Venezuelan lawmakers gave initial approval to a bill granting President Hugo Chavez the power to rule by decree for 18 months so that he can impose sweeping economic, social and political change.
Sound familiar? Take a quick glance and see how Hitler came into power. Two hints: 1) he didn't wake up a dictator, and 2) he came into power legally.
Look out, peoples.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Monday, January 1, 2007
Voting records condemn!
The attack ads practically write themselves: Hillary Clinton voted against ethanol! Barack Obama wants to increase taxes!
Such are the perils of running for president as a senator. The two front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination are newcomers to the chamber. But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite sides at least 40 times. That's a lot of material to mine, and even misrepresent.
Of the eight senators pondering presidential runs, Clinton (N.Y.), who is completing her first Senate term, and Obama (Ill.), sworn in two years ago, have the briefest voting histories. The Senate has held 645 roll-call votes during their shared tenure, and more than 90 percent of the time the two senators stood with other Democrats. They opposed John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination as chief justice, supported increased funding for embryonic stem cell research and backed the same nonbinding measure that urged President Bush to plan for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq.
But other votes reveal important differences between the Democratic rivals that distinguish them as they prepare to launch their anticipated candidacies. The areas of dispute include energy policy, congressional ethics and budget priorities, relations with Cuba, gun ownership, and whether a senator can hold a second job.
In corn-growing Iowa, the first stop in the presidential nominating process, Clinton will have to explain the ethanol vote she cast on June 15, 2005. The senator recently softened her stance, but she is on record opposing a large federal boost for the grain-based fuel.
And Obama voted to increase taxes when he opposed a package of business breaks that included the extension of middle-class provisions. Clinton voted for the tax bill -- before she voted against it, as did Obama, in the legislation's final form.
As Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) discovered in previous campaigns, the Congressional Record is a minefield for White House contenders, a catalogue of provincial concerns, convoluted logic and compromised principles.
One of the sharpest substantive divides is over ethanol, an issue of particular potency in Iowa. The vote in question was an effort to block a proposed amendment to the 2005 energy bill that would have established an ethanol mandate for refineries. "If there were ever an onerous, anti-competitive, anti-free-market provision, this is it," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who led the effort and who warned that non-farming states could face spikes in gasoline prices because of supply limitations. Clinton at the time was campaigning for reelection and was one of 28 senators to support her colleague's failed bid.
Over the past year, Clinton has warmed to ethanol. Buffalo has decided to build a big ethanol plant, making the issue a home-state concern. In May, Clinton said current ethanol production is "a long way from helping us deal with our gas problems" and added: "We need to be moving on a much faster track."
Obama voted for the ethanol mandate. "As a senator from a corn-growing state, Obama will have no problem on the ethanol issue and can tout his credentials on this score with a clear conscience," said Peverill Squire, who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.
The two Democrats differed on other energy-related issues. In August, Clinton supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, while Obama voted against it. During the 2005 energy debate, Obama backed an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, which Clinton opposed. Clinton voted against the energy bill itself because it was stuffed with oil industry incentives. But Obama supported the legislation because it included language that would double ethanol demand by 2012.
Another fault line is spending. Obama sided with fiscal conservatives on several high-profile measures to strip funding for pet projects, including a widely criticized Pentagon travel system and the relocation of a railroad line along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that was part of a Hurricane Katrina redevelopment project. Clinton voted in favor of the projects.
The senators differed on a July 13 vote that would prohibit the confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters -- a response to seizures by law enforcement officials in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. Obama voted to ban confiscations; Clinton was one of 16 senators opposing the restrictions.
In late 2005, Obama allied with Republicans to support creating an exception to Senate rules to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to continue practicing medicine on a not-for-profit basis. Clinton opposed the change, an aide explained, because she believes that senators should not have a second source of income. Gibbs said that Obama, as an author of two best-selling books, was sympathetic to Coburn's request.
In several instances, Clinton and Obama voted against measures that they supported in principle, because the bills were not strong enough. Clinton opposed a restructuring plan for the Federal Emergency Management Agency that Obama and 86 other senators backed, because it did not restore the Cabinet-level status that FEMA had attained under President Bill Clinton, her husband. One of Obama's chief interests in the Senate has been ethics reform, but he was one of eight senators to oppose a bill aimed at tightening lobbyist rules because it was not strong enough. Clinton supported the initiative.
Soo…Clinton wants to keep us on oil, huh? And she’s following Kerry’s lead, changing her votes on tax breaks. Hillary wants to up fuel production in the Gulf of Mejico, but Obama doesn’t. Obama wants to tighten up on vehicle fuel-emission standards, but Hillary doesn’t. Heck, as much as she loves oil and hates alternative fuels, I’m surprised she isn’t supporting Bush’s war for oil or whatever they’re calling it.
Hillary wants to take your guns away in a natural disaster. WTF??? And then, she wants to restore FEMA to a cabinet-level as it was when her adulterine husband was the president. So how is that any different than Bush doing things for his daddy? She can do things for her husband and that’s alright, but Bush can’t do things for his pappy? Oh, that’s right, double-standards only work one way.
Such are the perils of running for president as a senator. The two front-runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination are newcomers to the chamber. But in the two years that Clinton and Obama have overlapped, they have taken opposite sides at least 40 times. That's a lot of material to mine, and even misrepresent.
Of the eight senators pondering presidential runs, Clinton (N.Y.), who is completing her first Senate term, and Obama (Ill.), sworn in two years ago, have the briefest voting histories. The Senate has held 645 roll-call votes during their shared tenure, and more than 90 percent of the time the two senators stood with other Democrats. They opposed John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination as chief justice, supported increased funding for embryonic stem cell research and backed the same nonbinding measure that urged President Bush to plan for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq.
But other votes reveal important differences between the Democratic rivals that distinguish them as they prepare to launch their anticipated candidacies. The areas of dispute include energy policy, congressional ethics and budget priorities, relations with Cuba, gun ownership, and whether a senator can hold a second job.
In corn-growing Iowa, the first stop in the presidential nominating process, Clinton will have to explain the ethanol vote she cast on June 15, 2005. The senator recently softened her stance, but she is on record opposing a large federal boost for the grain-based fuel.
And Obama voted to increase taxes when he opposed a package of business breaks that included the extension of middle-class provisions. Clinton voted for the tax bill -- before she voted against it, as did Obama, in the legislation's final form.
As Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) discovered in previous campaigns, the Congressional Record is a minefield for White House contenders, a catalogue of provincial concerns, convoluted logic and compromised principles.
One of the sharpest substantive divides is over ethanol, an issue of particular potency in Iowa. The vote in question was an effort to block a proposed amendment to the 2005 energy bill that would have established an ethanol mandate for refineries. "If there were ever an onerous, anti-competitive, anti-free-market provision, this is it," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who led the effort and who warned that non-farming states could face spikes in gasoline prices because of supply limitations. Clinton at the time was campaigning for reelection and was one of 28 senators to support her colleague's failed bid.
Over the past year, Clinton has warmed to ethanol. Buffalo has decided to build a big ethanol plant, making the issue a home-state concern. In May, Clinton said current ethanol production is "a long way from helping us deal with our gas problems" and added: "We need to be moving on a much faster track."
Obama voted for the ethanol mandate. "As a senator from a corn-growing state, Obama will have no problem on the ethanol issue and can tout his credentials on this score with a clear conscience," said Peverill Squire, who teaches politics at the University of Iowa.
The two Democrats differed on other energy-related issues. In August, Clinton supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, while Obama voted against it. During the 2005 energy debate, Obama backed an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, which Clinton opposed. Clinton voted against the energy bill itself because it was stuffed with oil industry incentives. But Obama supported the legislation because it included language that would double ethanol demand by 2012.
Another fault line is spending. Obama sided with fiscal conservatives on several high-profile measures to strip funding for pet projects, including a widely criticized Pentagon travel system and the relocation of a railroad line along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that was part of a Hurricane Katrina redevelopment project. Clinton voted in favor of the projects.
The senators differed on a July 13 vote that would prohibit the confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters -- a response to seizures by law enforcement officials in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. Obama voted to ban confiscations; Clinton was one of 16 senators opposing the restrictions.
In late 2005, Obama allied with Republicans to support creating an exception to Senate rules to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to continue practicing medicine on a not-for-profit basis. Clinton opposed the change, an aide explained, because she believes that senators should not have a second source of income. Gibbs said that Obama, as an author of two best-selling books, was sympathetic to Coburn's request.
In several instances, Clinton and Obama voted against measures that they supported in principle, because the bills were not strong enough. Clinton opposed a restructuring plan for the Federal Emergency Management Agency that Obama and 86 other senators backed, because it did not restore the Cabinet-level status that FEMA had attained under President Bill Clinton, her husband. One of Obama's chief interests in the Senate has been ethics reform, but he was one of eight senators to oppose a bill aimed at tightening lobbyist rules because it was not strong enough. Clinton supported the initiative.
Soo…Clinton wants to keep us on oil, huh? And she’s following Kerry’s lead, changing her votes on tax breaks. Hillary wants to up fuel production in the Gulf of Mejico, but Obama doesn’t. Obama wants to tighten up on vehicle fuel-emission standards, but Hillary doesn’t. Heck, as much as she loves oil and hates alternative fuels, I’m surprised she isn’t supporting Bush’s war for oil or whatever they’re calling it.
Hillary wants to take your guns away in a natural disaster. WTF??? And then, she wants to restore FEMA to a cabinet-level as it was when her adulterine husband was the president. So how is that any different than Bush doing things for his daddy? She can do things for her husband and that’s alright, but Bush can’t do things for his pappy? Oh, that’s right, double-standards only work one way.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Army stuff
As US troops battle Islamic extremists abroad, the Pentagon and the armed forces are reaching out to Muslims at home.
An underlying goal is to interest more Muslims in the military, which needs officers and troops who can speak Arabic and other relevant languages and understand the culture of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The effort is also part of a larger outreach. Pentagon officials say they are striving for mutual understanding with Muslims at home and abroad and to win their support for US war aims. Among the efforts to attract and retain Muslim cadets:
• West Point and the other service academies have opened Muslim prayer rooms, as have military installations.
• Imams serve full- and part-time as chaplains at the academies and some bases.
• Top non-Muslim officers and Pentagon officials have taken to celebrating religious events with Muslims overseas and here in the US.
