What Is Your Animal Personality?
brought to you by Quizilla [via
One oddity of these quizzes: none of them mention blogging as a pasttime or a venue of communication. It's like we're inventing quizzes for people of the 1980s....
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.You can read the rest here. As Sgt. Bray says, Wow.
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
-- Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, 1991
In sum, the Patriot Act was a "hasty change that overturns long-established customs and principles." We should not have compounded the error by rushing through a renewal. Congress should be commended for having given itself time to take a deep breath and make sure that it has an opportunity for full debate and evaluation of each provision and proposed amendment rather than making hurried changes at the last minute under the gun.He quotes him a lot, so I might have to start reading him directly... maybe later.
Sad to say, I think the judge has it more or less right: what the administration has done, by its illegal actions, is create a situation which would be the pride and joy of a law school prof's hypothetical collection: there is no legal option. The judge, unlike the chief executive, is incapable of ordering actions which violate the law; only Congress can authorize exceptions (or the Executive, if it's regulatory instead of statutory); Judges can invalidate law, but the problem is that the executive has failed to follow perfectly reasonable laws.... Joseph Heller, eat your heart out.We can add it to the impeachment list...
One of the big mistakes made in the process of developing legal positions following September 11th was that certain lawyers at State and in the military services were excluded from some of the conversations. These are the lawyers most adept at understanding international law, especially the law of armed conflict.Who was responsible for bypassing them? Who's the administration's go-to guy for legal opinions favoring monarchical power and might-makes-right international relations? Yoo, that's who.
Your Blog Should Be Green |
You're pissed? Try walking in my shoes! Twenty two years in the military. Twenty two years of wars, and conflicts, pain and discomfort, of being away from my family months on end. Never for glory. Never for money. Just this immigrant's belief that America's freedoms and liberties are worth any sacrifice to defend.I can't improve on that. Except by continuing to question, challenge and otherwise honor the legacy of participatory democracy which we must preserve to pass on to our children and our future.
I'm sad, disappointed, and outraged that my government has decided my sacrifice and the sacrifice of millions of other Americans is worth nothing. That the ideals we fight for are no longer important. That liberty is a commodity to be traded in exchange for security.
People trust their government. They should not. Can we fault education? What has happened to the high school civics lessons that obligate us to vigilance? Where are the history courses that warn the citizenry of past abuses? Where are the political science classes that explain the rationale for a form of government grounded on a system of checks and balances? Who has failed to point out in psychology courses that man will be tempted and corrupted by power at every opportunity? Where are the educators who praise the American virtue of questioning authority? Of being rugged individuals who take control of government, rather than allowing government to control us? That we are the masters of our own destiny, and that we should hold any member of the government accountable for undermining our autonomy and personal self-worth?
We have defiled every good intention, every carefully drafted provision, every principle of freedom and human dignity wisely devised by our founding fathers, and kept safe and improved on by generations of vigilant Americans, for the common good. We have forgotten what the sacrifices are for.
We have been made weak by fear, and that is something I would never have predicted when I came to this country.
You Are Italian Food |
Comforting yet overwhelming. People love you, but sometimes you're just too much. |
Even so, I would predict that the morale-boosting effect of the speeches will be short-lived, and that their ultimate impact will be, on balance, more negative than positive. Pundits have pointed to distortions and ellisions within the speeches, but it is not for these that I would take the President to task. Having had such a complete void of candor from this administration, I can no longer evince surprise when it finally emerges within very strict limits. Rather, it is the overall logical thrust of the President's 'plan for victory' that I find ill-conceived and rhetorically ill-advised.That is, ultimately, the hubris which defines the Imperial Presidency, and the neo-conservative/PNAC/Straussian movement within it: they really think that they're in charge and that people will consistently do what they "predict" (it's not really prediction; more like wishful thinking within sharp ideological blinders).
The administration's division of the Coalition mission into military, economic, and political aspects is in itself sound, but in all these arenas the President described a process in which the US has far more control than is at all possible.
