Let's

Let's be sure to equate one day of trolling at the U.N. with foreign-policy experience, even though so many supporters of the troll's party believe the U.N. is pointless.

Let's also be sure to keep a lid on the investigation going on about how a public official canned someone who wouldn't can her ex-BIL, who may well have mean to her sister but who nevertheless didn't do anything wrong in his job.

Let's play a game called "I'll trot my children out for my own benefit but don't you dare bring them into it" so that every angle will be the public official's to play. Yes, her party had trouble with the out-of-wedlock baby of a fictional character named Murphy Brown who, some have pointed out, was not a minor, had a job and was independent and successful. It's true Murphy didn't have a husband, but she also didn't have to wash any "Redneck Pride" t-shirts. Some things, you just can't put a price on.

Let's play a game called "Family Values doesn't mean the public official won't go back to work three days after her special-needs child is born and it also doesn't mean she'll be disappointed when her 17-year-old gets knocked up and limits all the high hopes she had for her." It's so much fun to keep changing all the rules to suit the needs of the party.

And let's say maverick when we mean liar and/or simp.

Smear this on your puppy's lips

So the only difference between pitbulls and hockey moms is lipstick? Hmm. Let me play that game, too.

Here are the differences b/w Joe Biden and Sarah Palin:
1. The former didn't take 5 years to get through 6 schools. He got through U of Delaware and Syracuse Law in normal time.
2. The former didn't go back to work 3 days after a special-needs child was born. In fact, when the former was made a senator, he was sworn in from his son's hospital room, where he was after a horrific accident that killed his wife and baby daughter.
3. The latter said she was proud of her 17-year-old's decision to raise a child. You can be pro-life, you can accept life's realities. It doesn't mean you're proud of the situation. Being proud of an oncoming trainwreck just means your judgment is dreadful.
4. The former isn't governor of a state that functions unlike any other. Moreoever, he's worked in Washington. Just like McCain. Just like Obama.
5. The former actually has foreign-policy experience.
6. The former isn't being investigated for having a government employee canned for his unwillingness to fire someone the former didn't like. And the former isn't trying to withhold the investigation until nanoseconds before the election.
7. The latter dissed Washington's elite, but never once had the cajones to admit it's her party that's been running the shoddy show for the last eight years.

Nothing to see here, folks. It's just more of the same, from the party who taught you (courtesy the Karl Rove playbook), "When you have nothing to offer, hurl invective at the other side."

Face it: Palin's a hillbilly in go-go boots who supports drilling and guns, and has no new ideas. I can't imagine what drove McCain against choosing an actual qualified Republican female, like Olympia Snowe, or Kay Bailey Hutchison, but it makes me question his judgment (not to mention his campaign's vetting process.) And it makes me wonder how much closer the glass ceiling falls on all women's heads when public women's personal lives get in the way of their jobs in a way they simply don't for public men.

(Let me save my rant against the insulting idea that as a woman, I'd have to vote for a woman on the basis of her being a woman, never mind that she's completely counter to all I hold dear, for another day.)

Sources, I got your sources:
1. http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1116906&srvc=home&position=comment
2. http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10382124
3. http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/382560.html
4. http://lookinginatiowa.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/1972-article-about-fatal-crash-which-took-life-of-bidens-wife-daughter/
5. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2069707/posts
6. http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2008/09/01/sarah-palins-17-year-old-daughter-bristol-palin-is-pregnant/
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/bidens-foreign-policy-cr_b_38144.html
8. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5702697&page=2
9. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/us/politics/04assess.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=palin%20washington&st=cse&oref=slogin

L'affaire Edwards

I said I didn't trust the man. I said he looked amphibian. I said I didn't believe his ripoff of Robert Kennedy's War on Poverty was anything more than an opportunistic grab.

But even I didn't think the man couldn't keep it zipped. Why can so few men in power keep it zipped? But this time it's particularly odious, because the woman to whom he did this is dying, and chose to live out the rest of her days largely on a campaign bus for him.

The thought of this


hitting this


just doesn't feel too bad.

It's very simple, men. If you want to screw around, divorce your wife first. If you want to stay married, keep it zipped. How you got to be in power when you're too stupid to know this in the first place is truly a mystery.

It Ain't Me You're Lookin' For

The headline says Rice: Jewish housing plan undermines peace talks . The article means Condi thinks there's an issue with housing as part of the ongoing dilemma between Israelis and Palestinians.

Note to world: Stop saying Jews when you mean Israelis. It doesn't do my tribe any good. And stop thinking every Jew agrees with everything Israel ever does, did or will do.

Yes, American Jews have historically had an "Is it good for Israel?" approach on things like voting. But we also have a strong sense of human rights, and we know about being on the cruddy end of the stick, and realize that abuse is abuse, and it's still wrong even when you're on the power end of the stick.