The US armed services don't recruit by religion, but the Pentagon estimates at least 3,386 Muslims were serving in the US military as of September. No precise figures are available because, while US service members are surveyed on their religion, they aren't required to disclose it. Advocacy groups put the number at 15,000, saying many are reluctant to reveal their religion. African-Americans represent the largest share of Muslims in uniform, they add.
The Marines also have allowed Muslims in their ranks at Quantico some dispensations to make it easier to practice their religion, says Lieutenant Commander Saifulislam, a US citizen born and raised in Bangladesh. During Ramadan, "they're allowed to have some time off to prepare for their fasting break and not to go to physical training" while fasting, he says.
Muslim troops say misunderstandings and friction with non-Muslims in uniform arise sometimes, but practicing Islam in a military at war with extremists who profess the same faith isn't a burden, they add.
Petty Officer Third Class Nicholas Burgos, a Sunni Muslim training to be a Navy SEAL, or commando, says instructors sometimes goad him by calling him "Osama bin Burgos" or asking if he's training to help the Taliban. But "it's all in good fun," he insists.
"It's all about how much mental stress you can deal with while you're in training," Petty Officer Burgos says. "I just laugh or have a smirk on my face."
His father, Asadullah Burgos, is the part-time imam at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., whose roughly 4,000 cadets include 32 Muslims, 12 of whom are foreign students.
"There's been some insults and some taunting, but it's been handled at the cadet level," Imam Burgos says. "Usually that's due to ignorance."
Col. John Cook, the senior chaplain at West Point, says that after media reports about the academy's new Muslim prayer room, he got a call from a self-described "concerned citizen" who fretted that "the Muslims are taking over the world."
"I told him, 'I'm a Christian chaplain, but I have the responsibility to provide for other faith groups,' " Colonel Cook says. Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish cadets all have their own chapels at West Point, he notes.
Marine Sgt. Jamil Alkattan, a Sunni Muslim of Syrian heritage from South Bend, Ind., says his religion, his knowledge of Arabic, and his familiarity with Arab culture were major assets during two tours in Iraq.
Not only was he able to teach fellow marines key Arabic phrases and explain that all Muslims aren't extremists, he says, but he also was able to befriend locals, who brought him vital intelligence. "They would come to me and say, 'I know where bombs are,' and this and that," Sergeant Alkattan says. "I never got to sleep. They would come at night time and tell me, 'Hey, I think these guys [insurgents] are trying to set you guys up,' or, 'I've seen these guys with an IED [improvised bomb].' I think it stopped a lot of things that could have happened."
I don't quite know what to think of this. On the one hand, I think it is a good idea, on the other hand...they should be careful not to be too PC.
As far as opening the prayer rooms and hiring imams, that makes perfect sense. As they say later, they have services and chaplains for all other faiths, so why not Muslims? So far, so good.
Once you get to skipping out on PT for fasting, though...well, that's a little ridiculous. Sure, respect their holiday and religion, but it is unfair and unequal for them to allow Muslims to neglect their responsibilities while requiring all other faiths and soldiers to tend to those responsibilities. What happens when they're rotated into combat during Ramadan? Will we send starving soldiers out there? Will we be religiously insensitive and force them to eat their MREs to maintain their energy? Will we delay their deployment until after their fasting period? There has to be a happy medium between accommodating them and bending the rules too much just for the sake of doing it.
All that said, I think it is great they are trying to make them feel welcome. They make me think about the LRRP's in Viet Nam. When you're in the Suck, a 'native' is going to be a very, very high asset. From getting the inside tips and hints to just being able to pick up random conversation, they're indispensable. So, by all means keep them happy. Just don't alienate everyone else trying to do so.
I'm not even going to get into the recruiting foreigners thing. Too long of an article. On the one hand, it's good, and I think exchanging citizenship for service is a GREAT idea. On the other hand...well, just be careful. When we go to war with their country, where will their loyalties lie? I'm not saying they'll turn on us, because look at Albert Einstein and Wernher von Braun and so-on and so-forth. Those are guys who helped us in huge ways against their former countries, but not everyone is like them. Be careful to keep out Al Qaeda operatives or North Korean saboteurs, too.
I think it would be pretty messed up if they only allowed foreigners in infantry MOS's or something like that, but they just need to be careful. If a Korean comes in and applies for a nuclear propulsion rating, you might want to check his background...Two things could happen: 1) The extensive background checks for people of questionable backgrounds will overload our recruiters and result in huge delays all around, or 2) The extensive background checks for people of questionable backgrounds will overload our recruiters and result in people getting the nod without being researched.
Historically, who knows what will happen. This didn't work out so well for Rome...but it has been, and continues to be indispensable to France (big surprise there, eh?). During the Civil War, the Union and Confederacy both had considerable Irish recruitments which turned out to be some of the fiercest fighters in both armies. Who's to say what will happen?
An underlying goal is to interest more Muslims in the military, which needs officers and troops who can speak Arabic and other relevant languages and understand the culture of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The effort is also part of a larger outreach. Pentagon officials say they are striving for mutual understanding with Muslims at home and abroad and to win their support for US war aims. Among the efforts to attract and retain Muslim cadets:
• West Point and the other service academies have opened Muslim prayer rooms, as have military installations.
• Imams serve full- and part-time as chaplains at the academies and some bases.
• Top non-Muslim officers and Pentagon officials have taken to celebrating religious events with Muslims overseas and here in the US.
The US armed services don't recruit by religion, but the Pentagon estimates at least 3,386 Muslims were serving in the US military as of September. No precise figures are available because, while US service members are surveyed on their religion, they aren't required to disclose it. Advocacy groups put the number at 15,000, saying many are reluctant to reveal their religion. African-Americans represent the largest share of Muslims in uniform, they add.
The Marines also have allowed Muslims in their ranks at Quantico some dispensations to make it easier to practice their religion, says Lieutenant Commander Saifulislam, a US citizen born and raised in Bangladesh. During Ramadan, "they're allowed to have some time off to prepare for their fasting break and not to go to physical training" while fasting, he says.
Muslim troops say misunderstandings and friction with non-Muslims in uniform arise sometimes, but practicing Islam in a military at war with extremists who profess the same faith isn't a burden, they add.
Petty Officer Third Class Nicholas Burgos, a Sunni Muslim training to be a Navy SEAL, or commando, says instructors sometimes goad him by calling him "Osama bin Burgos" or asking if he's training to help the Taliban. But "it's all in good fun," he insists.
"It's all about how much mental stress you can deal with while you're in training," Petty Officer Burgos says. "I just laugh or have a smirk on my face."
His father, Asadullah Burgos, is the part-time imam at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., whose roughly 4,000 cadets include 32 Muslims, 12 of whom are foreign students.
"There's been some insults and some taunting, but it's been handled at the cadet level," Imam Burgos says. "Usually that's due to ignorance."
Col. John Cook, the senior chaplain at West Point, says that after media reports about the academy's new Muslim prayer room, he got a call from a self-described "concerned citizen" who fretted that "the Muslims are taking over the world."
"I told him, 'I'm a Christian chaplain, but I have the responsibility to provide for other faith groups,' " Colonel Cook says. Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish cadets all have their own chapels at West Point, he notes.
Marine Sgt. Jamil Alkattan, a Sunni Muslim of Syrian heritage from South Bend, Ind., says his religion, his knowledge of Arabic, and his familiarity with Arab culture were major assets during two tours in Iraq.
Not only was he able to teach fellow marines key Arabic phrases and explain that all Muslims aren't extremists, he says, but he also was able to befriend locals, who brought him vital intelligence. "They would come to me and say, 'I know where bombs are,' and this and that," Sergeant Alkattan says. "I never got to sleep. They would come at night time and tell me, 'Hey, I think these guys [insurgents] are trying to set you guys up,' or, 'I've seen these guys with an IED [improvised bomb].' I think it stopped a lot of things that could have happened."
I don't quite know what to think of this. On the one hand, I think it is a good idea, on the other hand...they should be careful not to be too PC.
As far as opening the prayer rooms and hiring imams, that makes perfect sense. As they say later, they have services and chaplains for all other faiths, so why not Muslims? So far, so good.
Once you get to skipping out on PT for fasting, though...well, that's a little ridiculous. Sure, respect their holiday and religion, but it is unfair and unequal for them to allow Muslims to neglect their responsibilities while requiring all other faiths and soldiers to tend to those responsibilities. What happens when they're rotated into combat during Ramadan? Will we send starving soldiers out there? Will we be religiously insensitive and force them to eat their MREs to maintain their energy? Will we delay their deployment until after their fasting period? There has to be a happy medium between accommodating them and bending the rules too much just for the sake of doing it.
All that said, I think it is great they are trying to make them feel welcome. They make me think about the LRRP's in Viet Nam. When you're in the Suck, a 'native' is going to be a very, very high asset. From getting the inside tips and hints to just being able to pick up random conversation, they're indispensable. So, by all means keep them happy. Just don't alienate everyone else trying to do so.
I'm not even going to get into the recruiting foreigners thing. Too long of an article. On the one hand, it's good, and I think exchanging citizenship for service is a GREAT idea. On the other hand...well, just be careful. When we go to war with their country, where will their loyalties lie? I'm not saying they'll turn on us, because look at Albert Einstein and Wernher von Braun and so-on and so-forth. Those are guys who helped us in huge ways against their former countries, but not everyone is like them. Be careful to keep out Al Qaeda operatives or North Korean saboteurs, too.
I think it would be pretty messed up if they only allowed foreigners in infantry MOS's or something like that, but they just need to be careful. If a Korean comes in and applies for a nuclear propulsion rating, you might want to check his background...Two things could happen: 1) The extensive background checks for people of questionable backgrounds will overload our recruiters and result in huge delays all around, or 2) The extensive background checks for people of questionable backgrounds will overload our recruiters and result in people getting the nod without being researched.
Historically, who knows what will happen. This didn't work out so well for Rome...but it has been, and continues to be indispensable to France (big surprise there, eh?). During the Civil War, the Union and Confederacy both had considerable Irish recruitments which turned out to be some of the fiercest fighters in both armies. Who's to say what will happen?
Tastes Like Lincoln...
I was just reading the History Channel Magazine and saw this. I thought it was pretty gross/cool:
My husband recently told me that in the near future we will breathe air that was once breathed by Abraham Lincoln.
The truth is even stranger than what your husband said, according to David Bodanis, a historian who taught for many years at the University of Oxford, and author of several well-regarded books, including The Secret House: The Extraordinary Science of an Ordinary Day (1986).
In the last chapter of The Secret House Bodanis examines oxygen atoms. A goodly number of these particles bounce around in a typical room--300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 give or take, constituting about 20 percent of the air that surrounds us. (The most prevalent element in air is nitrogen.)
Oxygen atoms are in constant motion, moving in and out of our lungs, our rooms, and our houses, and traveling up to 1,000 miles in as little as two weeks. In his book, Bodanis offers an amazing observation, so odd and counterintuitive that the mind virtually reels. He writes, "A small sample of the oxygen molecules from any breath that anybody took within the past few thousand years is near certain to be in the next breath you take." Name a historical figure--Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth, Cleopatra, Hitler, your great-grandmother. Tiny samples of them all, says Bodanis, "are in the air you have just drawn in."
I thought that was pretty neat. There goes Alexander the Great. It kind of freaked me out at first, thinking about sharing oxygen and such. But DUH! There's Big Granny. Oh, and that was just Chester Nimitz. And here comes George Bush...
I'm going to bed.
My husband recently told me that in the near future we will breathe air that was once breathed by Abraham Lincoln.
The truth is even stranger than what your husband said, according to David Bodanis, a historian who taught for many years at the University of Oxford, and author of several well-regarded books, including The Secret House: The Extraordinary Science of an Ordinary Day (1986).
In the last chapter of The Secret House Bodanis examines oxygen atoms. A goodly number of these particles bounce around in a typical room--300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 give or take, constituting about 20 percent of the air that surrounds us. (The most prevalent element in air is nitrogen.)
Oxygen atoms are in constant motion, moving in and out of our lungs, our rooms, and our houses, and traveling up to 1,000 miles in as little as two weeks. In his book, Bodanis offers an amazing observation, so odd and counterintuitive that the mind virtually reels. He writes, "A small sample of the oxygen molecules from any breath that anybody took within the past few thousand years is near certain to be in the next breath you take." Name a historical figure--Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth, Cleopatra, Hitler, your great-grandmother. Tiny samples of them all, says Bodanis, "are in the air you have just drawn in."
I thought that was pretty neat. There goes Alexander the Great. It kind of freaked me out at first, thinking about sharing oxygen and such. But DUH! There's Big Granny. Oh, and that was just Chester Nimitz. And here comes George Bush...
I'm going to bed.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Snapshots and one-liners
Iraq's al-Maliki presses reconciliation
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's army has "opened its doors" to all former members of Saddam Hussein's army, the prime minister said Saturday at a national reconciliation conference boycotted by one of his main Shiite allies, a major Sunni group and Iraq's exiled opposition.
- Don't you see? Peace will never happen. One guy tries to be nice, so his best friends boycott him.
Searches revive debate: Who pays?
Deputy Gerry Tiffany, spokesman for the Hood River County sheriff's office, said its office does not charge for its searches. The same is true for where Kim was lost, Josephine County Undersheriff Brian Anderson said.
The no-pay policy is the norm nationwide.
The Coast Guard and other federal agencies don't make rescued persons responsible for expenses. In 2000, troubled by frequent rescues on 20,320-foot Mount McKinley, the National Park Service considered recovering search costs from Denali National Park climbers.
Mountaineering groups protested and in a compromise climbers now pay a $200 fee to help fund the Alaskan park's mountaineering program, which includes safety briefings before climbs.
Colorado, Utah and Oregon have state laws that allow their agencies to charge victims for rescues. Servis says he expects the issue of cost recovery to be examined soon by other states.
"It's a cyclical issue that comes up periodically, and it tends to come up with high-profile cases like this one on Mount Hood," he says. "It's usually attached to people doing extreme sports — rock climbing, winter mountaineering, skiing out of bounds, things above the norm. The question arises: Should these people pay for the cost of search and rescue?"
Oregon passed its law in 1995 amid a public outcry over three college students who cost taxpayers $10,000 for a search on Mount Hood. The climbers turned up safe, warm and playing cards in their tent. They hadn't carried a cellphone or a radio locator beacon.
Some officials involved in searches say it's bad public policy to ask victims to pay for rescues. Washington state doesn't have such a law, "and we don't want one," says Sgt. John Urquhart of the King County, Wash., sheriff's office. "We're afraid that people would not call us to rescue them soon enough because they'd fear getting a bill."
Sheriffs in Oregon enforce the cost-recovery law only "when people do really dumb things," Tiffany says.
An Idaho law allows ski resorts to charge up to $4,000 for saving out-of-bounds skiers. Ski areas in most states lack legal authority to charge for searches, Servis says.
Leniency goes out the window in many places when people make hoax reports of emergencies. The Coast Guard seeks reimbursement for all-out searches triggered by false reports. In 2005, Jennifer Wilbanks, the "runaway bride" who disappeared four days before her scheduled wedding and phoned her fiancé with a phony tale of being abducted, was ordered by a judge to pay $15,800 to Georgia city and county officials who had searched for her.
- Simple: Charge the people doing 'really dumb things.' Charge the out-of-bounders. Double-charge the hoaxists (hoaxers?) and prosecute them to the same extent allowed for people who prank-call 911. Don't charge the 'innocent' lost climbers (the hoaxers will pay for them). See? Simple.
Lethal injection halted in Calif.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Botched executions in California and Florida that required more than 30 minutes to kill condemned prisoners prompted a moratorium of the lethal injection procedure in both states on Friday.
Death penalty opponents have for years argued that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment barred by the U.S. Constitution, but only such recent instances have given legal and political traction to their arguments.
"When properly administered, lethal injection results in a death that is far kinder than that suffered by the victims of capital crimes," said Fogel, who earlier this year visited the death chamber at San Quentin State Prison north of San Francisco.
- 30 minutes? And...?
Do you really feel sorry for Angel Diaz when he’s sitting there in a glass cubicle for an extra 30 minutes because the IV wasn’t in his vein? Did he feel sorry for shooting Joseph Nagy just because Mr. Nagy was trying to defend his bar from three armed robbers? A botched robbery turns into a botched execution. What goes around comes around, eh?
Or how about poor, poor Tookie? They didn’t set up a backup IV for him. Very cruel and inhumane, no? Almost as cruel and inhumane as shoving a sawed-off 12-gauge in someone’s back, telling them to ‘shut up and keep walking,’ then making them lie face-down in a back room, and shooting them twice in the back just because ‘he was white.’ Very humane treatment, eh? Or how about shooting some ‘Buddha-heads’ in the chest, stomach, back, and face from point-blank range? Is that a little more humane?
I’m sorry, but no matter how much they claim innocence and reform, poor Angel and Tookie lost their opportunity for a quick, painless, and natural death when they pulled the triggers on their botched robberies. A botched robbery for a botched execution. An eye for an eye. Sounds fair to me.
It's all about the Golden Rule, man! Remember that? That's been the foundation of quite a few religions and philosophies for quite a while. And for good reason. If you want to kill someone, expect to be killed. If you want to make some terror-stricken person walk to his death and lay face-down to be shot in the back, then expect to be stricken with terror for a few moments as they're trying to find out exactly what they're pumping into you and if it's in exactly the right place. Seems fair to me. Once again, you lost your chance to complain when you did what you did. Simple.
Forget botched needles. Go back to botching the electric chair. If they’re going to be accused of cruel and unusual punishment, they might as well get their money’s worth. Go for the fireworks. Go for the flame-thrower. Go for Old Sparky!
This was supposed to be a one-liner. Whoops.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Phone call
I wasn't going to post personal stuff on this blog, but SORRY! This gets posted. It's a politician...so yea, that's my justification.
So I'm sitting on the couch in my Navy shirt, Navy hat, and Navy Midshipmen jacket on. I just got home from shopping and was dozing off. Mom went outside and the phone rang. I saw it was US CONGRESSM...
My first thought was that...maybe I got it? Cornyn sent a letter to deny me. I didn't figure they would call to deny me...so I answered the phone and it was a guy.
The only correspondence with Carter's office I've had was with a female, Jodell Brooks. This guy asked for me. I told him it was me.
Him: 'Well, this is Congressman John Carter. I just wanted to let you know that I've chosen to nominate you to attend the United States Naval Academy.'
Me: '...Wow. Thank you, sir.'
Carter: 'Thanks for applying. Now you know that the decision about whether you attend or not is up to the Academy, but you have my nomination.'
Me: 'Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.'
Carter: 'I hope you get in. We're behind you and if you need anything, let us know how we can help you. Thank you for wanting and being willing to serve your country.'
Me: 'Well thank you very much, sir.'
Carter: 'You have a good day.'
Me: 'Thank you, sir.'
Carter: 'Bye.'
I wasn't tonguetied, but thank you was kinda the only thing I could think to say. So, that was kinda cool.
I'm glad I was home for that phone call!
So I'm sitting on the couch in my Navy shirt, Navy hat, and Navy Midshipmen jacket on. I just got home from shopping and was dozing off. Mom went outside and the phone rang. I saw it was US CONGRESSM...
My first thought was that...maybe I got it? Cornyn sent a letter to deny me. I didn't figure they would call to deny me...so I answered the phone and it was a guy.
The only correspondence with Carter's office I've had was with a female, Jodell Brooks. This guy asked for me. I told him it was me.
Him: 'Well, this is Congressman John Carter. I just wanted to let you know that I've chosen to nominate you to attend the United States Naval Academy.'
Me: '...Wow. Thank you, sir.'
Carter: 'Thanks for applying. Now you know that the decision about whether you attend or not is up to the Academy, but you have my nomination.'
Me: 'Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.'
Carter: 'I hope you get in. We're behind you and if you need anything, let us know how we can help you. Thank you for wanting and being willing to serve your country.'
Me: 'Well thank you very much, sir.'
Carter: 'You have a good day.'
Me: 'Thank you, sir.'
Carter: 'Bye.'
I wasn't tonguetied, but thank you was kinda the only thing I could think to say. So, that was kinda cool.
I'm glad I was home for that phone call!
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Followup on Saddam
So, apparently Saddam has already been sentenced to death? I dunno, I kinda have been living in a hole for the past...oh, since late August or so.
They're wanting to hang him and his two top aides at once and then bury him in a secret location. Excellent plan on both counts.
Hanging them together - well, maybe this might not be such a good idea. I don't know, I don't guess it really matters.
Burying him in secret - definitely a good plan, ala Russia STILL not revealing Hitler's remains. I think that was a very smart idea in 1945 and I think it would be just as smart in this situation. I don't think having a burial site/memorial to him will make the insurgents any better or worse, but why honor him in any way?