In January 2003, while on patrol with Civil Homeland Defense, Simcox was arrested by federal park rangers for illegally carrying a .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun in a national park. Also in Simcox's possession at the time of that arrest, according to police records, were a document entitled 'Mission Plan,' a police scanner, two walkie-talkies, and a toy figure of Wyatt Earp on horseback.Yes, I want to know. Since he was arrested alone, why did he have two walkie-talkies? What was Wyatt Earp for? (and, why did it make it into the arrest report and why did the SPLC report include that detail?)
Their own ideological predecessors in American history – the New England Puritans – were the first group in the history of Christianity to attempt to stamp out Christmas altogether.The ahistoricality of their position is heightened, as Rockwell points out, by the deep-rooted and unresolvable tension between opposition to commercialization (aka idolatry) of the holiday and their need to see Christmas as universally celebrated, even by non-Christians and non-human corporations.
Historian Oliver Perry Chitwood tells us that they managed to suppress the entire holiday. "The Puritans were opposed to the observance of Christmas," he writes, "which they regarded as a Catholic custom, and during the colonial period, Christmas was, therefore, not a New England holiday except in Rhode Island."
Perry Miller, in his magisterial treatise on Puritan culture, elaborates: "Christmas was associated in the Puritan mind with the ‘Lords of Misrule,’ with riot and drunkenness. Though commemorated outside New England, and by the Anglicans in Boston as early as 1686, it never came to be regarded generally as a day of joy and good will until the mid-nineteenth century."
David Hackett Fischer provides the broader context: "The Puritans made a point of abolishing the calendar of Christian feasts and saints’ day. The celebration of Christmas was forbidden in Massachusetts on pain of a five-shilling fine." Nor was this a Colonial peculiarity. When the same bunch was in charge in England, the Puritan Parliament "prohibited the observance of Christmas, Easter, Whitsunday, saints’ days and holy days."
A wise person does not speak before one who is greater than he in wisdom or years; he does not interrupt his fellow; he is not rushed to respond; he asks relevant questions; he answers accurately; he discusses first things first and last things last; on what he did not hear, he says 'I did not hear;' and he admits to the truth.
scientific laser Watergate?The last line needs a bit of work (or a better explicator), but the first two lines are pure poetry slam material....
ghosted garages complicated
broom:excellences amitriptyline
Gold represents many things to different people, but essentially it's a proxy for excess liquidity. When there's too much money around, the price of gold generally rises as people try to maintain purchasing power against the effects of inflation.I'm reminded of Robin Hahnel's rules of credit markets:
I've been bullish on gold for several years because of the irresponsible fiscal and particularly monetary policy in Washington. For the past few years, the Federal Reserve has reacted to every minor bump in the economy or the stock market with a massive round of fresh liquidity. In the nanny state, economic weakness---or, God forbid, cleansing of overcapacity and malinvestment---can't be tolerated. This is particularly true during an unpopular war led by an unpopular president. Gold loves the nanny state. It adores offensive wars started by politicians who spend without considering the consequences. Regardless of what one thinks about George Soros, one of the all-time great quotes about politics and the financial markets belongs to him: "All of economic history is one lie and deceit after another. Your job as a speculator is to get on when the lie is being propagated and then get off before it is discovered." Gold is the ultimate polygraph machine. It stands as a silent sentinel, taking notes on what it sees and reacting accordingly. Thus, the fresh 24-year high in its price. [emphasis added]
There are two rules of behavior in any credit system:What makes the Cunning Realist's analysis particularly interesting is that he's got the pre-spin cycle all figured out:
Rule #1 is the rule all participants want all other participants to follow: DON’T PANIC!
Rule #2 is the rule each participant must be careful to follow herself: PANIC FIRST!
