[ Posted Monday, July 16th, 2007 – 16:31 UTC ]
But they're going to be drawing out this immense stonewalling during an election year. Republicans are already despondent over their chances next year, and the prospect of this issue coming up over and over and over again (as it works its way through the courts) next year would absolutely terrify them.
In large part, this is due to the fact that every single story will draw the inevitable conclusion that Bush is trying to "out-Nixon" Nixon. Just what Republican candidates don't want to see, while trying to win elections!
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, July 11th, 2007 – 03:05 UTC ]
But what if a half century, or even a full century (it all depends on how you define "heir apparent," apparently...) isn't long enough to hearken back in American history to find a more chaotic election? What if we have to reach back to the dim and distant past of 1825 for an equivalent event?
Since I've raised the question of what would happen if the presidential race were actually decided in the House, I will follow that thought out onto its limb and make a prediction how it will all turn out.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, June 28th, 2007 – 15:37 UTC ]
Actually, that title is misleading. To be perfectly accurate, it should read "House Votes To Not Deny Themselves A Raise," but then you get into the whole annoy-English-teachers-with-a-double-negative thing.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Monday, June 25th, 2007 – 15:23 UTC ]
It should be pointed out that it's not often you get to read the phrase (even with brackets): "bong hits [are a good thing]" in a Supreme Court decision.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, June 22nd, 2007 – 01:50 UTC ]
But, as I said, whatever the political price eventually is should not matter. Because some leadership is needed here. And that's what leadership is -- doing the right thing, while convincing enough of your opponents that it is the right thing... and then absolutely refusing to back down.
This war needs to end. If the Democrats don't do it in September, then they will be no better than the Republicans who led us into this war, and have enabled Bush ever since. Poll numbers show this, and Democrats know it. Enough Republicans need to be enticed or scared into crossing the aisle, in order to force Bush to get the troops out. Once again, here is what it will take: 60 to 70 in the House; 17 or 18 in the Senate. Once those numbers are reached, Bush's opinion ceases to be relevant.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Thursday, June 21st, 2007 – 00:02 UTC ]
General Petraeus, the officer in charge of our military presence in Iraq, is scheduled to report to Congress in mid-September on how the surge is doing. After he does so, Democrats are going to find themselves holding a winning hand for ending the war in Iraq -- as more and more Republicans start voting with them. But how they play their cards is going to be important in determining exactly how the war should be ended, how fast it will happen, and how many troops will be left in Iraq.
Now, there are many ideas on how to end the war from the Democratic side, and in September the party is going to have to hammer out a strategy for how to proceed -- and they'll need both a detailed strategy for the military withdrawal, and also a legislative strategy for how exactly to go about enacting the end of the war.
Congressional vagaries and loopholes mean there are countless ways the Democrats could manage to end the war in September. There is simply no way to cover every contingency here, or even predict exactly which path such legislation could take. Having said that, there are several tactics which are currently being discussed among Democratic leaders. Here are the major options as I see them now:
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 – 03:32 UTC ]
Do you support the concept of gay marriage?
That used to be an unimaginable question. Not "unimaginable" in a negative sense, but "unimaginable" in the original, neutral definition of the word: "unable to be imagined," or "not imaginable." The concept of two people of the same sex being married wasn't even raised in the American conscience until the 1990s (or perhaps late 1980s -- I haven't researched the actual date, this is from my own recollection). After that point, of course, the idea has grown in prominence in the American political debate, both pro and con.
But now, mostly due to a Mormon running for president, the issue of polygamy is also inserting itself into the political debate. So the question must also be asked: Do you support the concept of polygamy? If so, why? If not, why not?
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, March 23rd, 2007 – 19:28 UTC ]
Because it's hard to reconcile federal law which states that if you are a certain race (Native American) you are allowed to use an illegal drug (peyote) with your religious ceremony, the practice of many Christian sects which use a legal drug (wine) as a sacrament, and the fact that Rastafarians can be arrested for being caught using their illegal sacrament (ganja). Legally, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But then common sense has never been a strong point of the Drug War.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Wednesday, February 21st, 2007 – 15:26 UTC ]
Don Larsen was, by all reports, an excellent Army Chaplain. When he was a Pentecostal Christian, that is. His superior while he was in Iraq, Chaplain Kevin L. McGhee, called Larsen "the best" out of the 26 chaplains he supervised. But then Larsen applied to change his religious affiliation to Wicca, and the Army railroaded him out of Iraq and out of the Army.
The whole sordid story is extensively detailed in a recent article in the Washington Post which (though long) is well worth reading for anyone interested in the subject.
Read Complete Article »
[ Posted Friday, September 15th, 2006 – 17:15 UTC ]
How insane is it that this is an election issue? What kind of country have we become? Even Colin Powell is pointing out that we're now taking the moral low road. Have we all forgotten all those World War II movies with the guy in a dirty lab coat and a thick German accent saying "Ve haff vays of makink you talk..."?
Read Complete Article »