Or maybe...maybe we should build a REEEEEALLY BIG monument to him. With claymores surrounding it, pointing in. And lots of WP grenades on tripwires. And snipers in close. Hmmm...
They're wanting to hang him and his two top aides at once and then bury him in a secret location. Excellent plan on both counts.
Hanging them together - well, maybe this might not be such a good idea. I don't know, I don't guess it really matters.
Burying him in secret - definitely a good plan, ala Russia STILL not revealing Hitler's remains. I think that was a very smart idea in 1945 and I think it would be just as smart in this situation. I don't think having a burial site/memorial to him will make the insurgents any better or worse, but why honor him in any way?
Or maybe...maybe we should build a REEEEEALLY BIG monument to him. With claymores surrounding it, pointing in. And lots of WP grenades on tripwires. And snipers in close. Hmmm...
Stroking Senators and slaying Saddam
Hope the title doesn't mislead you. This thread has nothing to do with Mark Foley.
Ok, I wasn't even TRYING to be funny...I already wrote this blog out earlier, and then I went to post it and had to come up with a name for it. Seemed like an appropro title until I typed it...anyhow, to the story:
First up to the plate is the stroked-out Senator Johnson situation. Then we'll gloss over some strange requests coming from Iraq. I'm taking my first day on this job easy.
So today my dad and I were driving from a job and he told me about this Senator that had a stroke. Pretty soon it came on the radio and they were talking about him. Here's the highlights:
Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was in critical but stable condition Thursday after emergency brain surgery, creating political drama over whether Democrats will control the new Senate next month if he is unable to continue in office.
Democrats hold a fragile 51-49 margin in the new Senate that convenes Jan. 4. If Johnson leaves the Senate, the Republican governor of South Dakota could appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two years of Johnson's term — keeping the Senate in GOP hands with Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking power.
Apart from the risk to his health, Johnson's illness carried political ramifications, coming so soon after the Democrats won control of the Senate. If he were forced to relinquish his seat, a replacement would be named by South Dakota's GOP Gov. Mike Rounds.
A Republican appointee would create a 50-50 tie, and allow the GOP to retain Senate control.
Johnson, a centrist Democrat, was first elected to the Senate in 1996 after serving 10 years in the House. He narrowly defeated Republican John Thune in his 2002 re-election bid. Thune defeated Sen. Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, two years later.
So, that's basically the deal. An interesting tangent is that this seat apparently isn't the most healthy seat in the Senate. In the early 70's, this same thing happened to a Senator...who held the SAME EXACT SEAT that Johnson now does.
First, a disclaimer: Maybe you haven't heard from me enough to figure this out yet, but I'm a pretty...I don't want to say staunch or die-hard, but I'm a conservative. I tend to think of myself as more of a progressive conservative, though (doesn't everyone consider themselves that?). If I think something is stupid, it's stupid. Not because Trent Lott or Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle or Newt Gingrich or whoever my party leader is says it's stupid, just because it's stupid.
My first thought on this situation is that this is just wrong. I would love nothing more than to see the Senate shifted to the middle or Republicans (that is, besides Senator Johnson recovering, of course), but if this is the way it happens, that's just messed up. I think a few things about this. Mainly, I think it would be a big cheap shot and be more trouble than it's worth to regain the house by the Republican governor appointing a Republican Senator (provided Senator Johnson is unable to regain his health sufficiently). But the people voted for the person, not the party. This is true. But if they didn't like what he believed in or what party he was in, the vast majority of constituents wouldn't have voted for him. They most certainly didn't vote for the Republican party, that's for sure.
One thing I think that should be taken into account is Johnson's tenure. He's been in the Senate for 10 years and in the House for a good while before that. If he had just been elected this year, then that would make this situation different. But obviously, with 20 years of serving South Dakota, he has a proven track record and the people like the way he does things.
Certainly, the people voted (over and over again) for the man, not the party. But if the man is not available, I think the second best thing - the party - should be used. Maybe his party only agreed with him 50% of the time, but that would be better than appointing someone diametrically opposed to the values and views of Senator Johnson and the people of South Dakota.
So, what should Governor Rounds do? Well, he has a few options. The most obvious would be to have a revote. However, the time and money to pull this off probably wouldn't make it a viable option.
Choice number two: look at the recent election results. If this last election was close (within 15%), appoint his opponent. If it wasn't very close, look at the Democratic primaries and see how close that was. If it was close, appoint his Democratic opponent. If not close, then scrap option two.
Option numero tres: appoint someone in his place. This should be delayed as long as possible and only used as a last resort, so as to give the people a chance to call the Governor's staffers and let their voice be heard about who they want Governor Rounds to appoint. How to decide who gets appointed? Rather than appointing the most radical Republican you can find, I would suggest basing the decision largely upon Senator Johnson's opinion and advice and also rely heavily upon the people who let their voices be heard. The only fair appointment is one that adheres to the ideals and spirit of the voters and Senator Johnson.
While I would like to see a Republican/split Senate, I don't think this end justifies those means. And my final solution to this problem in the future: require South Dakotan politicians to undergo physicals before they are allowed to run for office.
In other 5-second radio blurbs:
The Iraqi government has had hundreds of requests for the job of Saddam’s executioner. He hasn’t been sentenced to death yet and there is no posting for the job of executioner (they just hire from the general public at random?!?!), and hundreds of government officials and Iraqi citizens have requested to be the ones to pull the lever that hangs Saddam.