And in that regard, here's a bit of advice for the "no consequences" bunch as they prepare to explain away gold's rise. They've done an excellent job of perpetuating the "we're running out of oil!" meme in order to disguise the link between excess money creation and higher oil prices. With gold, start with the line that "gold is reflecting increased prosperity, so higher gold prices are a good thing." When that gets old, trot out "gold is an ancient, barbarous relic." As the desperation builds, try "it's unpatriotic to own gold." Eventually, establish a mantra that "gold is the currency of terrorists." And when there are no more pages in the script, conjure up FDR's spirit for advice on what to do next. [In 1933, Roosevelt outlawed the ownership of gold by U.S. citizens as the government tried to remove any constraint on its ability to reflate during the Great Depression (history buffs can view a copy of FDR's executive order here).]I would point out that "gold is the currency of terrorists" is a meme that's already out there, with regard to the US attempts to make the entire international banking system transparent to US anti-terrorist agencies. So they may already be ahead of us on this game...
You Have a Phlegmatic Temperament |
Mild mannered and laid back, you take life at a slow pace. You are very consistent - both in emotions and actions. You tend to absorb set backs easily. You are cool and collected. It is difficult to offend you. You can remain composed and unemotional. You are a great friend and lover. You don't demand much of others. While you are quiet, you have a subtle wit that your friends know well. At your worst, you are lazy and unwilling to work at anything. You often get stuck in a rut, without aspirations or dreams. You can get too dependent on others, setting yourself up for abandonment. |
Chinese bloggers are sharply divided about what is most important: commercial success, open source and open access, or freedom of speech.Nope, I think that covers it.
DEAR ABBY: Please warn your readers that their Web pages and blogs could stand in the way of securing a job! Just as employers have learned to read e-mail and blogs, they have learned to screen candidates through their sites. Many people in their 20s and 30s wrongly believe their creations are entertaining and informative. Employers are not seeking political activists, evangelizers, whiners or tattletales. They do not want to find themselves facing a lawsuit or on the front page of a newspaper because a client, patient or parent of a student discovered a comment written by an employee.Obviously, blogging anonymously never occurred to either "Chicago Employer" or "Dear Abby"....
The job market is tight, and job seekers must remember their computer skills can either help them land a position or destroy a job prospect. -- CHICAGO EMPLOYER
DEAR EMPLOYER: You have opened up a line of thought I'll bet a lot of job applicants -- and future job applicants -- have never considered. Googling a name isn't difficult, and it could lead to an applicant's blog. Most bloggers write to be read, and invite people to comment. Thank you for the reminder that those who blog should remember that they are open to public scrutiny, and that if they apply for a job, everything about them will be considered -- including their blog. Prospective employers are certainly within their rights to make decisions based upon what they read.
The world's first terrorists were high-minded young people who believed Russia would be delivered from injustice by the killing of its leaders, setting off a mighty conflagration.Leaving aside the canard about liberals aiding terrorists, it's historical mush: there were assassin/terrorists in Japan in the 1850s-1860s, there were some vicious moments in the western US during the Civil War era, there were guerilla movements in the middle east in the Roman Era which carried out terroristic attacks on non-combatants (Zealots, yes). And that's just off the top of my head. Can you think of other pre-1879 terrorists? I bet you can.
I have long marveled at the inability of most oversight legislators and staffers to ask clear questions; their failure to frame pertinent follow-up questions borders on the absurd.And he's not alone.
Espionage and covert action are essential tools of foreign policy and national defense, but they do not lend themselves to near-perfect oversight.Which is why it's important to have people of integrity and skill doing the work. Very, very important.
"What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?" -- James Joyce, Portrait of the artist as a young manActually, it's the punch line (of sorts) of an Umberto Eco column in which he cites lots of very smart people on the inherent difficulty of having faith without feeling like an idiot. To be fair, not having faith doesn't actually solve the problem of feeling like an idiot; actually, you have a much broader field of idiocy to work in, and you can be much more creative.
