Weekend Open Thread
Live Earth, a concert to build awareness about climate change, is broadcasting today (Saturday) from all 7 continents . Even if you are not 'a believer' of the problem there are still some cool bands to check out.
In war news, the bad news is 73 civilians and 6 US soldiers died Friday in Iraq. The good news is NATO forces killed 100 insurgents
in Afghanistan.
As some of you discussed Friday, a divided federal appeals court dismissed a case challenging secret wiretaps on technicalities.
Hope your weekend is fun and safe.
Submitted by Specter on Sat, 2007-07-07 09:28
Tags:
Comments :
Ender posted
an OT when I was writing mine. I deleted his out of laziness (didn't want to transfer everything), so I hope I did not erase any comments. I don't think I did, but I apologize if someone snuck one in before it was deleted.
I will try to post a few pictures of the baby today if I get a few minutes. :-)
hehe
chances are you didn't erase anything :) Thanks man.
How's the baby dealing with Climate Change awareness?
Enjoy your weekend dude! I am running off to the mall to buy a few essentials in honor of Climate Change.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Here are
a few pictures. They are not professional quality like the pictures missliberties kindly offered to take, but I think they are still decent.
Here is one of his first photos. He is a little squished in this photo, but he is starting to rid himself of the effects of molding as the days pass:
Here is a more recent one with some of the wrinkles ironed out:
These are my two boys:
I am still obviously busy with the new baby, visiting family, and prepping my new lit. classes, but I will try to stop in more often.
Precious!
I love the first one. He looks like he is already 'down' with liberalism. Ha!
Your other son is adorable also. Such pretty eyes!
Huge congrats again.
Sounds like you are busy busy busy.
(oh and the pictures look just fine)
It is the economy, stupid.
How cute is that!
Aw, he looks adorable. Already losing that new baby look.
Congrats again to you both, and big brother too.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
And
thanks for the congrats everyone.
I was honored by all of your well-wishes. :-)
very cute! thanks for posting them
The little one looks pretty big for his age! Good to see the new addition to the family :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
congrats and good luck!
How sweet!!
Thanks for posting the pictures and sharing them with us, Specter.
Thanks for the pics!! :)
Awwwwwww
I get all mushy with kids. It's embarrassing, actually.
Congratulations again!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Congrats! n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ugliest baby i ever saw
Not really, just had to get your atention.
Cute kid.
I see from the second pic that you've already got him fighting like Ken Norton. Better have him hold that left a little higher.
And, of course, when he loses some neck, make sure he tucks his chin in a bit.
Some of the bands are familiar to me:
Duran Duran
The Police
Madonna
Red Hot Chili Peppers
needless to say
I will not be watching Live Earth :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You are missing
out on some good shows.
Besides Ted Nugent and KISS (at least Gene Simmons), are there any right-wing musical artists? Hmm, I think I heard that Ricky Martin played for GWB at his inauguration.
well it's not a matter
of their politics. I just don't like the idea of specials event days devoted to hysterical and alarmist theories being stuck down our throats :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You're slipping
It's "shrieked into our ears" not "stuck down our throats."
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
hehe
yeah, that's a lot better :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sorry to say, folks,
but it's more and more clear that Global Warming is really happening, and it's not just in the figments of some people's imaginations.
asdf
I concur that the global climate is changing. I have even gone so far as to marshall arguments on this site to convince our skeptics here of that fact.
However, my understanding of historical and current climates does not necessarily limit my ability to poke fun at idealists ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
RE: Sorry to say, folks,
I don't think that there is anyone arguing that the climate is not (currently) in a warming trend. On that point I truly believe that there is concensus.
The controversy at this point is whether that warming is Anthropogenic or not. On THAT point there is no concensus.
So, when you say "Global Warming" do you refer only to the fact that the climate is currently exeriencing a warming trend, or are you also intending to include the notion that humans are the cause of that warming?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You can also add
Toby Keith, and just for kicks, the musical stylings of John Ashcroft
.
There are reasons why contemporary artists tend to fall outside the political mainstream (usually to the left), but I keep trying to write a diary on it and meandering so far off-topic that I have to delete and start over. Blech. It's a big topic.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Block and Stall?
Another power struggle between the branches as the WH seems intent on blocking the testimony of former aide Sara Taylor:
I wonder what the Bush administration is afraid of her saying?
RE: Block and Stall?
This comment is clearly intended to imply that the White House has something to hide, and since this is patently false you are obviously trying to deceive people with this comment. By the prevailing definition of the word "lie" used by --> MOST <-- liberals on this site this is a lie.
The USA's serve at the pleasure of the President so there is nothing to hide by definition. They can be fired at any time and for any (lawful) reason.
This is simply Sara's lawyer looking after his clients best interests by providing her with a pre-emptive CYA against liberal overzealousness with their newly found powers of inquisition and the ensuing abuses thereof! :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Her attorney?
Did you read the article?
It says:
So, let's get the facts straight:
Taylor and her lawyer = happy to testify
White House = order not to testify
My conclusion stands--the WH does not want her to testify. Why? I am speculating it is because she has information they don't want discussed (i.e. they are afraid of what she will say).
