I’ve never cared much for interleague play . . . until now.
The Fine Print
The Citizen’s Flag Alliance is a public interest group with one cause: a constitutional amendment forbidding the desecration of the U.S. flag.
To support their outrage, they informed the Senate that the incidents of flag burning has increased 33% in the past year.
Thirty-three percent. Sounds alarming, don’t it?
What the CFA hides is this fact: Yeah, it went up 33% —from three incidents to four.
Freedom Of The Press Threatened
The winger forces, including Bush himself, are screaming for the collective head of the New York Times for its article revealing that the United States monitors bank transactions of would-be terrorists. (Interestingly — or perhaps not — the rightwing wrath is directed solely at The New York Times, not at the conservative Wall Street Journal or L.A. Times, which also reported the same story).
Glenn Greenwald has the most cohesive and complete response.
He first destroys the central prop of the right’s outrage — that the NYT revealed to terrorists our secret techniques to catch them, thus endangering lives. As Greenwald says, this is simply untrue. In this speech in April 2004, Bush himself specifically told a large crowd:
See, part of the way to make sure that we catch terrorists is we chase money trails.
Furthermore, a group blog consisting of former government anti-terrorism experts featured an article by a former State Department official, listing several other Internet-available sources which exposed the money-tracking program years ago:
[R]eports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group, on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website.
…An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada’s Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.
So the notion that the New York Times was treasonously divulging state secrets is simply absurd.
And when you think about it, if YOU were a terrorist, wouldn’t you ASSUME that the U.S. was doing that kind of thing ANYWAY?
Greenwald also mocks the laughable argument that the New York Times wants to help the terrorists. Really, this is silly rhetoric. The New York Times, located in Times Square (a prime target for terrorists) really doesn’t want to help terrorists, and anyone who seriously suggests that it simply smearing due to the lack of rational arguments.
Greenwald also does a nice job of talking about how the Founding Fathers were adamant about securing the guarantee of a free press even if it hindered fonctionality of the government. I quote at length:
The reason the Founders guaranteed a free press is to ensure that there would be an adversary of the Government, an entity which uncovers and discloses government conduct which political leaders want to conceal. As a result, it was hardly unforeseen by the Founders that the Government would be hostile and resentful of the press. Hostility and adversarial struggles were supposed to be an intrinsic attribute of the government-press relationship.
And the Founders equally recognized that, as a result of this inherent conflict, the Government would attempt to do exactly what the Bush administration and its supporters are now actively pursuing — that is, using governmental power (such as the power of anti-press legislation, prosecution and/or imprisonment) to forcibly limit what the media can report and/or to intimidate them from reporting facts which the Government wanted to conceal. The Constitution resolves that conflict in favor of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution by making the prohibition on anti-press government restraints absolute and unambiguous.
Bush supporters want nothing less than to re-visit the Founders’ resolution and reverse it. They want to replace the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin with regard to press freedoms with the superior judgment of Dick Cheney, Congressman Peter King and Michelle Malkin, who want to imprison reporters for what they publish. They simply don’t believe in the same principles that the Founders embraced and enshrined for our country. These observations from Jefferson simply leave no doubt about that:
"Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."
And in the debate over whether to favor excessive disclosure or excessive government secrecy, Jefferson left little doubt as to how that conflict was resolved by the Founders: in choosing "government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter."
Bush supporters plainly disagree with both assessments. They believe in government power that cannot be checked by the press, at least under this administration. The government can act in total secrecy, and journalists ought to be imprisoned if they disclose information which the President decrees should be kept secret.
Why does the "patriotic" right hate the founding principles of America so much?
Rush’s Drug Problems Continue, And People Like Me Giggle Like Schoolchildren
A Customs inspector going through the baggage of conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh on Monday afternoon found 29 small blue tablets — a supply of the impotence drug Viagra.
Trouble is, the name on the bottle wasn’t Limbaugh.
”Limbaugh said it was for his own personal use and that the name on it was his doctor’s,” said Sgt. Pete Palenzuela, a spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.
