[ Posted Friday, August 14th, 2009 – 17:15 UTC ]
The healthcare reform fracas has gotten so bad, it has forced some in the media to actually do their jobs. This statement will come as a shock to anyone who has become accustomed to the way these soi-disant "journalists" present just about any issue these days -- by having a center-left politician and a hard-right politician on to "debate," and then fanning the flames by refusing to referee and provide actual facts to the discussion. But I think now (maybe) the "journalists" have finally gotten to the point of embarrassment, leading them to actually report on what is true and what is not in the entire debate. In other words, as I said, to do their actual jobs.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, August 7th, 2009 – 09:00 UTC ]
I've always been confused why the media goes berserk about rating a president's "first 100 days," but then just stops counting after the first milestone. This, to a statistician, would be known as a "zero dimensional data array" -- one data point, to be exact. If you don't re-test the sample on a regular schedule, how are you supposed to compare it to anything?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, July 15th, 2009 – 17:27 UTC ]
"But that's just the problem!" interjects Dr. Frank, in frustration. "Following the law sounds easy, but the law has changed over the years. The things the Constitution did not address come before judges all the time. Life has changed since 1787! And the law has changed as well."
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, July 9th, 2009 – 16:54 UTC ]
President Obama always knew he'd face an uphill battle to get healthcare reform legislation through Congress this year. He gave them a pretty generous timeline to do so, and we are fast approaching one of the dates on that timeline -- each house of Congress is supposed to pass their version of a healthcare reform bill by the time Congress breaks for the summer for five weeks. Achieving this milestone on Obama's timeline is now officially in doubt. So Obama should push back a little, and unveil the threat of using Article II, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which states that the president "may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them." In other words: call a "special session" of Congress. In even plainer language: cancel their month-long-plus vacation.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 – 13:46 UTC ]
This Saturday is, of course, Independence Day. It was also scheduled to be "Round Two" of the tea bag protests. But their planned protest seems to be fizzling like a wet firecracker. At least in the media's view, so far. Perhaps scheduling protests on one of the worst news days in the year is responsible for this inattention?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Monday, June 8th, 2009 – 15:36 UTC ]
I have a question for former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been staunchly defending the Bush administration's use of waterboarding and other torture against prisoners in our care. My question: Should Scott Roeder, accused murderer of abortion doctor George Tiller, now be waterboarded? Roeder has just gone on the record stating that further violence is coming, in "many similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal." In other words, Roeder is claiming the now-infamous "ticking time bomb" scenario of what can only be termed domestic terrorism. So, Mr. Cheney, doesn't this mean (following your own "logic") that Roeder should immediately be waterboarded to tell us what he knows? Anything less, by your standards, would be hypocritically picking and choosing which terrorists get a pass, and which don't.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 – 18:13 UTC ]
Senator Dianne Feinstein finally said what I've been waiting for someone to say about the whole "reverse racism" charge now being levied by Republicans against President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court pick, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. From this weekend's Face The Nation, Feinstein summed the entire controversy up in her first response to moderator Bob [...]
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, May 29th, 2009 – 16:38 UTC ]
"Judicial activism" (or, alternatively, "legislating from the bench") is defined -- no matter what your political beliefs -- as "judges not ruling the way I want them to." It's an inherently partisan statement to make, even if it doesn't sound like it. If you are a Republican, using the term means courts ruling for things you don't like. Same for Democrats. The irony is that while the charge is leveled in order to prove some sort of bias or prejudice in a judicial candidate or judge, the only thing it usually winds up proving is the bias of the accuser -- and not the accused. Because it almost always boils down to the accuser wanting the judge or justice in question to rule in a certain partisan way -- before even hearing the facts of any particular case.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, May 22nd, 2009 – 17:38 UTC ]
President Obama and the congressional Democrats just had their first spat. While others have more-than-adequately delved into the fracas of Obama's national security speech and Harry Reid stripping out funding to close Guantanamo, what I was struck by this week was how Obama is better defining his character as president. This is going to be important later this year, when energy plans and health care reform legislation become protracted fights in Congress.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Tuesday, May 19th, 2009 – 17:18 UTC ]
When I wrote yesterday's column ("What, Exactly, Was Pelosi Supposed To Do?") I expected a certain amount of debate, but I had no idea what direction it would take (which is the whole fun of the blogosphere). To be perfectly honest, I thought some Pelosi defenders would take me to task for being too hard on her.
Read Complete Article »