Exactamundo...
...as my Conservative friends are always telling me when I get upset about warrantless wiretapping:
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."
If Sara Taylor is willing to testify, but is being ordered to not testify by the administration... the most logical conclusion is that they have something to hide.
It is certainly far from "patently false" as GoRight said.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
RE: Exactamundo...
I disagree. The most logical conclusion is that Bush, consistent with his Unitary Executive view of the position, is merely protecting Executive Privilege. There is no evidence that he has anything to hide, hence the suggestion that he does is patently false.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
How about
(warning: another reprehensible Madscientist post.)
I'm with you until after the 'why.'
I am speculating it is because she has information they don't want discussed (i.e. they are afraid of what she will say).
I'll go so far as to stipulate (for them--heh,heh) that there is something they don't want discussed. In fact, they have said that.
They havve said that they don't want conversations subject to executive privilege discussed.
That's why it's called a "principle."
Sort of like lawyer-client privilege. We don't ask people to only guard those communications wed don't want people to hear; we guard them all.
Perhaps
you are correct, but history says that (pdf) presidential aides often testify
in front of congress. Furthermore, to say that Bush is doing this out of principle suggests that none of his aides testified in front of congress previously to this point. Rice and Gonzales have both testified before congress (and I'm sure there were more).
The argument of principle falls apart if this is an anomaly, and Bush aides testified in the past.
Not really
A principle can be applied at will.
Sometimes you can just be friendly.
So to say that he is doing this out of principle simply recognizes that there is a principle, not that he has invoked it every time.
I think you are trying to make another point, that if he invokes the principle now, after not doing so at another time, then you can feel fine about your assumption that the difference between the two cases is that in the first, he had nothing to be ashamed of, and when he invokes it, he does.
That cop who asks you to speak to him without a lawyer, noting that you did that once before, will make the same point. And you will be right not to take the bait.
Maybe
but I think we have different understandings of what a 'principle' is. If it is applied indiscriminately, it does not sound based on principle to me. It sounds like convenience.
Equivocating
on the word. I'm not saying that they are applying the principle in a principled manner. I don't know that one way or another. I'm saying that it is a principle, and it remains a principle whether one uses it at one time or not.
Agreed.
It is known as the principle of Executive Privilege, is it not? And it may certainly be invoked on a case by case basis.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yes,
especially if he's afraid of what the aide will say.
Where did I argue that he did not have this privilege? All I said is applying it indiscriminately suggests he does not want something exposed in this case.
But that does not imply any wrongdoing. n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Then
let the aides testify to get it over with, eh?
RE: Perhaps
Incorrect. Bush is free to decide what he wants discussed and what he does not. He doesn't have to 100% refuse to EVER testify before congress or allow his aides to do so. That is silly. There are some things where he clearly does want people to testify.
That does NOT undermine his right to Executive Privilege when he chooses to assert it. It is simply his choice on a case by case basis.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Again
where did I say he can't? Stinks of hiding something though.
Where is your proof that he does?
Stinks of partisan wishes ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Does what?
'Does stink' or 'does can't'?
RE: Her attorney?
Yes, her attorney. You know, that guy mentioned in the article and your comment:
So don't act like you didn't know he was part of this! :)
My comment was:
So, let me walk through this devilishly tricky bit of logic for you:
Taylor and her lawyer = happy to testify = Pre-emptive CYA
This move allows Taylor to claim that she was more than willing to cooperate before she was ordered not to by the White House, thus putting any blame for not cooperating on the Bush Administration rather than his client. From her lawyer's perspective this is simply a pre-emptive CYA move to give her a defense against the coming Democrat inquisition if things turn ugly for his client. I think it is a smart move and may actually have been done with Bush Administration approval.
I agree that the White House will most likely order her not to testify based on Executive Privilege. This is just her lawyer's way of trying to give his client a way out from under the elephant's feet, so to speak (no political pun intended), when the political dance begins.
Again, I never sought to deny that the White House was going to order her not to testify. They most likely will. My intent was to diffuse your implication that the only logical explanation for ordering her not to testify was because they have something to hide.
An equally, or actually more, likely reason would be to preserve the Executive Privilege and nothing more. You guys make such a big deal about this whole unitary executive thing that in this instance it is working against you because it adds credibility to my alternate explanation, correct? Bush could simply be protecting the power of the President as he sees it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Monkey wrench
Bush ordered her not to testify
, but Leahy, through correspondence with Taylor's lawyer, expects her to testify 
anyway (no preemptive CYA).
Revise your theory to make sense of that. :-)
(edit: Taylor, indeed, did testify today
in a limited scope.)
No, even MORE CYA. Hard to complain now. n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
?
Testifying = CYA? This goes against your above spiel that she won't testify but rely on Bush's order not to.
Sure, what better way to avoid jail than
"cooperating". I see that her level of "cooperation" was quite limited, in fact. Limited to the following:
So much for your "smoking gun" testimony, eh? And she had her lawyer there telling what she could answer and what she couldn't to stay within the Bush order to not testify.