Possession of drugs prescribed to someone else is a second-degree misdemeanor.
Well, worse than being a class 2 misdemeanor, the possession could result in a revocation of the "deal" he worked out with prosecutors — a deal which ended up in a dismissal of prior charges against him. If this story pans out to be true, Rush could be back in the doghouse and looking at reinstitution of all prior drug and doctor-shopping charges against him.
Firedoglake looks at the legal perspective in more depth:
Just so we are clear, in every jurisdiction that I know of, getting your drug prescriptions in someone else’s name is not legal.
That goes double when you are on probation supervision: in order to accurately assess the urine samples, probation officers have to have on file a copy of every prescription — drug name, dosage, frequency, etc. — to send to the company that does the chemistry profiles and testing on the urine screen. If the person under supervision tries to circumvent that process by getting prescriptions in someone else’s name, well that doesn’t provide adequate information for purposes of assessment — and it’s a violation of the supervision requirements, let alone a whole new set of legal violations. (Unless, of course, Rush informed the probation office that he intended to break the law by having prescriptions written in someone else’s name. Which would be highly unlikely…)
According to attorney Roy Black, a doctor had prescribed the Viagra, but it was "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes."
Guess that plan didn’t work out too well. In any event, it’s an odd excuse. Prescriptions aren’t public information anyway. Well, NOW it is.
Rush’s doctor(s) are also in some doo-doo. You simply can’t write a presecription in someone else’s name.
Rush, by the way, was stopped at the airport upon a return trip from the Dominican Republic [raise eyebrows].
UPDATE: From Jesus’ General:
And let’s step into the way-back machine, and take in some quotes from Rushbo himself, on the subject of drugs:
These tough sentencing laws were instituted for a reason. The American people, including liberals, demanded them. Don’t you remember the crack cocaine epidemic? Crack babies and out-of-control murder rates? Liberal judges giving the bad guys slaps on the wrist? Finally we got tough, and the crime rate has been falling ever since, so what’s wrong? —RushLimbaugh.com (8/18/03)
When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he’s being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks. —Rush Limbaugh radio show (quoted in the L.A. Times, 8/20/95)
What he’s saying is that if there’s a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it….And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we’re blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they’re weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we’re going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn’t. It’s not our responsibility. It’s up to the people who are doing it.–Rush Limbaugh TV show (9/23/93)
I’m appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can’t control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let’s legalize it." It’s a dumb idea. It’s a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish.–Rush Limbaugh TV show (12/9/93)
The Homosexual Agenda
You hear a lot of talk/complaints about "the homosexual agenda", but what exactly is it?
Pam Spaulding of Pandagon was cleaning up around her home, and she came across a piece of paper (well, several, actually) which outlines the homosexual agenda:
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM (Here’s the really important part)
1) Assume complete control of the US Federal, State and local Governments as well as all other national governments
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels
5) Establish planetary chain of “homo breeding gulags” where over -medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership
6) Bulldoze all houses of worship
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.2:30 PM Get Forty Winks of Beauty Rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed
Snow’s Snow
Let’s see. The Democrats are calling for a plan to withdraw from Iraq by the end of the year, or soon thereafter. Our commander in Iraq has put forth a plan for just that thing.
The GOP has villified Democrats’ plan as displaying "cut and run" cowardice, being reckless and unworkable and blah blah blah. But how is any different than the plan proposed by our top commander in Iraq? This question was put to WH Press Secretary Tony Snow, who responded:
"Well, actually, he has one, and it — you know, again, this is not, I believe the way, at least it was reported, is you’ve got two brigades by the end of the year, September being short of the end of the year. But I may be misreading it. In any event, you’ve got to keep in mind that this is not a statement of policy. Again, Gen. Casey keeps in mind a number of scenarios. You’re talking about scenarios here … And so I would caution very strongly against everybody thinking, well, they’re going to pull two brigades out. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. That really does depend upon a whole series of things that we cannot, at this juncture, predict. But Gen. Casey — again, I would characterize this more in terms of scenario building, and we’ll see how it proceeds."
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
“The Vice President”
Nice little exchange in a Congressional hearing yesterday. The topic was the manipulation of pre-war Iraq intelligence. Rep. Walter Jones (a NC Republican who voted for the war, and later regretted it) was talking to Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s chief of staff:
JONES: My question is this to all four of you who would like to answer, maybe it’s a very simple question. I apologize if it’s been asked before. But what perplexes me is how in the world could professionals – I’m not criticizing anybody here at this table – but how could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?
I’m not saying you did not do your duty, please understand. My point is as a congressman who trusted what I was being told – I’m was not on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Dorgan, but I am on the Armed Services Committee – and I was being told this information. And I wish I’d the wisdom then that I might have now. I would have known what to ask. But I think many of my colleagues – they did not have the experience on the Intelligence Committee – we just pretty much accepted.
So where along the way – how did these people so early on get so much power that they had more influence in those in the administration to make decisions than you the professionals.
WILKERSON: Let me try to answer you first. Let me say right off the bat I’m glad to see you here.
JONES: Thank you sir.
WILKERSON: As a Republican, I’m somewhat embarrassed by the fact that you’re the only member of my party here.
JONES: I agree.
WILKERSON: But I understand it. I’d answer you with two words. Let me put the article in there and make it three. The Vice President.
Once Again, Science Tells Us Something We Already Know
‘Senior Moments’ May Be Alzheimer’s:
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — A study found that in a disturbing number of cases, embarrassing "senior moments" such as forgetting a recent conversation or drawing a blank on someone’s name may really be a sign of Alzheimer’s after all.
Chicago scientists reached that conclusion after autopsies on the brains of 134 older people who had appeared to be mentally normal, apart from some subtle forgetfulness.
Occasional forgetfulness is often written off as a normal part of growing old and nothing to get alarmed about. And in most cases, that is probably true.
But the scientists found to their surprise that the brains of more than one-third of the participants were riddled with waxy protein clumps and other signs of degeneration that are hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.
The study "questions the acceptability of minor episodic memory loss in older adults as normal," said Dr. Carol Lippa, director of the memory disorders program at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She had no part in the study.
I was going to say something about this, but I forgot what it was.
Everybody’s For “Cutting And Running”
It seems that if any anti-war person suggest that we get out of Iraq, they are labelled as "cut and run" cowards.
Sadly, it’s not just those on the left who U.S. troops to start moving out of Iraq:
A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations …they’re also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday.
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
So who exactly is against withdrawal? Seems like a small army of armchair warriors — not anybody intimately involved in the hostilities in Iraq.
I’m sorry, but when the Iraqi government and the top U.S. commander in Iraq are talking about troop withdrawal, you simply can’t label people who agree with them as "cut and run" cowards.
The Talent Show comments:
Interesting corner you’ve painted yourself into President Bush. If you go along with the plan, you’re essentially agreeing with the Democrats in regards to withdrawal. If you disagree, then all of your talk about Iraqi sovereignty was bullshit. After all, this is what the White House Spokesman said just one month ago :
Q [D]oes the fact that there is now a unity government change Maliki’s ability to say — to tell us, or ask us to leave?
MR. SNOW: We’ve been very clear, when the Iraqi government — we serve there at the pleasure of the Iraqi government. You know, if he says he doesn’t need us, we’re not going to stick around.
Kevin Drum adds:
Did you get that? No one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable.
President Bush would be flatly insane to turn this opportunity down. It’s precisely the kind of request he needs in order to declare victory, assure everyone that the job is close to done, and make it clear that he respects Iraqi sovereignty and doesn’t plan to occupy their country forever. There would be no loss of face and no loss of national honor.
Conversely, if he resists it, it would be hard not to conclude that he was doing so solely because a "broad, conditions-based timetable" also happens to be exactly the position of the vast majority of the Democratic Party — and he would rather chew off his own big toe than do anything that might turn down the volume on the domestic partisan jihad that’s been so politically successful for Republicans ever since 9/11. I guess we’ll find out soon.
Indifference To The Truth
Another report on pre-war WMD intelligence stuff. The basic picture I think we get from all of this is that the administration’s rhetoric certainly wasn’t a matter of "mistakes" or "bad intelligence" and probably wasn’t primarily the product of lies either. One reason some of us were so credulous about what they said before the war is that it just wouldn’t make sense to deliberately lie under circumstances where you were bound to get caught. What certainly I didn’t really consider when evaluating what was being said was the possibility — that now clearly seems to be the case — that they were just operating with a near-perfect indifference to the truth.
They "knew" what they wanted to know and the point of the intelligence community at that point wasn’t to uncover the truth but simply to provide the evidence necessary to reach the conclusion.
I said the very same thing to someone this weekend.
SCOTUS News
Lot of things coming from the Supreme Court today. I’ll combine it all here:
(1) In Hudson v. Michigan, a recent controversial decision involving the "knock & announce" tactics of police raids, Scalia apparently "twisted the words" of an eminent criminolgist to reach his conclusion. The criminiologist complains here.
(2) SCOTUS announced today that it will hear a case about combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court ‘s most important decisions on the environment. More here:
[Environmental groups] argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary "greenhouse" gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
The administration maintains that carbon dioxide — unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air — is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.
A federal appeals court sided with the administration in a sharply divided ruling.
One judge said the EPA’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide was contrary to the clean air law; another said that even if the Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority over the heat-trapping chemical, the agency could choose not to use that authority; a third judge ruled against the suit because, he said, the plaintiffs had no standing because they hadn’t proven harm.
It seems that SCOTUS will not be called on to determine whether or not CO2 or other greenhouses gases cause global warming, but instead, to determine with the Clean Air Act (or other laws) mandate that the EPA get involved in regulating it.
The Clean Air Act (at Section 302(g)) gives the EPA power to regulate "air pollutants", defined as "any air pollution agent or combinations of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive …substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambiant air".
That’s a pretty broad definition, and I fail to see how it could not include CO2.
(3) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to revisit Buckley v. Valeo, the atrocious 1976 case about political campaign contributions which stated (in so many words) that "money is speech" and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, Buckley is still good law after the case announced today. SCOTUS (in a 6-3 decision) addressed a law in the State of Vermont which attempted to address campaign financing, striking down the law as unconstitutional (PDF).
(4) SCOTUS ruled today that the death penalty statute in Kansas doesn’t violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. It was a close 5-4 decision, with Alito casting the swing vote.
(5) No decisions today on Hamden (dealing with Gitmo "enemy combatents") or the Texas redistricting case (where precinct lines were redrawn to give Republicans a leg-up).
Can’t Believe This Guy Is A Law Professor
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, on the issue of the New York Times leaking news that the government is monitoring bank transactions:
The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn’t give freedom to the press. [NYT Editor] Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It’s the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry.
I think it is Reynolds who puts the media in some lofty position, not the NYT. He seems to overlook the obvious: the media is the people. Who actually runs the New York Times? Who writes the stories? Who owns the stock? People. A publishing entity doesn’t lose its constitutional "freedom of the press" protection simply because it is large, well-organized and successful (like the New York Times).
The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) proclaimed that "the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts (1780) declared, "The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth." This notion was carried into the Constitution by the founding fathers. The New York Times may have printed something which exposed (yet another) dirty deed of the Bush Administration. While it is probably an embarassment, it is precisely the safeguard that the framers envisioned. As Thomas Jefferson preached, a government which cannot stand up to criticism and exposure deserves to fall.
The Power Of The Blogosphere
I hate — really hate — the self-congratulatory aspect of the political blogosphere, where bloggers hoist themselves on their own petard thinking that, collectively, they can change the course of politics and, by extension, America.
But Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the proprietor of the most popular liberal blog Daily Kos, seems to really be making a difference, and has set himself up as a key player in shaping the state of the Democratic party. As this article suggests, it may not be a good thing.
What’s that saying about power and corruption?
Jesus Died For Your Boo-Boos
Available here.