"Despite his intelligence, his ability to grasp the idea that profit is an important goal for people working in the private sector was surprisingly limited," wrote Lt. Col. Lisa Breitenbach. "He could not shift his mind-set from the military notion of completing a mission irrespective of cost, nor could he change his belief that doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do should be the sole motivator for businesses."In other words, it's as bad as you think.
One military officer said he felt Westhusing had trouble reconciling his ideals with Iraq's reality. Iraq "isn't a black-and-white place," the officer said. "There's a lot of gray."
. : : Which Astrological Planet are You? : : . [10 Gorgeous Pics!]
brought to you by Quizilla [via]
Polls are, it might be said, what's left of American democracy. Privately run, often for profit or advantage, they nonetheless are as close as we come these days -- actual elections being what they are -- to the expression of democratic opinion, serially, week after week. Everyone who matters in and out of Washington and in the media reads them as if life itself were at stake. They drive behavior and politics. Fear, too, is a poll-driven phenomenon.He's right about the way in which many professional politicos treat polls, but he ignores the subset of "true believers," those whose views and tactics are not poll-driven. There are people of principle (including fanatics) on both sides, and they are the ones who frame the discussion, who force the polls to be taken, who design the polls to scare the politicos.
Refrain:'Tis the gift to be loved and that love to return,
When true simplicity is gained,
To bow and to bend we shan't be ashamed.
To turn, turn will be our delight,
'Til by turning, turning we come round right
Refrain:'Tis the gift to have friends and a true friend to be,
Refrain:
Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.The whole interview is fascinating -- the guy is clearly overstating and overinterpreting in places (if I have time later, I could go into more detail, or folks can just leave comments), but he's been "on the ground" in places that most of us don't go.
These differences illustrate four principles that should guide our use of personal information by the police. The first is oversight: In order to obtain personal information, the police should be required to show probable cause, and convince a judge to issue a warrant for the specific information needed. Second, minimization: The police should only get the specific information they need, and not any more. Nor should they be allowed to collect large blocks of information in order to go on "fishing expeditions," looking for suspicious behavior. The third is transparency: The public should know, if not immediately then eventually, what information the police are getting and how it is being used. And fourth, destruction. Any data the police obtains should be destroyed immediately after its court-authorized purpose is achieved. The police should not be able to hold on to it, just in case it might become useful at some future date.I wonder, though, how (if) the arguments will change the first time one of the FBI/NSA/DHS programs flags someone who does turn out to be a terrorist. More fallacious reasoning awaits....
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."With those words, broadcast inadvertently on the radio, President Reagan put the world on nuclear alert. It's not quite in the same league, thanks be to God, but memos leaked from the UK today claim that Bush was seriously (or jokingly, depending on who you ask) considering bombing the headquarters of Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar. The text of the memo itself hasn't been released, but it seems to me that if Blair had to convince Bush that it wasn't a good idea, then perhaps he wasn't joking?
You go out of your way to build bridges with people of different views and beliefs and have quite a few religious friends. You believe in the essential goodness of people, which means you’re always looking for common ground even if that entails compromises. You would defend Salman Rushdie’s right to criticise Islam but you’re sorry he attacked it so viciously, just as you feel uncomfortable with some of the more outspoken and unkind views of religion in the pages of this magazine.Apparently New Humanist defines "humanist" to mean "secular humanist" with an emphasis on "secular" so obviously I'm coming off as a muddle-headed "nice" guy to them. It's worse than they think, actually, but this isn't a bad definition of "religious humanist" which is how I usually describe myself. I suspect that anyone who wasn't strictly atheistic would come out this way on the quiz (unless they have a result for someone who's so religious they won't count as "humanist"; there's no "see all results" on the quiz that I could find, and I'm starting to consider that a serious flaw in quizzes in general [and who woulda thunk I'd have strong opinions about the structure and methodology of internet quizzes, eh?]).You prefer the inclusive approach of writers like Zadie Smith or the radical Christian values of Edward Said. Don’t fall into the same trap as super–naïve Lib Dem MP Jenny Tonge who declared it was okay for clerics like Yusuf al–Qaradawi to justify their monstrous prejudices as a legitimate interpretation of the Koran: a perfect example of how the will to understand can mean the sacrifice of fundamental principles. Sometimes, you just have to hold out for what you know is right even if it hurts someone’s feelings.
