) — A man threw his seriously ill wife four stories to her death because he could no longer afford to pay for her medical care, prosecutors said in charging him with second-degree murder.
According to court documents filed Wednesday in Jackson County Circuit Court, Stanley Reimer walked his wife to the balcony of their apartment and kissed her before throwing her over.
The body of Criste Reimer, 47, was found Tuesday night outside the apartment building, near the upscale Country Club Plaza shopping district.
Stanley Reimer, 51, was charged Wednesday. He remained jailed on $250,000 bond and was scheduled to be arraigned Thursday.
In the probable cause statement filed with the charges, police said Reimer was desperate because he could not pay the bills for his wife’s treatment for neurological problems and uterine cancer.
Investigators said that Reimer was in the apartment when they arrived. He told them, "She didn’t jump," but did not elaborate, they said.
Criste Reimer’s caregiver told police she could barely walk and would not have been able to climb over the railing of the balcony, according to the probable cause statement.
Reimer’s alleged motive emerged after several more hours of questioning, police said.
According to Jackson County Probate Court records, Criste Reimer had been in ill health for several years. Her weight had fallen to 75 pounds and she was partly blind.
According to the court records, she had no health insurance to pay for medical bills that ranged from $700 to $800 per week.
The Probate Court documents were filed in April, when Stanley Reimer petitioned to be allowed to sell personal property his wife owned in Wheeler County, Texas, for $20,000.
The documents listed her assets at approximately $6,700, with monthly income of $725 from oil royalties and Supplemental Security Income.
It was not immediately known if Stanley Reimer had an attorney.
The $6,700 in assets came from $200 in her checking account, household goods and furnishings valued at $500, an individual retirement account of $4,000, and real property valued at $2,000.
This blogger did a little research and found a message from the now-deceased Criste Reimer on an online guestbook, written in 1998:
Good Evening, It is with tears streaming down my face that I try to write this, this evening. I could ever agree more about organ donation. I have had several friends whom lives have been safed. By others who have been kind enough to donate. I would do anything if I could donate any organ that anyone needed. But, due to several brain surgeries, and bouts with paratinitis, neurofibromatosis, and hdrocephalus. I can not donate any organ. But, I would do it in an instant if I could. I am so glad that everyone has made the commitment to donate any organ that is needed. I would also like to thank everyone who has put this story out on the net. I will be back often. I have been collecting recipes for over thiry years. I started doing this when my parents were told to pull me out of school, that is when they learned that I had neurofibromatosis, and hydrocephalus. Thank goodness they didn’t listen to the doctors. They had me tested and were told that I would probably have the mentality of that of a six year old, for the rest of my life. After being tested it was discovered that I had the mentality of a nine year old. So, while I was not pulled out of school, I was allowed to do the work of that of a fourth grader. My parents were told to encourage me to do other things at home. Since I was bored in school. I had always wanted to play the violin, and take ballet lessons, as well as art lessons. So, I just started do a number of other things as well. I have been collecting recipes since 1967. And even to this day, I can not pass a cookbook by. I collect cookbooks from every place we visit. And I will be back very often. I hope that this finds you and every member of your families having a Healthy & Happy 1998. May God Bless you. Your Friend Always, Criste Reimer
I also found this, written by Criste and her husband, also in 1998:
I am hoping that there are others out there who, have been told that because of a medical condition have been told that they can’t do something. I would like to have a place here where we can help support others. I myself was told when I was seven years old that I would have the mentality of a seven year old for the rest of my life. What my teacher didn’t understand was that when she told my parents this I already had the mentality of a nine year old. So, even though I have had to battle other things in my life, I have gone on to graduate from high school, and complete a year of pre-med in college. Even when I broke my leg I was told that I would NEVER walk again. I told the doctor to just watch me. And even though I had to go to two other doctors and have four surgeries, I am walking today, and have been for three years now. Even though I did my own therapy at home. Because when someone came out to help me, I was already doing everything that they were going to help me with. And when I got burned with hot
water. I was told that I could expect to have to learn to walk again, and that I could expect to be laid up for more than a year. Well, even though I had second and third degree burns, I am already walking and have no pain to speak of. I truly believe that we can over come alot that is in our lives. I would love to talk and share with others here. I hope that this finds everyone doing fine and having a wonderful holiday season.Your Friends,
Criste and Stan Reimer
"Cudle with your Teddy Bear
he will keep you warm and cozy"
Criste’s name also turns up on various recipe message boards.
Details are still sketchy, but this doesn’t look like murder in the malicious sense. He kissed her, and threw her off the balcony. She was in pain, and they simply didn’t have the insurance to help her.
This is a particularly nasty, but unequivocal, testiment to our failing health care system. There are tons of horror stories out there. Prominent blogger Mark Kleiman come close to dying because of the delays caused by the need to deal with insurance companies, and concludes:
the claim that replacing the current insurance mishmash with a better-integrated payment and decision-making process would mean more rationing, or even more rationing-by-queuing, is the sort of palpable falsehood that people who are perfectly honorable in real life are only too willing to utter in ideological conflict, especially if paid to do so. Under a single-payer system we’d have an idea who was waiting how long for what, while under the current system no such data are available. In all my waiting, I was never in a formal "queue," and if the cancer had gotten me before the pathologist figured out what it was no one would have counted that death as the result of rationing. But only in wingnut health-policy fantasyland is not measuring a problem the same as not having a problem.
This is a treat. Even though it’s a comedy show, Stewart asks hard questions that nobody else seems to ask….
At the end, he refers to John Gibson, the Fox News wanker who played an audio of Jon Stewart on 9/20/01, the day The Daily Show returned on the air following the 9/11 attacks. Stewart was clearly shaken (as we all were), but Gibson’s take? Stewart was a "phony".
I don’t follow the markets much, but I hear bad things…
|
DOW
|
|
|
|
NASDAQ
|
|
|
|
S&P 500
|
|
|
2:00 p.m.: Rebound?
3:00 p.m.: Guess not.
3:30 p.m.: Aw, screw it. This is why I don’t follow the stock market.
So secret, a court cannot even review it.
The Ninth Circuit is looking at a case revolving around supersecret surveillance done with out court oversight of any constitutional safeguards. The Washington Post covers it, and I particularly lliked this part:
The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that’s the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong," said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward.
Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre was forced to mount a public argument that almost nothing about the substance of the government’s conduct could be talked about in court because doing so might expose either the methods used in gathering intelligence or gaps in those methods.
"This seems to put us in the ‘trust us’ category," Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government’s assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. " ‘We don’t do it. Trust us. And don’t ask us about it.’ "
At one point, Garre argued that courts are not the right forum for complaints about government surveillance, and that "other avenues" are available. "What is that? Impeachment?" Pregerson shot back.
Clearly, the Ninth Circuit hates America.
UPDATE: Wired liveblogged the surreal hearing yesterday.
Bet you didn’t know that.
There’s an infamous video out there — I’ve probably linked to it before — in which anti-choice activists are interviewed. ALL of them say that abortion should be made a crime. But when asked "If abortions become a crime, then what should the punishment be for women who have abortions (i.e., commit that "crime")?
Almost all of the people interviewed react as if they haven’t even considered the consequences of what they are advocating, and many of them openly admit "Gee, I hadn’t thought of that". Watch it.
But while these anti-choice protesters may be clearly underinformed, some in the anti-choice establishment have a ready answer.
Enter Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. His answer to the question is that the only doctor should be punished, because the woman who seeks out the abortion is too “impaired” to be responsible for her actions.
I]f abortion were made illegal and he were a state legislator, Land said, “I would probably charge voluntary manslaughter for the abortionist. If [a doctor] were convicted, he would lose his medical license for two years and spend a year in prison with the first offense, and with the second offense, he would lose his medical license for life. At which point it’d be very difficult to find a doctor who’d do them.”
Such a legal stance is tantamount to “ignoring or infantilizing women, turning them into ‘victims’ of their own free will,” [Anna] Quindlen wrote. “State statutes that propose punishing only a physician suggest the woman was merely some addled bystander who happened to find herself in the wrong stirrups at the wrong time.”
Land doesn’t deny that women who have abortions might be addled, but he, along with Yoest, Earll, and Gans, takes exception to them being described as bystanders — or as enlightened women making free, educated choices.
“It’s not demeaning to assume that any person who is a mother who could make the decision to do this must be suffering from some form of psychological impairment because of the crisis of the pregnancy or because of societal demeaning of human life,” Land said.
That last quote is simply, and morally, wrong. It IS demeaning to make that assumption. It IS demeaning to say "Well, just because women won’t make the same choice as me regarding abortion, they must be undergoing some psychological impairment."
And to ASSUME that is the situation for ALL women who choose to undergo abortions? Equally demeaning.
And while we’re at it, why doesn’t that argument work outside the context of abortions? Why couldn’t we say, "Well, anyone who commits murder must have psychological impairment, so we should just prosecute the gun makers, and not the actual assailants?"
Pastor Dan of Street Prophets has the only sane response to this sort of insane drivel:
Look, one either has moral agency or one doesn’t. If there’s agency, then an illegal act is a crime. If not, then not. But to write off an entire class of women as mentally ill – if only temporarily – because they make a decision you don’t approve of? That doesn’t fit any moral framework I’m aware of. Nor does the outmoded idea that estrogen makes you crazy or the risible theory that society brainwashes women into killing their children.
He’s right. All of this is madness; what it does do is pull back the curtain of the real agenda of the anti-choice crowd — controlling the sexuality of women by insinuating they are not capable of ethical, moral or practical decisions about their lives.
It is often said (especially by feminists) that laws attempting to curb abortions aren’t really intended to curb abortions but rather to regulate sexuality of women. This only proves that theory. If the anti-choice crowd were serious about criminalizing abortions (i.e. if abortion really IS "murder"), then they would penalize and jail women who have them. The fact that they can’t bring themselves to do this, and instead fictionalize women as "unable to control their own thought processes", only shows the transparent moral hollowness of their position.