Sounds pretty CYA to me, actually. Especially that part about "I will only disobey the Bush order if a court orders me to do so. Then I know it will be OK." Can't get much more CYA than that.
Really, Senator, I want to comply but Bush ordered me not too. But if the courts tell me to I will tell you what you want to know.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your last
line is what it will come down to in the end. I still think she could've taken an easier way out if she merely wanted to.
It doesn't need to go to court
Congress has plenty of power to hold an inherent contempt trial all on their own. Considering the lack of presidential communicaiton, they could choose to target Fielding: charge his refusal to provide supporting material for an executive privelege claim is contempt (and obstruction)
All bluster.
Congress isn't going to make Bush do anything that he doesn't want to do, as it should be with the seperation of powers. They may blow a lot of hot air around, but just like when the Chief Justice told Lincoln he couldn't suspend Habeas Corpus (I think) Lincoln just said, let's see him enforce that (paraphrased).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Do you really consider ...
her coming to "testify" and basically just saying "I don't know anything that Bush did wrong" and refusing to answer anything else as her cooperating?
I may need to change my assessment as you mentioned. I think that this is nothing more than Bush/Rove giving Congress the 1 fingered salute. Send her up there to basically say Bush didn't do anything and that's it.
Its beautiful, really, either way. Bush and Rove probably had a good laugh about the whole episode. Make the stupid Democrat Senators look like idiots for beating up on some poor former aide and only getting "I don't know of anything Bush did wrong" for their efforts. :)
I agree, it will all come down to the court battle. But that is what I meant by CYA. No one really wants this aide to take a fall for the Bush Administration. Not after the Libby episode.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So you believe she is hiding something? :-)
Why else would you write this:
Seriously, I don't think she will make or break the case. I actually feel bad for her. She seems to be an innocent pawn in the tug of war between the branches rather than the conniving partisan you make her out to be or the 'deep throat' I suggested.
No, as my reference to Libby clearly suggests
we just don't want her to end up facing jail time because some Democrat inquisition badgers her into a misstatement or whatever. She is a pawn and everyone knows she is a pawn, so don't try to make her pay a King or a Queen's price.
I agree. She is unlikely either a conniving partisan or a "deep throat" story breaker.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hmm
I took your Libby comment as an admission of his guilt (or rather the administration's) also. :-)
Ok, off to bed I go. Goodnight.
Consequences of Iraq Withdrawal
1. Halliburton's stock prices may go down --Billions of dollar in profits will end
2. US contractors employing 160,000 foreigners -- what will happen to their businesses.
3. US money (borrowing from China) that is transferred to Halliburton and other contractors will stop flowing to them.
And we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. So how can we leave Iraq?
Good.
Who knows? If Halliburton's stock prices go down, all the better for everybody else. Maybe jobs that're presently overseas would come back here to the USA.
Why not stop the money flow to Halliburton, and stop borrowing from China?
Busy with regime change
in my flower beds.
It is the economy, stupid.
who
is overthrowing whom?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I, the Queen
(the Divine Miss L, maddy said so)
am overthrowing those unruly and rebellious perennials. They are a raggedy bunch and I am squelching their populous outcry to reproduce.
I will be replacing my subjects with the annual. Much easier to control, as their life span is shorter, so I don't have to bother with their long term care.
edit: I guess that is technically a reverse regime change, when the ruler replaces their subjects.
It is the economy, stupid.
My subjects are rebelling
They are trying to throw little white balls at me from the sky.
I have had to retreat temporarily, but I will do 'whatever it takes' to divide and conquer. No retreat. No surrender.
It is the economy, stupid.
that's the spirit
Because you know that if you don't fight them over there, they will follow you into the house.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
MissL for President!!!
'Cause, at least she is willing to go and fight the GWOG/GWAPE* herself.
She wants us to WIN. Conservatives on the other hand, are apparently OK with the Flowerist Fascists taking over and forcing us to wear pollen, feed bees and bow towards the sun all day.
* Global War Of Gardening aka Global War Against Perennial Extremists
That was laugh out loud funny!
I just want you to know that the mission has been accomplished, for real!
My reward is butter pecan ice cream, television and a nice soft couch.
It is the economy, stupid.
My victory party is spoiled due to corporate incompetence!!
The couch, the remote control, but those corporate b*st*rds at Comcast, can't figure out their own digital system. If you are gonna charge people more for your service you should at least provide it. I never!
I recently upgraded to Comcast Digital....... (pay more for the same channels you used to get so you can pay more fo a new HDTV, so you can pay EVEN more to the the digital signal for HDTV). Got to go digital to compete with China.
And now I am getting no signal. Just a one moment please for an hour. I missed the critical end of my program......!! The girl was stuck in the light house with a killer and then...... no reception.
This new digital upgrade so far....... I have gotten spotty reception at times and sometimes nothing.
I don't know what they did, and I don't think they do either.
It is the economy, stupid.
Now you know how Bush feels