TS

If the coach hadn't cut six other palyers, you might have a point. Frankly, even if he was technically a better golfer than some of those retained (which I certainly couldn't vouch for one way or the other), ifthe coach thought someone else had more potential or simply worked better as part ofthe team, he'd still haev every right to cut him.

The law suit seems to imply that he has some "right" to be on the team, which is an opinion I'm fairly certain has yet to be written into law. posted 07/24/2008 at 17:09:22

Actually, looking at life in other nations would indicate that you're wrong. There are certainly certain programs, like health care, that appear to function more equitably in socialized form. Frankly, based on your post, I doubt you'd be able to accurate define socialism. is a federal road system a form of socialism? Public education? Social security? Mass transit?

I don't know where or when you think liberals, or anyone else for that matter declared every one should own a home,s o you'll have to provide support for that somewhat dubious point of debate, and as I understand it, neither of the institutions in question have been operated by the federal government since the '60's, so if anything the finger point sat private industry, which by my accounting seems to be the exact opposite of socialism.

Would you like to explain? posted 07/16/2008 at 21:12:43

Not really. Monthly job growth often failed to keep up with the number of new entrants into the job market. Real wages have been mostly stagnant throughout most of his administration. There's been a massive shift in wealth where there is now one of the greatest disparities between rich and poor in US history, along with a constant reduction in employment in the manufacturing sectors, a huge devaluation in the dollar and exponential escalations in the cost of food, energy, and health care. You simply can't sustain an economy based on speculation only, at some point someone actually has to produce real goods and services that have a genuine cash value, unfortunately, we appear to have frittered that option away.

Then of course, there's the massive deficit (remind when Bush was going to balance the budget by again..how's that going?) and the first, at least to my knowledge, major tax cuts during wartime. Oh yeah, then there's all the money spent on that particular war that was going to pay for itself.

If this is an example of what "the first MBA president" is capable of doing with the national economy, I suggest we elect a plumber next time. posted 07/15/2008 at 20:52:46

I guess it's you. According to the Hill, