Plot Synopses For Episodes Of A Gilligan’s Island Remake Starring Members of the Bush Administration

Ken AshfordBush & Co.1 Comment

From McSweeney’s Lists:

Gilligan invades a neighboring island of cannibals. He mistakenly believes that Mary Ann and Ginger would be a sufficient force to secure the island, and Skipper erroneously claims they would be welcome as liberators.

A hurricane hits the island. Gilligan does nothing to help, but tells Mrs. Howell, "Lovey, you’re doing a heck of a job."

Skipper goes hunting for fowl on the island and accidentally shoots Mr. Howell in the face, then waits a day before telling Gilligan.

The Professor’s experiments conclusively show that climate change is causing the island to sink into the sea. Gilligan erases his papers and tries to stop him from talking, thinking that will make the problem go away.

Brave New World: The Ethics Of Robot Sex

Ken AshfordScience & Technology, Sex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

Robotsexr400pxInteresting times we live in.

Science ethicists are weighing the question of, yup, robot sex:

Other dilemmas may arrive sooner than we think, says [techno-ethicist Henrik] Christensen. “People are going to be having sex with robots within five years,” he said. So should limits be set on the appearance, for example, of such robotic sex toys? The greatest danger, however, is likely to lie with robots that are able to learn from their “experiences”. As systems develop, robots are likely to have much more sophisticated self-learning mechanisms built into them and it may become impossible to predict exactly how they will behave.

Full article here.

Federalist 69

Ken AshfordBush & Co., ConstitutionLeave a Comment

In the legal realm, neo-conservatives talk a good game about the Founding Fathers and how we should be true to their original intent.

That grounding falls apart when it comes to the subject of presidential powers.  There is simply no way that Bush’s "President-as-King (during wartime)" arguments can be reconciled with the writings of the Founding Fathers, a point brought out in this excellent article in the Boston Globe by Charles Sweeney:

Relying on a tried and true method of divining the original intent of the Founding Fathers-reading the Federalist Papers, the essays written in 1787 and 1788 by three of the founders to explain the meaning of the Constitution-the administration asserts that it is using executive power as the founders intended.

Yet scholars from across the political spectrum question the historical cases Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have made. In an effort to find backing for their view of presidential power, these scholars argue, the administration has quoted selectively, taken passages out of context, and simply ignored what many constitutional scholars say is the Federalist Paper that most squarely addresses the president’s wartime powers: Federalist 69.

Richard Epstein, a conservative law professor at the University of Chicago who embraces originalism, said Federalist 69 shows that the administration’s legal theory is "just wrong" and called its failure to acknowledge the paper "scandalous."

"How can you not talk about Federalist 69?" he said. "All you have to do is go on Google and put in ‘Federalist Papers’ and ‘commander in chief’ and it pops up."

Federalist 69 was written by Alexander Hamilton and compares the powers of the President to that of the King, noting that unlike a King, the President does not have unlimited authority, and is subject to "checks and balances".  Even in wartime:

Hamilton explained that the American commander in chief’s powers would be subject to strong checks and balances, including submission to regulation by laws passed by Congress. Hamilton describes the commander in chief as "nothing more" than the "first general" in the military hierarchy. The commander in chief’s powers are "much inferior" to a king because all the power to declare war and to create and regulate armies is given instead to Congress, he explained.

How does the Bush Administration and other "originalist" neo-cons deal with the unpleasant fact that the Founding Fathers don’t support their position of unlimited Presidential powers in wartime?

Badly:

Citing similar passages in other Federalist Papers, John Yoo, a former official in the Bush Justice Department, added that Federalist 69 is just one among many records of the founders’ thinking, some of which are contradictory or misleading. In his recent book, "The Powers of War and Peace" (Chicago), Yoo dismissed Federalist 69 as "rhetorical excess" that exaggerated the difference between a king and a president.

"Fed 69 should not be read for more than what it is worth," Yoo, who is now a Berkeley law professor, wrote in an e-mail. The administration, he added, is "following the general view of presidents of both parties for many years, since probably [President Franklin Roosevelt]," so its legal reasoning is not "unserious."

So in other words, these "originalists" choose to ignore what Hamilton wrote, but rely on what FDR thought about what Hamilton wrote.

How they can take that position and still claim to be "originalists" is beyond me:

But David Golove, a New York University law professor, said the buildup of executive power in recent generations is "completely irrelevant" from an originalist perspective. If the proper way to interpret the Constitution is by looking to what the founders intended, he said, then it is Federalist 69, not Franklin Roosevelt’s record, that matters. "The irony is that this administration claims to be originalists," Golove said.

Indeed.

Glenn Greenwald sums it up and admonishes the media:

It should not come as a surprise that the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power — which are guiding how our country is governed and which have spawned abusive scandal after scandal — relies upon the view that the views of the founders ought to be ignored. Federalist 69 is not all that long. All reporters could read it quickly and understand it easily. Like Savage did, they ought to. Perhaps then they could realize — and then inform the country — that the powers claimed by Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush are the very opposite of the core, defining principles of our country.

NH Phone-Jamming Scandal: What’s It About?

Ken AshfordElection 2004Leave a Comment

On the surface, the NH 2002 election phone-jamming scandal (background here) is, as emptywheel suggests, nothing more than a "third-rate crank phone call".

So why is the GOP spending so much money trying to defend what should be viewed as the acts of a few GOP rogues?  Is it because it wasn’t the act of a few rogues, and the trail goes all the way to the White House?  Is is because the NH Dems are sniffing someplace that makes the GOP uncomfortable?

I think so, and so do many others.

Remember The Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia Explosions?

Ken AshfordScience & TechnologyLeave a Comment

I do.

NASA apparently doesn’t:

NASA managers have rejected last-ditch pleas from their top safety officer and chief engineer to scrap next month’s shuttle launch, saying that they will press ahead despite potentially catastrophic risks.

***

Dr Griffin said: "I do not see the situation we’re in as being a crew-loss situation. If we are unlucky and we have a debris event on ascent, it will not impede the ascent. The crew will arrive safely in orbit, and then we will begin to look at our options."

Of course, he’s right.  With Columbia, they had a "debris event" on ascent, and it didn’t impede the ascent.  It did, however, impede the descent.

Shuttlecolumbia2all7killedincrash2003020

Resurgence Of Taliban In Afghanistan

Ken AshfordWar on Terrorism/TortureLeave a Comment

Bush 2004:

And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.) In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you’re saying, and you better mean what you say.

WH Press Secretary Tony Snow, this weekend:

BLITZER: Let’s move on and talk about some other issues. I know your time is limited. Afghanistan. Is the Taliban making a serious comeback right now?

SNOW: I think what the Taliban is doing — and it’s predictable — is that they are trying to test in the south, where the U.S. forces are handing over to NATO…But A, it’s predictable, and B, in the encounters, as you know, the Taliban fighters have overwhelmingly been losing. Now, I think it is predictable…you can expect there to be pushback by the Taliban.

Ethnic Cleansing In Iraq

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Just hours before Bush’s arrival in Baghdad a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Embassy wrote a confidential cable talking about what the situation was like outside the safe Green Zone.  The assessment is based on interviews with Iraqi staff members who work in the Embassy and live in Baghdad.  The cable is here (PDF format).

The subject of the memo is: "Snapshots from the Office — Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord."

Most alarming is a footnote in one of the 23 sections, which reads:

"An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militiast are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq."

Among the other troubling reports:

  • "Personal safety depends on good relations with the ‘neighborhood’ governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."
  • One embassy employee had a brother-in-law kidnapped. Another received a death threat, and then fled the country with her family.
  • Iraqi staff at the embassy, beginning in March and picking up in May, report "pervasive" harassment from Islamist and/or militia groups. Cuts in power and rising fuel prices "have diminished the quality of life." Conditions vary but even upscale neighborhoods "have visibly deteriorated" and one of them is now described as a "ghost town."
  • Two of the three female Iraqis in the public affairs office reported stepped-up harassment since mid-May…."some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative." One of the women is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.
  • It has also become "dangerous" for men to wear shorts in public and "they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts." People who wear jeans in public have also come under attack.
  • Embassy employees are held in such low esteem their work must remain a secret and they live with constant fear that their cover will be blown. Of nine staffers, only four have told their families where they work. They all plan for their possible abductions. No one takes home their cell phones as this gives them away. One employee said criticism of the U.S. had grown so severe that most of her family believes the U.S. "is punishing populations as Saddam did."
  • Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials.
  • "For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff members for translation at on-camera press events….We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their ‘cover.’"
  • "More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate."
  • The overall environment is one of "frayed social networks," with frequent actual or perceived insults. None of this is helped by lack of electricity. "One colleague told us he feels ‘defeated’ by circumstances, citing his example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in stifling heat," which is now reaching 115 degrees.
  • "Another employee tell us that life outside the Green Zone has become ’emotionally draining.’ He lives in a mostly Shiite area and claims to attend a funeral ‘every evening.’"
  • Fuel lines have grown so long that one staffer spent 12 hours in line on his day off. "Employees all confirm that by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without. … One staff member reported that a friend lives in a building that houses a new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day."
  • The cable concludes that employees’ "personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels, despite talk of reconciliation by officials."

Anyone who thinks things are going just dandy in Iraq ought to read this — and remember, this leaked document is from our own government.

Read The Fine Print

Ken AshfordSex/Morality/Family ValuesLeave a Comment

I was intrigued by this article in AgapePress, whose headline reads: Study Shows Dining With Family Reduces Teens’ Risk of Addictions.  The article begins:

According to one national organization’s research, eating dinner together as a family is not only good for bonding between family members but also cuts down on teens’ risks of alcohol and drug addiction.

I sought out the study, which can be found here (PDF), and as I suspected, the research is shoddy.  While the data generally supports the conclusion that there is a correlation between family dinners and teenage substance abuse, nothing — absolutely nothing — suggest that there is a causal connection.

But the real joke is the study methodology, buried in the back of the document.  How did the researchers determine whether or not the teens in their study had an engaged in alcohol or drug abuse?

Why, they asked them!  And of course, teens wouldn’t lie about that to a total stranger in a telephone interview!

But the researchers were aware that teenagers might lie, so their determination of whether or not a teenager engaged in alcohol or drug abuse was based in part on how teens responded to questions about their friends’ behavior.  Questions like: "Do you know of a friend or classmate who uses acid, cocaine, or heroin?"  If the teen answered "yes", then that upped his "risk" score that the teen himself might be a drug abuser!

What kind of B.S. is that?  When I was in high school, I knew many kids who drank and did drugs and so on.  Didn’t reflect on my behavior one bit.

Wit And Wisdom From Nathan Tabor

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

From today’s column:

In fact, twenty years down the line, I wouldn’t be surprised if our much-maligned President George W. Bush is regarded as one of our finest Presidents. Why? Because—when we faced an unprecedented attack on domestic soil on 9/11, the President responded with courage, strength and, yes, even restraint.

Normally at this point, I would say something snarky, but I’ll let Nathan’s words stand on their own.  He’s made satirization obsolete.

More Blogbites

Ken AshfordRandom Musings1 Comment

* Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, on the meme that Bush’s recent surprise visit to Baghdad’s green zone was fraught with danger:

Just when I thought they couldn’t set the bar any lower for Bush, we’re now expected to be impressed that the most secure part of a country where he supposedly won a war three years ago remains a live target for mortar fire.

* The Raw Story: Did the Army lie about contracts given to Halliburton in order to protect Cheney?

* Bob Harris on Ann Coulter:

But now comes Godless, written by a woman who not only does not attend the church she claims to, but whose entire income depends on publicly breaking at least three of the Ten Commandments — #9: Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness (so much for generating publicity with wild claims about the 9-11 widows); #4: Remember the Sabbath (so much for plugging her book on Sunday morning talk shows); and #8: Thou Shalt Not Steal (numerous snippets of Coulter’s books are lifted almost word-for-word from other uncredited sources) — as often as possible.

[Bob Harris overlooks another commandment-breaking action by Ann Coulter: targetting senators for murder.  More from Editor & Publisher]

* Betty Bowers on Ann Coulter: "Apparently, in Miss Coulter’s religion, the meek may inherit the Earth, but not before she’s had a shot at making them cry first."

* Republican strategist busted by the blogosphere: he’s been soliciting young girls who write about it on MySpace.

* Republican Congressman Lynn Westmoreland co-sponsors a bill to allow the Ten Commandments in courthouses, but he can’t even name them.

* The "Family Values" people are complaining about TV shows that they don’t even watch!

* From the mind of our favorite wingnot columnist, Kaye Grogan:

Most Americans would practically still be in the stone age era or having to rely on smoke signals for information, if news sites like WorldNet Daily, Newsmax, and the Drudge Report didn’t exist on the Internet.

The article is entitled "Watch Out For Those Cliffhangers!" and I defy anyone to find a connection between that title and the subject of her article.

* And finally, whaddup with the wardrobe on gay-bashing Senator Santorum?

Santorum_pink

Morons Can Use The Bible For Anything These Days

Ken AshfordForeign Affairs, Godstuff, Right Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

I recently had a discussion with a friend, a born again Christian, the other day.  She tried to convince me that the Bible is THE TRUTH.  You know, with a capital "T".  She couldn’t say why it was THE TRUTH, because to question why is (apparently) some form of heresy.

Anyway, I came across this article which demonstrates (per my argument to her) that the Bible is full of metaphor, and can be interpreted to mean anything you want it to mean:

A Christian business consultant and writer in the Phoenix area has recently published some commentaries that deal with what the Bible says about illegal immigration and a nation’s response to that. He says he has found in his study and research that it isn’t just about compassion.

Steve Marr’s online commentaries are called "Business Proverbs." His syndicated radio program by the same name is heard on 1,000 radio outlets worldwide. According to Marr, the Bible supports the idea that nations have the right and responsibility to secure their borders.

Marr says many Christians, when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, argue that compassion should rule the day because those immigrants have come simply seeking a better life. But the former president and CEO of a large import-export firm says even illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. for years and have built otherwise productive lives are still illegal aliens.

"To me it’s an issue of justice," Marr shares. "And if you break a law — whether it’s a drug law, whether it’s an immigration law or whether it’s robbing a bank — if you get caught, whether it’s in a day, a year or ten years, I think justice has to run it’s course."

Now, the Bible really says NOTHING about illegal immigration specifically.  But this dude makes it out like it does, even concluding that compassion in the area of immigration is UNChristian.

His argument is simple: laws are laws, and the Bible commands justice, which means Christians should support laws — including immigration laws.

Problem is, of course, that slavery was once the law, too.  Would this guy argue that Christianity supports slavery?

Nathan Tabor: “America Loves Winners”

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

That’s an odd title for Nathan Tabor’s latest screed, seeing as how Nathan has tried to run for government office twice, and lost.

Just when you think that things are going bad for the G.O.P., some Democratic “leader” steps up to a microphone and gives the electorate one more reason to remember why they voted Republicans into the House, Senate, and White House in the last few elections.

Yes, I’m sure everything will turn around.

Let’s start our short analysis of Democrats with “foot-in-mouth” disease with their reactions to the elimination of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

After a perfunctory “We are proud of our troops for their tireless work,” on the Huffington blog, Representative Nancy Pelosi made sure that she, nonetheless, got a jab at President Bush. “His death [Zarqawi] does not alter the fact that our brave men and women in uniform are fighting a war of choice in which the President sent our troops into harm’s way without a plan for victory and without leveling with the American people.” Pelosi also called for “…serious debate about U.S. policy in Iraq,” which really means “It’s time to cut-and-run.”

Yeah, screw serious debate.  After all, if people wanted "serious debate" about sending American men and women to die, they would have elected Democrats.

Representative John Murtha also noted the removal of Zarqawi but then added “We cannot win this,” in his best defeatist mode before calling for troop withdrawals.

Senator John Kerry also praised the service members involved in the killing the Jordanian-born terrorist, but tempered his comments by adding “It’s time to work with the new Iraqi government to bring our combat troops home by the end of this year." Kerry has also introduced a Senate resolution that would require President Bush to withdraw almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year.

Keep talking, Democrats. Keep calling for troop withdrawals. As General George Patton once declared “America loves winners,” and if the Democrats continue on their cut-and-run theme, the winner America will love in November will be the G.O.P.

Nathan, come out of your bubble and read the polls.  Most Republican voters now think Iraq was a mistake, and we should be looking for ways to get out.