/End rant here./

Compare and Contrast

Compare: Both the one on the left and the one on the right are wearing pearls.

Contrast: The one on the left looks normal, like she could be my neighbor. She looks like I would want her to be my neighbor. The one on the right doesn't look trustworthy. I don't want her as my neighbor, and it's got nothing to do with that funky rash all over her neck and hairline.

Godspeed

I am just learning what others have known for months: A* is gone.

A* was a friend of my aunt whom I've known almost all of my life. A warm and compassionate spirit, she was a nurse. A really kind person. She came from an extremely dysfunctional background, one that involved mental-health issues with which A* struggled, too. She moved to a different state, and lived there. I don't think she worked, or had insurance. Sometimes she would be erratic, hard to find, and my aunt would worry about her. But there were certain things my aunt could count on, like a birthday card. This past year, no card. And when my aunt sent mail to A*'s PO Box, it came back.

What apparently happened is that A* wasn't doing very well, and eventually she just stepped in front of a train and ended her life.

To have known a person when she was whole, when she was giving and kind and had good days, and then to consider what it must have been like inside her brain is very difficult. I'm pained by what she must have gone through, believing that tomorrow would not be better than today, feeling desperate enough to silence that pain once and for all, but also she might have felt bravery or pride for refusing to let it take control of her life, of her mind, finally and forever.

I'm pained when I wonder whether A* would be alive if she had been insured and medicated, if she'd had some community or family where she lived. I'm pained that in finding out what happened well after everyone else, her death is somehow less significant, less tragic. A* was a beautiful person, inside and out, who lived and died all alone. This is a lesser place for her absence.

Wanted: A Graceful Exit

Obama's next task: Heal rift with female voters

This article discusses why white female voters are so distressed with Obama. "'Obama himself must heal the rift with women,' said Clinton fundraiser Susie Buell of San Francisco, 'or a new brand of "stay-at-home moms" might sit out the election.'"

Could they have quoted someone perhaps slightly less partisan?

Truly, I just don’t see it. First of all, polling right now on this topic is a waste of time, as it doesn’t allow for all that Mr. McCain can do to enrage white female Democratic voters (or for that matter, white female Republican voters) in the next five months. My guess: plenty.

Second, the whole premise of this article assumes that women would vote solely based on gender, the very obstacle they’ve been up against for, oh, ever. (The 15th Amendment, which allowed nonwhite men to vote, was ratified February 3, 1850. The 19th Amendment, which allowed women to vote, was ratified August 18, 1920, 70 years later. I’d like to think we’ve progressed in the 158 years since we thought leaving it to someone else to give us rights and ensure our empowerment was a good idea.)

This white female voter had a hard time listening to Hillary talk about things like job creation in the 90s during her hubby’s Administration. Know why? Because I lived through it. I can tell you right now that my newspaper is delivered by a grownup in a car, instead of a 12-year-old on a bike, b/c on Bill’s watch, people had to take two and three jobs to get the income they’d had before getting laid off. (And just an aside, two or three less-than-fulltime jobs means you don’t score any benefits, Starbucks notwithstanding.)

I don’t care who wore a pantsuit or a lapel pin. Hillary’s a bright woman with some sound policy objectives but she appeared opportunistic and insincere. In a weird irony, Hillary was empowered because she essentially screwed herself, and frankly, I think more of my fellow Caucasian female voters than to assume they’re as one-dimensional as this article suggests.

But just to argue the other side, assuming we were truly that one-dimensional, we’d merely have the memory and attention span of so many other citizens of this nation, and thus come November it wouldn’t be an issue anyway. Take your pick, either way it’s a moot point.

Note to any female white voters who will only vote based on gender: none of your choices come November will be women. If that's enough to keep you home, you suck.

Sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_el_pr/obama_angry_women

Is This OK?

Today the Supremes decided that, given probable cause, a search which would violate a state law is Constitutionally valid. I'm at peace with this. The main things to remember are that: a) when it's the state or the Fed, the Fed trumps; and b) probable cause gives all manner of license to a police officer. Can't get a warrant? OK, as long as there was probable cause and exigent circumstances like disappearing suspects or evidence. We leave this to the discretion of the police. Will they always get it right? No. But should the whole case be thrown out based on a state law?

In this case, the petitioner is arguing that his Constitutional rights were blown. He argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest. In fact, the Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." This is generally taken to mean that absent the exigent circumstances noted above, the police can't bust into your house warrantless. It's your home. But that same expectation of privacy, it has been ruled again and again, simply doesn't exist for your car.



Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_search
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Just Wondering

Just a quick question, chime in if you've got the answer. There might be a year's supply of turtle wax for the winner. Or not.

Does this man ever look like he's not growling? I don't mean just when he's approving torture techniques, or shooting his "friend" in the face, but are there any pictures where he looks like an actual normal person and not an ursine wannabe?




Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/interrogation_tactics

Good stuff

Do you remember the scene in the original Willy Wonka in which Charlie, his hopes having been long since dashed, finds some money in a grate, buys a Wonkabar, rips it open, and sees the golden ticket? Do you remember there’s a little flute playing, so you could understand just how Charlie’s heart was fluttering?

That flute/flutter thing is the exact feeling of opening up the results of the February 2008 Pennsylvania Bar Exam and seeing your name among the successful applicants.

I don’t like to dwell on this, but for those of you who have been following along, the last four or so years have been, in a word, heinous. And now it’s actually all over, in a way it wasn’t even when I graduated 11 months ago. It’s really over, I really did it. The Trog is now the Trog, Esq.

This is a great day.

Ripped from today's NYT headlines:
Clinton Says She Misspoke About Dodging Sniper Fire

Hmm. Misspoke. OK. I looked that word up, just in case it had changed meaning since I last checked into it. Here's what it said:
mis·speak
1. to speak, utter, or pronounce incorrectly.
2. to speak inaccurately, inappropriately, or too hastily.

Here's another word I looked up. Note the similarity:
lie
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying.

A lawyer would distinguish between these two terms by beating to death the idea of intent behind what Mrs. Clinton said, because the first definition doesn't mention intent while the second one does. Normal people wouldn't, but let's go with the lawyer mode for a moment.

If the intent was in fact to deceive, which it was, why are we calling this misspeaking instead of outright lying in the first place?


Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misspoke
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

Big friggin' deal

First, the story: http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1869673.php? OK? Everyone got that? The State Department got into the passport files of one Mrs. Clinton, one Mr. Obama, and one Mr. McCain. And the ACLU is going ballistic around the idea that the State Department breach of passport information could affect any of us, not just presidential candidates.

Normally I’m very down with the ACLU, litigating difficult issues as they do to make clearer the very fuzzy lines of our laws and the Constitution. The mission of the ACLU, ripped straight from their website, is to protect your:
• First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
• Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

These are all good things, and I believe in that mission. But this brings up an idea I find completely ridiculous. Why does it matter who the data thief, or in this case, privacy thief is, in order for there to be any action taken?

For the purposes of the ACLU, it matters. They don't address the nongovernmental. Fine. But for the consumer actually being harmed, it doesn’t matter. You’re hosed no matter who breached. What’s in a passport file? Your birthday, address, next-of-kin info and your Social Security number. You know, pretty much the same info that any cretin could look up about you on the Internet, and that national identifier that every vendor with whom you do business has. Those companies have been routinely blowing it with regard to holding your national identifier private for years, and what have we done about it? Jack. Friggin. Squat.

When data thieves breached the systems of credit-card processor CardSystems Solutions and made off with data on as many as 40 million accounts affecting various credit-card brands, in June of 2005, who looked out for your interests? Or when personal information on about 650,000 customers of J.C. Penney and up to 100 other retailers was potentially compromised after a computer tape went missing this past January? Or when, in Spring of 2005, CitiFinancial said tapes containing unencrypted information on 3.9 million customers were lost by the United Parcel Service while in transit to a credit bureau? Who looked out for Joe Sixpack’s interests when data leaks were reported by Bank of America and Wachovia, data brokers ChoicePoint and LexisNexis, Cal Berkeley and Stanford?

This government breach affected three people. Three really well-known people, most of whose private information, as government employees, isn’t so private. The other breaches I’ve cited involved millions of people who trusted non-governmental entities to get it right. To me, this is the far more serious and scary issue. My guess is that it would be a hell of a lot easier for Mrs. Clinton to get her identity reestablished than any Trogvision reader out there (both of you). So where is any pro-consumer advocate? (Insert crickets and tumbleweeds here.)

‘Cause it’s all too clear we’re on our own…

Supremes at work

The Supreme Court will hear a case about lethal injections of death-row prisoners.

I’m against the death penalty for four reasons. First, I think it’s wrong for the state to kill in order to show it’s wrong to kill. Second, I don’t think the application of the death penalty is evenly applied to all prisoners. Also, I know it’s expensive to keep giving almost unlimited appeals, and that it would be cheaper just to keep people in prison indefinitely, and finally, I just can’t be convinced that there’s any deterrence to be had from it.

But this particular case mystifies me because it refuses to deal with the heart of the matter while getting very involved in the minutiae of the process. The case centers on the 8th Amendment rights of the prisoners to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

On the one hand, does it really matter if the prisoner suffers excruciating pain before dying? Doesn't that serve the revenge-sense that the application of the death penalty feeds? Thinking in revenge-mode for a moment, did the prisoner worry about the excruciating pain the victim would be in? And if he had actually worried about that, or took time to comfort the dying victim, would his sentence have been lessened any? I don’t think so.

How is being killed by any method, as applied to the prisoner or his victim, not cruel and unusual? I see this case as just so much mental game-playing.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080107/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection