Chris Vs. Ann Round I

This is the reason why I don't watch MSNBC, this and the fact that it really sucks.

You've got to be pretty nutty to make Ann Coulter seem level headed. Yes, Ann Coulter is a repugnant human being, but geez Chris, bring it down a notch. My ears are bleeding so much it's hard to determine who's more insipid.

I Guess this is what they call the "Cultural Divide".

Sometimes I wonder what exactly makes me a Democrat. Is is because I'm a minority and that's just what we do. Is it because since I was 14 some of my closest friends have been homosexual and I feel the need to quote/unquote "represent" for the fag-hags. Or is it because Democrats are generally more fun (you know-with the loose morals and all). Well as I was watching The Daily Show yesterday, I figured it out: I just don't get them. (them referring to many republicans)

Every single part of the Republican ideology seems ludicrous to me. To put it simply I find their logic to be both astounding and horrifying. Especially when it comes to the topic of the hour: Embyonic Stem Cell Research. I agree with Ronald Bailey, that in in forthcoming years the President's recent veto will seem ludicrous.

Bush claims he’s blocking stem cell research because each embryo "is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value." If that were true, we would constantly be in the midst of a holocaust. John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President’s Council on Bioethics that millions of embryos—between 60 percent and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos—are simply flushed out in women’s normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place. What are we to think about the fact that Nature (and for believers, Nature’s God) profligately creates and destroys human embryos?...Of course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of embryos as we would the death of a child—and reasonably so, because we do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Similarly, 3- to 5-day old frozen embryos leftover from in vitro fertilization attempts are not people either. It is true that every person was once an embryo, but not all—in fact, most embryos do not become people.

To me, this all makes perfect sense. Completely sound and logical. But maybe it's just me.

Terrorists are People too...

Or atleast that's what the Deputy Defense Secretary is saying now:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a memo released by the Pentagon this morning, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, citing the Supreme Court's decision, ordered all Pentagon personnel to "adhere to these standards" and to "promptly review" all policies and practices "to ensure that they comply with the standards" of the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm I am really interested to know what brought about this change in policy, because although they are now recognizing the Geneva conventions I honestly don't believe that anyone in the military gives two shits about how they treat the detainees at Gitmo. So this must be some sort of wayward PR move. After the Supreme Court's ruling that detainees need to be tried in military tribunals, I believe that this is one of those Orwellian attempts by the Bush administration to pretend like it was their idea all along to treat prisoners humanely, when that is clearly not the case. But ultimately it's probably too litle too late, and there's going to be a big hulabaloo about the sweeping changes that will be made, and of course nothing is going to happen.And O yes, I did just use the word hulabaloo whilst talking about politics.
Just in case you're unfamiliar:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties and protocols, formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, setting standards for humane treatment of combatants and civilians during time of war. The United States, Afghanistan and Iraq are among the signatories
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I have never understood why we chose not to observe the Geneva conventions. In America I thought that we were supposed to be this bastion of democracy and fairness. If we're trying to spread democracy throughout the world, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard of conduct. Since this "War on Terror" began we have been fighting to for the respect of the rest of the world and I'm pretty sure mistreating prisoners of war isn't the way to earn that respect.

Source

Bush's proverbial Ship is Sunk...

Democrats are rejoicing around the country today as President Bush's Approval rating slips 2 points to an all-time low of 33%. This is all very interesting considering in the past months the Bush Administration has touted their many "victories", but apparently the public just doesn't buy it. As a Democrat these polls don't give me any sense of satisfaction, well maybe a little, but mostly I'm just pissed off. Because if the 67% of Americans who feel outraged now would have had even a tiny bit of forthought they would have cast their votes differently. Instead the so-called "values voters" rallied behind homophobia and Jesus and completely ignored our country's most pressing issue. But of course hindsight is 20/20 and there is nothing that can be done now but wait it out. Though it seems as though the Dems should be set for the Midterm elections this fall, with this party victory is anything but certain. This is because the democrats have no leadership to speak of. I believe that the Democratic party should be like the best kind of dysfunctional family. Smile and look happy in public and reserve the infighting for behind closed doors. God Knows, Republicans know how to rally when necessary. So we just need to suck it up and do the same.



Source: Good News Fails to Boost Bush's Job Approval

This tagline was on the frontpage of USAtoday.com:

Cheney Gets Physical Exam.

Now I'm sorry but I'm not quite sure that this constitutes "news". No offense Dick but seriously. WTF? Lately I have often found my self defending journalism and the media, but there are certain media outlets that make it really hard. Although I am not necessary pointing the finger at USAtoday, I simply think that we should advocate responsible journalism. In the age of instant gratification brought about by the advent of the internet, I believe that a lot of journalists are simply lazy. Just watch an episode of The Daily Show and you'll see numerous clips of television anchors reporting news using the exact same wording. I find it all to be utterly ridiculous. But what do I know?

Now that's more like it...

When asked about his bid for the presidency in 2008 Senator Joe Biden Responded:

“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,”

Quite honestly I feel like this sort of candor from politicians is refreshing, and it's a shame that if Senator Biden were to have made to this quote in a more public forum, his career would be over. That's the political dichotomy that has always interested me. On one had we want our politicians to personable and down to earth a la George W., and on the other hand American politicians are held to a higher code of conduct (as they should be). I suppose that it is impossible to find a happy medium. I certainly wouldn't want a hillbilly idiot running the country, but on the other hand I would not want a president with a proverbial lightbulb shoved up his anus.

Don't we have bigger Fish to Fry?

Ohh so yesterday the senate voted on a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. My only thought is WHO CARES? umm i'm sorry but aren't we in the middle of a war. If we spent less time trying to pass ridiculous amendments to the constitution, and more time focusing on the important matters we'd be in much better shape.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch says the measure is needed to protect a symbol of freedom and counteract U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1989 and 1990 that struck down state and federal laws. He cites polls showing public support and non-binding resolutions by 50 state legislatures endorsing the amendment.

The amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." According to the pro-amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there were four cases of flag desecration in 2006

Senators also rejected a statute to ban flag desecration. The narrowly worded legislation would have made it a crime to desecrate the flag under certain circumstances, such as when trying to incite violence
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and Orrin Hatch is full of shit. Read the entire article here.

Let's hope they don't screw this up...

For the first time in 12 years the Democrats are poised to regain control of either the house, the senate or both. A recent USA Today/ Gallup Poll found:

------------------------------------------------------------------

• Americans are increasingly likely to identify themselves as Democrats. Including those who "lean" to one party or the other, 55% call themselves Democrats, 38% Republicans — the biggest edge for Democrats since 1998. By 54%-38%, those surveyed say they'd vote for the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican one in their district if the election was held today

• Democrats are preferred by double digits over Republicans to handle four of the five top issues: Iraq, government corruption, the economy and health care. Republicans are preferred by 11 percentage points on handling terrorism

------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the entire article here.

White House at odds over Bush's claims he can ignore laws he signs

So today I learned a little something about the legislative system. Okay so it is a well known fact that in his 6 years in office President Bush has never vetoed a bill. But then again he doesn't have to. If he does not agree with a portion of a bill he is signing he can simply choose to ignore it, and apparently he feels like this is apart of his "executive privilege". It's all quite interesting really

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistle-blower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

Signing statements don't carry the force of law, and other presidents have issued them for administrative reasons, such as instructing an agency how to put a certain law into effect. They usually are inserted quietly into the federal record.

Bush's signing statement in March on Congress's renewal of the Patriot Act riled Specter and others who labored for months to craft a compromise between Senate and House versions, and what the White House wanted. Reluctantly, the administration relented on its objections to new congressional oversight of the way the FBI searches for terrorists
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay so here is my question: if these signing statements can be made, what is the point of passing bills? This entire process seems highly dictatorial if you ask me. I highly recommend reading the entire article at USA Today

The New York Times is Bad Ass...

" The White House accused The New York Times of breaking a long tradition of keeping wartime secrets. The newspaper, along with the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, revealed last week that Treasury officials, beginning shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, had obtained access to an extensive international financial data base — the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift."

Read the Entire Article Here




So this is a difficult choice. Whose side should I take. The New York Times certainly has credibility issues, then again so does the Bush Administration. So after the whole federal wiretapping thing I don't really trust the government so...New York Times it is.