That’s kinda funny, I think. File that under ‘things that make ya go hmmm...'
I’ll do it. I’m going to go write them a letter, now. Heck, I'll even offer to pay my own airfare. See y’all later!
Ok, I wasn't even TRYING to be funny...I already wrote this blog out earlier, and then I went to post it and had to come up with a name for it. Seemed like an appropro title until I typed it...anyhow, to the story:
First up to the plate is the stroked-out Senator Johnson situation. Then we'll gloss over some strange requests coming from Iraq. I'm taking my first day on this job easy.
So today my dad and I were driving from a job and he told me about this Senator that had a stroke. Pretty soon it came on the radio and they were talking about him. Here's the highlights:
S.D. Sen. Johnson in critical condition
Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was in critical but stable condition Thursday after emergency brain surgery, creating political drama over whether Democrats will control the new Senate next month if he is unable to continue in office.
Democrats hold a fragile 51-49 margin in the new Senate that convenes Jan. 4. If Johnson leaves the Senate, the Republican governor of South Dakota could appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two years of Johnson's term — keeping the Senate in GOP hands with Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking power.
Apart from the risk to his health, Johnson's illness carried political ramifications, coming so soon after the Democrats won control of the Senate. If he were forced to relinquish his seat, a replacement would be named by South Dakota's GOP Gov. Mike Rounds.
A Republican appointee would create a 50-50 tie, and allow the GOP to retain Senate control.
Johnson, a centrist Democrat, was first elected to the Senate in 1996 after serving 10 years in the House. He narrowly defeated Republican John Thune in his 2002 re-election bid. Thune defeated Sen. Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, two years later.
So, that's basically the deal. An interesting tangent is that this seat apparently isn't the most healthy seat in the Senate. In the early 70's, this same thing happened to a Senator...who held the SAME EXACT SEAT that Johnson now does.
First, a disclaimer: Maybe you haven't heard from me enough to figure this out yet, but I'm a pretty...I don't want to say staunch or die-hard, but I'm a conservative. I tend to think of myself as more of a progressive conservative, though (doesn't everyone consider themselves that?). If I think something is stupid, it's stupid. Not because Trent Lott or Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle or Newt Gingrich or whoever my party leader is says it's stupid, just because it's stupid.
My first thought on this situation is that this is just wrong. I would love nothing more than to see the Senate shifted to the middle or Republicans (that is, besides Senator Johnson recovering, of course), but if this is the way it happens, that's just messed up. I think a few things about this. Mainly, I think it would be a big cheap shot and be more trouble than it's worth to regain the house by the Republican governor appointing a Republican Senator (provided Senator Johnson is unable to regain his health sufficiently). But the people voted for the person, not the party. This is true. But if they didn't like what he believed in or what party he was in, the vast majority of constituents wouldn't have voted for him. They most certainly didn't vote for the Republican party, that's for sure.
One thing I think that should be taken into account is Johnson's tenure. He's been in the Senate for 10 years and in the House for a good while before that. If he had just been elected this year, then that would make this situation different. But obviously, with 20 years of serving South Dakota, he has a proven track record and the people like the way he does things.
Certainly, the people voted (over and over again) for the man, not the party. But if the man is not available, I think the second best thing - the party - should be used. Maybe his party only agreed with him 50% of the time, but that would be better than appointing someone diametrically opposed to the values and views of Senator Johnson and the people of South Dakota.
So, what should Governor Rounds do? Well, he has a few options. The most obvious would be to have a revote. However, the time and money to pull this off probably wouldn't make it a viable option.
Choice number two: look at the recent election results. If this last election was close (within 15%), appoint his opponent. If it wasn't very close, look at the Democratic primaries and see how close that was. If it was close, appoint his Democratic opponent. If not close, then scrap option two.
Option numero tres: appoint someone in his place. This should be delayed as long as possible and only used as a last resort, so as to give the people a chance to call the Governor's staffers and let their voice be heard about who they want Governor Rounds to appoint. How to decide who gets appointed? Rather than appointing the most radical Republican you can find, I would suggest basing the decision largely upon Senator Johnson's opinion and advice and also rely heavily upon the people who let their voices be heard. The only fair appointment is one that adheres to the ideals and spirit of the voters and Senator Johnson.
While I would like to see a Republican/split Senate, I don't think this end justifies those means. And my final solution to this problem in the future: require South Dakotan politicians to undergo physicals before they are allowed to run for office.
In other 5-second radio blurbs:
The Iraqi government has had hundreds of requests for the job of Saddam’s executioner. He hasn’t been sentenced to death yet and there is no posting for the job of executioner (they just hire from the general public at random?!?!), and hundreds of government officials and Iraqi citizens have requested to be the ones to pull the lever that hangs Saddam.
That’s kinda funny, I think. File that under ‘things that make ya go hmmm...'
I’ll do it. I’m going to go write them a letter, now. Heck, I'll even offer to pay my own airfare. See y’all later!
Introduction
This is something I've always wanted to do. I've always wanted to write for a newspaper or, more recently, make a blog. Now that I've got a little time off from school, I'll start it. Chances are that no one will read it and the chances are even greater that it will stop once school resumes, but we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)