The creation museum has opened in Petersburg, KY, and has been placed at the very top of my "things to do" list the next time I find myself in the area.
The museum cost $27 million to build, and features animatronic dinosaurs amongst a host of other exhibits. Apparently, our forefathers used saddles to ride triceratops, something I most definitely did not know before seeing this picture (other pictures of the museum can be found here). The pictures come accompanied with this description of a visit to the place.
How could anyone pass this up? For die-hard, conservative Christians and committed Creationists, it would seem this is a must-see for the purported "educational" value. For others such as myself, it's must-see for the heights of unintentional comedy it scales. (I easily reach Serious Funny, bordering on Wicked Funny).
Friday, June 8, 2007
Why habeas corpus matters
The Senate Judiciary committee just passed a bill which would restore habeas corpus rights to those detained at Guantanamo. It was mostly a partly line vote, with Dems on the "aye" side and Reps on the "nay". The exception was Arlen Specter, R-PA, who voted with the Dems (damn that terrorist-loving RINO).
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley and Keith Olbermann had an exchange on Olbermann's Countdown show last night explaining why habeas corpus isn't just some trivial matter which can be ignored without consequence (transcription courtesy of mcjoan):
Bush et. al. have provided a perfect discrete example of the abuses which not only can, but will, occur when this fundamental right is abrogated. Amongst those eight on the committee who voted against the bill (and who apparently feel Americans don't need no stinking rights) is John Kyl, R-AZ. I imagine if Senator Kyl were picked up off the street tomorrow and thrown in jail without charges (hey, I can dream, can't I?) he would likely reverse his views on the matter.
Addendum: More on our secret detention centers, where apparently age is no barrier to being "disappeared".
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley and Keith Olbermann had an exchange on Olbermann's Countdown show last night explaining why habeas corpus isn't just some trivial matter which can be ignored without consequence (transcription courtesy of mcjoan):
Olbermann: ... It is easy to imagine Americans who are patriotic but scared, who could just sort of dismiss habeas corpus and other civil liberties as luxuries that make us weak right now. Explain why that's exactly backwards, why they're not luxuries, why they're necessities that make us strong.
Turley: First of all, habeas corpus is sometimes treated like some trick by a Philadelphia lawyer. It is actually the foundation for all other rights. When the government throws you into a dungeon for what you say or who you pray to, it's habeas corpus that's the right that allows you to see the enforcement of the other rights. So without habeas corpus, the rest of it is just aspirational and meaningless. ...
Olbermann: The right to bear arms, to believe your religion or to not believe any religion at all, to say what you want, these rights get people fired up, no matter what side of the debate they're on. Is not habeas corpus essential to all of them? You don't have that, it doesn't matter what the second amendment says?
Turley: That's right.... all those rights are meaningless [without habeas corpus] because it's habeas corpus that allows you to get to a court who can hear your complaint. So without habeas corpus it's just basically words that have no meaning, and this president has shown the dangers of the assertion of absolute power. He has asserted the right to take an American citizen, declare them unilaterally an enemy combatant and deny them all rights. The courts have said otherwise and now Congress will say otherwise. [Any transcription errors mine.]
The administration has battled for years to remove habeas corpus rights from all categories of individuals, including US citizens. This has led to the perpetual imprisonment of people at Gitmo (most of whom don't even qualify as "accused terrorists", as they haven't been charged with anything), extraordinary rendition and torture (for which 26 US citizens are being tried in absentia in an Italian courtroom, in a case opening today) and tucking people away in secret detention centers (the author of this last article, Warren Strobel, is one of the guys who got things right).
Bush et. al. have provided a perfect discrete example of the abuses which not only can, but will, occur when this fundamental right is abrogated. Amongst those eight on the committee who voted against the bill (and who apparently feel Americans don't need no stinking rights) is John Kyl, R-AZ. I imagine if Senator Kyl were picked up off the street tomorrow and thrown in jail without charges (hey, I can dream, can't I?) he would likely reverse his views on the matter.
Addendum: More on our secret detention centers, where apparently age is no barrier to being "disappeared".
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Right on cue
As I predicted yesterday (along with lots and lots of other people, I know), the right-wing pundits are already up in arms over the Libby sentencing.
William Kristol, founder and editor of the conservative Weekly Standard has a piece up wondering why Bush hasn't pardoned Libby yet:
The National Review, another conservative mouthpiece, has an editorial up advocating a Libby pardon. My personal favorite is:
Little Green Footballs supports a pardon, as does potential GOP Presidential candidate Fred Thompson favors a pardon (hey, he can make that a central element of his campaign -- "Elect me, and I'll free Scooter!", there's a rallying cry), and so on.
Let's be clear - perjury is serious. If individuals are given license to freely lie under oath, our entire system of law falls apart. Conservatives felt it was serious enough to impeach a sitting president when he perjured himself about a personal sexual affair. Libby's perjury involved naming a covert CIA agent, endangering her and who knows how many agency assets she may have had contact with. Since it's one of "their own" (I.e., wealthy, educated, white, male, and , most importantly of all, conservative) apparently the rules shouldn't apply.
Addendum: Not surprisingly, lots of people are blogging about this subject. Anonymous Liberal has a quite lengthy post here about the matter, in particular decimating the National Review piece point-by-point. It's well worth a read.
William Kristol, founder and editor of the conservative Weekly Standard has a piece up wondering why Bush hasn't pardoned Libby yet:
"So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"I can answer that question: No. Although it's hard to believe the President's failure to pardon an individual found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing perjury when testifying about a federal crime is really the reason one should have lost said respect. I mean, the illegal wiretapping wasn't enough for you? The removal of habeas corpus rights didn't do it? The rendition? The torture? The Iraq war failures? Really? This is the final straw in regards to losing respect for the President?
The National Review, another conservative mouthpiece, has an editorial up advocating a Libby pardon. My personal favorite is:
"There has always been solid justification for a pardon. Although he tried mightily, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never found enough evidence to charge Libby or anyone else with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act in the CIA-leak affair."Well, duh. That was the reason the perjury case was brought against Libby in the first place -- the prosecutor felt, in no uncertain terms, his criminal investigation was blocked by Libby's repeated refusals to tell the truth regarding the affair. A jury deliberated carefully and agreed. That's why Libby faces 30 months in prison.
Little Green Footballs supports a pardon, as does potential GOP Presidential candidate Fred Thompson favors a pardon (hey, he can make that a central element of his campaign -- "Elect me, and I'll free Scooter!", there's a rallying cry), and so on.
Let's be clear - perjury is serious. If individuals are given license to freely lie under oath, our entire system of law falls apart. Conservatives felt it was serious enough to impeach a sitting president when he perjured himself about a personal sexual affair. Libby's perjury involved naming a covert CIA agent, endangering her and who knows how many agency assets she may have had contact with. Since it's one of "their own" (I.e., wealthy, educated, white, male, and , most importantly of all, conservative) apparently the rules shouldn't apply.
Addendum: Not surprisingly, lots of people are blogging about this subject. Anonymous Liberal has a quite lengthy post here about the matter, in particular decimating the National Review piece point-by-point. It's well worth a read.
How NOT to make a case
Framer at Arizona 8th had a post yesterday which referenced a Washington Post article, which itself referenced the recent non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates as to the potential costs and benefits of the proposed immigration bill.
The article discusses the total costs of the bill, throws out a figure of $126 billion over ten years, and is generally accurate as far as it goes. My quibbles are it what it leaves out.
The article goes into great detail to spell out the figures of what new immigrants would cost - $15.4 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, $3.7 billion for food stamps and child nutrition programs, and so on. When all is said and done the grand total (derived from actually looking at the figures in the CBO report) comes to $53.6 billion. No question, that's a big figure.
What the Post article completely fails to mention, and the reader wouldn't know unless they took the time to actually review the full CBO report, is that $53.6 billion dollar all those dern immigrants is gonna cost us is more than offset by the $65.7 billion dollars in addition federal revenue said immigrants are expected to generate. Put another way, all those folks "doing nothing but taking money from the system that should go to real Americans" are, in fact, actually expected to put $12.1 billion more into the system than they take out. (I'll save you some time -- the relevant data can be found in table 3, pages 6-7, and table 5, page 27.)
If you're going to make a case based on someone's figures, it's best to take all their figures into account. There may be many good reasons to fight the bill (Framer has a more recent post on the subject here, and I know there are reasons liberals don't like the bill either), but implying potential new immigrants will cost us money when the data you use says exactly the opposite (which is what the Post article does) is not the best approach to take.
The article discusses the total costs of the bill, throws out a figure of $126 billion over ten years, and is generally accurate as far as it goes. My quibbles are it what it leaves out.
The article goes into great detail to spell out the figures of what new immigrants would cost - $15.4 billion for Medicare and Medicaid, $3.7 billion for food stamps and child nutrition programs, and so on. When all is said and done the grand total (derived from actually looking at the figures in the CBO report) comes to $53.6 billion. No question, that's a big figure.
What the Post article completely fails to mention, and the reader wouldn't know unless they took the time to actually review the full CBO report, is that $53.6 billion dollar all those dern immigrants is gonna cost us is more than offset by the $65.7 billion dollars in addition federal revenue said immigrants are expected to generate. Put another way, all those folks "doing nothing but taking money from the system that should go to real Americans" are, in fact, actually expected to put $12.1 billion more into the system than they take out. (I'll save you some time -- the relevant data can be found in table 3, pages 6-7, and table 5, page 27.)
If you're going to make a case based on someone's figures, it's best to take all their figures into account. There may be many good reasons to fight the bill (Framer has a more recent post on the subject here, and I know there are reasons liberals don't like the bill either), but implying potential new immigrants will cost us money when the data you use says exactly the opposite (which is what the Post article does) is not the best approach to take.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
This and That
1) Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) has passed away following a battle with leukemia. He was 74. My sincere condolences to his family.
2) "Scooter" Libby has just been handed a 30-month sentence for committing perjury in regards to the Valerie Plame affair. The defense has been arguing for probation while federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asking for 30-37 months. Clearly, Judge Reggie Walton sided with the prosecution in this matter. My guess is we'll see all those "rule of law" advocates on Fox talk shows screaming bloody murder about the length of the sentence -- remember, "rule of law" isn't supposed to apply to elite, Caucasian, Christian, conservative males. Just to the "little people".
Judge Walton scheduled another hearing next Thursday to address the issue of whether or not Libby can remain free on bail while appealing the decision. Typically this is not allowed in Federal cases, but this isn't a typical Federal case either. Should Libby be allowed to remain out on bail, it's extremely unlikely he would serve any actual jail time -- by the time the appeals had tun out, President Bush would be ending her term of office and would be likely to provide a pardon for his perjuring pal.
3) I know it may not be very "liberal" of me, but I don't have a real problem with the "point" system as proposed for potential immigrants.
The main objection seems to be the (lack of) weight provided for potential immigrants who have family members who are already US citizens. As things stand, out of a maximum 100 points, having a family member who is a US citizen is worth 10. Far more points are available for education, or for possessing needed job skills.
A number of people, especially Hispanics, are up in arms, and phrases like "separating families" are getting thrown about. This claim would make sense to me if there weren't provisions to extend citizenship to spouses and minor children of individuals who gain US citizenship. Frankly, we should be providing significantly more weight to, say, a candidate with a Masters degree in mechanical engineering rather than, say, a candidate who has a junior high education and no necessary job skills, but who's Uncle already happens to be a citizen.
4) A New York Times article this morning mentions the discovery of chicken bones discovered along the Pacific coast of South America that predate the arrival of Europeans. This is significant because chickens are not native to the Americas, and it had been previously thought chickens were likely not introduced prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in the late 1400's.
A minority had argued chickens were instead introduced to the New World by earlier Polynesian travelers, and this new finding strongly bolsters that view. The bones (and some associated pottery shards) date between 1304 and 1424.
It had been known since Thor Heyerdahl navigated the Kon Tiki from South America to Polynesia in 1947 that trans-Pacific journeys between the two cultures were at least theoretically possible, but apparently this is the first firm archaeological evidence for contact between them.
2) "Scooter" Libby has just been handed a 30-month sentence for committing perjury in regards to the Valerie Plame affair. The defense has been arguing for probation while federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was asking for 30-37 months. Clearly, Judge Reggie Walton sided with the prosecution in this matter. My guess is we'll see all those "rule of law" advocates on Fox talk shows screaming bloody murder about the length of the sentence -- remember, "rule of law" isn't supposed to apply to elite, Caucasian, Christian, conservative males. Just to the "little people".
Judge Walton scheduled another hearing next Thursday to address the issue of whether or not Libby can remain free on bail while appealing the decision. Typically this is not allowed in Federal cases, but this isn't a typical Federal case either. Should Libby be allowed to remain out on bail, it's extremely unlikely he would serve any actual jail time -- by the time the appeals had tun out, President Bush would be ending her term of office and would be likely to provide a pardon for his perjuring pal.
3) I know it may not be very "liberal" of me, but I don't have a real problem with the "point" system as proposed for potential immigrants.
The main objection seems to be the (lack of) weight provided for potential immigrants who have family members who are already US citizens. As things stand, out of a maximum 100 points, having a family member who is a US citizen is worth 10. Far more points are available for education, or for possessing needed job skills.
A number of people, especially Hispanics, are up in arms, and phrases like "separating families" are getting thrown about. This claim would make sense to me if there weren't provisions to extend citizenship to spouses and minor children of individuals who gain US citizenship. Frankly, we should be providing significantly more weight to, say, a candidate with a Masters degree in mechanical engineering rather than, say, a candidate who has a junior high education and no necessary job skills, but who's Uncle already happens to be a citizen.
4) A New York Times article this morning mentions the discovery of chicken bones discovered along the Pacific coast of South America that predate the arrival of Europeans. This is significant because chickens are not native to the Americas, and it had been previously thought chickens were likely not introduced prior to the arrival of the Spaniards in the late 1400's.
A minority had argued chickens were instead introduced to the New World by earlier Polynesian travelers, and this new finding strongly bolsters that view. The bones (and some associated pottery shards) date between 1304 and 1424.
It had been known since Thor Heyerdahl navigated the Kon Tiki from South America to Polynesia in 1947 that trans-Pacific journeys between the two cultures were at least theoretically possible, but apparently this is the first firm archaeological evidence for contact between them.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Get him outta here!
No, I am not referring to the President or Darth Cheney, although the sentiment applies to both of them as well.
The Associated Press is reporting this morning a federal grand jury has issued an indictment against William Jefferson, a Democrat who represents Louisiana in Congress. It's long overdue.
Here is a summation of Jefferson's corrupt history, via wikipedia:
As can be seen, the evidence against Jackson dates back nearly two years and covers a wide-range of shady transactions -- Jackson seemingly spent so much time setting up opportunities where he could receive bribes, it's a wonder he managed to find time for re-election.
Somehow Jackson managed to parlay two small assets -- his minority status (Jefferson is black) and the heavy-handedness of the FBI raid on his Congressional office -- into some degree of public sympathy, and managed to garner enough votes in his district to be part of a two-candidate run off election last fall. Jefferson managed to defeat Democrat Karen Carter in the runoff and was re-elected to his seat. (Full disclosure: I donated money to the Carter campaign.)
I don't know what it says about the voters of Louisiana that, despite the ton of bricks hanging over Jefferson's head they re-elected him anyway. I don't know what it says the Congressional Black Congress apparently felt Jefferson merited a standing ovation earlier this year.
I do know if Congressional Democrats are serious about cleaning up ethics issues they need to make sure their own back yard is pristine. This is a long-needed step toward cleanliness.
The Associated Press is reporting this morning a federal grand jury has issued an indictment against William Jefferson, a Democrat who represents Louisiana in Congress. It's long overdue.
Here is a summation of Jefferson's corrupt history, via wikipedia:
FBI investigation of bribery and fraud
On 30 July, 2005, Jefferson was videotaped by the FBI receiving $100,000 worth of $100 bills in a leather briefcase at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia. Jefferson told an investor, Lori Mody, who was wearing a wire, that he would need to give Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts for iGate and Mody's company in Nigeria. A few days later, on 3 August, 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and, as noted in an 83-page affidavit filed to support a subsequent raid on his Congressional office, "found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers." Serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant.Late in the night of 20 May 2006, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The affidavit used to support these raids included, among other allegations:
- The FBI videotaped Jefferson receiving a stock certificate from Mody for a company set up in Nigeria to promote iGate's technology. Jefferson predicted the deal would generate $200 million annually after five years.
- Jefferson told Mody that he wanted a similar financial stake in the business in Ghana.
- Jefferson sought $10 million in financing from Mody to take over iGate and install "confidants" on the new board. In two payments, Mody wired $89,225 to the ANJ Group LLC, a company controlled by Jefferson's family.
- Jefferson lent $4,800 of the money Mody gave him to an unnamed congressional aide. Another $4,900 was given back to the FBI by one of Jefferson's attorneys.
- The FBI claims it has uncovered "at least seven other schemes in which Jefferson sought things of value in return for his official acts."
Former aides plead guilty
In January 2006, Brett M. Pfeffer, a former aide to Jefferson, implicated him in a corruption scheme involving an Internet company being set up in Nigeria. Pfeffer was president of an investment company in McLean, Virginia. In return for political support for the deal, Jefferson had legal work directed toward his family's operations. It was also said that a daughter of his was put on retainer of the Virginia investment company to the tune of $5,000 a month. Jefferson also is said to have arranged for his family a 5% to 7% ownership stake in the Nigerian Internet company. Pfeffer pled guilty to charges of aiding and abetting bribery of a public official and conspiracy on 11 January 2006 in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. On May 26, he was sentenced to eight years, but was "cooperating in an ongoing probe and may be eligible for a sentence reduction afterward", according to a prosecutor.
On 3 May 2006 Vernon Jackson, 53, CEO of Louisville, Kentucky based iGate Inc., admitted to bribery of a public official and conspiracy to bribe a public official during a plea hearing in U.S. District Court. According to the Associated Press, "court documents make clear that Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana) is the accused congressman, without naming him." Jackson's plea bargain requires his cooperation in the ongoing investigation against the congressman he admits bribing. The total amount of the bribes is between $400,000 and $1 million, according to court documents of the Jackson proceeding. On September 8, Jackson was sentenced to 7 years and 3 months in jail.
As can be seen, the evidence against Jackson dates back nearly two years and covers a wide-range of shady transactions -- Jackson seemingly spent so much time setting up opportunities where he could receive bribes, it's a wonder he managed to find time for re-election.
Somehow Jackson managed to parlay two small assets -- his minority status (Jefferson is black) and the heavy-handedness of the FBI raid on his Congressional office -- into some degree of public sympathy, and managed to garner enough votes in his district to be part of a two-candidate run off election last fall. Jefferson managed to defeat Democrat Karen Carter in the runoff and was re-elected to his seat. (Full disclosure: I donated money to the Carter campaign.)
I don't know what it says about the voters of Louisiana that, despite the ton of bricks hanging over Jefferson's head they re-elected him anyway. I don't know what it says the Congressional Black Congress apparently felt Jefferson merited a standing ovation earlier this year.
I do know if Congressional Democrats are serious about cleaning up ethics issues they need to make sure their own back yard is pristine. This is a long-needed step toward cleanliness.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Iraq != South Korea
As has been well-reported, President Bush recently made comments to the effect he envisions a US role in Iraq similar to the role the US has had in South Korea. It's probably just as well I wasn't near him when he made those remarks -- I'd hate to be smacked down by his Secret Service detail for boxing him on the ears and berating his stupidity.
Some history: after WW2 the Korean peninsula was divided into two parts, US and Russian occupation zones. In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, the US intervened (as head of a UN-backed force), established a beachhead at Pusan, eventually drove the invaders all the way back north near the Chinese border, when the Chinese joined the fray and pushed things back south again. The line eventually stabilized pretty close to the original border between the two Koreas, and after several more years of largely stalemated fighting an armistice was reached in 1953. (It's worth noting no formal declaration of was was ever made by the US.)
Compare the above synopsis with the current situation in Iraq. In Korea, we were responding as defenders of an invaded nation, requested to intervene by the South Korean government. The United Nations supported the intervention (Russia was boycotting the UN at that time, and thus wasn't available to veto the resolution), as did the South Korean populace. After the war, there was popular support amongst Koreans for US troops remaining to help secure the border.
In Iraq, we were the invaders, no governmental body asked us to intervene, we entered without UN support, and the populace has never indicated any desire for a long-term US troop presence. (Not to mention we no legitimate casus belli to invade Iraq in the first place, but hey, what's an unnecessary, unjustified war or two between friends?)
Only our current President could find the two situations comparable.
In poll after poll, one of the greatest concerns Iraqis (and Arabs in the region in general) have had is they fear the US intends to stay permanently in Iraq. This is among the most common justifications given for supporting attacks on US troops. The US had generally denied this (for example, in 2004 Bush said "Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.") while simultaneously establishing large mega-bases that seemed to belie those denials. Iraqis were afraid actions spoke louder than words, and those fears certainly seemed justified now.
War-supporters have harped on war-critics ever since the invasion (well, before the invasion, really) that criticism of any kind -- of the President, of the war, of the
intelligence, anything -- only served to "embolden the terrorists". President Bush has now done far, far worse than embolden the terrorists. He's proved them right.
Some history: after WW2 the Korean peninsula was divided into two parts, US and Russian occupation zones. In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, the US intervened (as head of a UN-backed force), established a beachhead at Pusan, eventually drove the invaders all the way back north near the Chinese border, when the Chinese joined the fray and pushed things back south again. The line eventually stabilized pretty close to the original border between the two Koreas, and after several more years of largely stalemated fighting an armistice was reached in 1953. (It's worth noting no formal declaration of was was ever made by the US.)
Compare the above synopsis with the current situation in Iraq. In Korea, we were responding as defenders of an invaded nation, requested to intervene by the South Korean government. The United Nations supported the intervention (Russia was boycotting the UN at that time, and thus wasn't available to veto the resolution), as did the South Korean populace. After the war, there was popular support amongst Koreans for US troops remaining to help secure the border.
In Iraq, we were the invaders, no governmental body asked us to intervene, we entered without UN support, and the populace has never indicated any desire for a long-term US troop presence. (Not to mention we no legitimate casus belli to invade Iraq in the first place, but hey, what's an unnecessary, unjustified war or two between friends?)
Only our current President could find the two situations comparable.
In poll after poll, one of the greatest concerns Iraqis (and Arabs in the region in general) have had is they fear the US intends to stay permanently in Iraq. This is among the most common justifications given for supporting attacks on US troops. The US had generally denied this (for example, in 2004 Bush said "Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.") while simultaneously establishing large mega-bases that seemed to belie those denials. Iraqis were afraid actions spoke louder than words, and those fears certainly seemed justified now.
War-supporters have harped on war-critics ever since the invasion (well, before the invasion, really) that criticism of any kind -- of the President, of the war, of the
intelligence, anything -- only served to "embolden the terrorists". President Bush has now done far, far worse than embolden the terrorists. He's proved them right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)