What kind of humanist are you? Click here to find out. [via]
One troubling memo concerns domestic wiretaps - a timely topic. In the memo, which he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Judge Alito argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans. Judge Alito argued for taking a step-by-step approach to establishing this principle, much as he argued for an incremental approach to reversing Roe v. Wade in another memo.
The Supreme Court flatly rejected Judge Alito's view of the law. In a 1985 ruling, the court rightly concluded that if the attorney general had the sort of immunity Judge Alito favored, it would be an invitation to deny people their constitutional rights.
In a second memo released yesterday, Judge Alito made another bald proposal for grabbing power for the president. He said that when the president signed bills into law, he should make a "signing statement" about what the law means. By doing so, Judge Alito hoped the president could shift courts' focus away from "legislative intent" - a well-established part of interpreting the meaning of a statute - toward what he called "the President's intent."
Both supporters and opponents say he has the potential to become the most aggressive supporter of religious liberty on the court, moving it toward greater deference to religious practices.Among his other distinctions, Alito ruled that evangelical groups could send home invitations to proselytizing meetings with elementary school kids. To be fair, he also has won considerable praise for his support of what you might call reasonable accomodation to personal religious requirements (accomodations that he might well call into question if they were involuntary ability restrictions instead of voluntary religious ones, but what the hell), but what that basically means is that he's entirely hostile to secular, agnostic and atheistic folks, and fine with almost anyone else (as long as it's faith, not need).
"He is inclined to the view of the First Amendment that the government is not intended to be hostile to religion," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University in California. "It is intended to be accommodating when it can."
Professor Kmiec, a former Justice Department colleague of Judge Alito's, is a leading proponent of the "religious liberty" argument pressed by social conservatives, which advances the view that the Constitution allows for a greater presence of religion in the public sphere than courts have previously allowed. This stream of argument has largely involved issues like prayer at school functions, the display of religious symbols at Christmastime and public financing of programs run by religious groups.
In the several hundred cases he heard over 15 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Alito dissented more than 60 times, often taking issue with decisions that sided with criminal defendants, prisoners and immigrants.I'm all for "good faith" but part of the role of the courts is to ensure that good faith is backed by good sense and protected rights. It's just not enough to be pure of heart and on the side of the angels....
He frequently voted in favor of the government and corporations in these dissents. He generally deferred to what he called the good faith judgments of other participants in the justice system, including police officers, prosecutors, prison wardens, trial judges and juries. He appeared particularly reluctant to order new trials over what he called harmless errors in the presentation of evidence or in jury instructions. [emphasis added]
Quick LinksThe image of "Ivan Tribble" in a floating, flowing black robe, suggesting that blogging academics will end up in road repair advertising positions....
Dressed in a flowing black robe that seems to float off his body rather than hang, Mr ... Last July, "Bloggers Need Not Apply," an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education about an anonymous Midwestern college's attempt to fill a position, laid out the perils for academic job-seekers who blog.
Find out how to buy and sell anything, like things related to instant road repair on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like instant road repair!
He (or she) spends 95 percent of the time indoors [if you count time in cars], thinks abortion is morally wrong but supports the right to have one, owns an electric coffeemaker, has nine friends and at least one pet, and would rather spend a week in jail than become president. He (or she) lives within a 20-minute drive of a Wal-Mart, attends church at least once a month, prefers smooth peanut butter to chunky, lives where the average annual temperature is between 45 and 65 degrees [and there's some snow, according to the article], and believes that Jews make up 18 percent of the population (the actual figure is between 2 and 3 percent).OK, I'm not terribly average. I knew that....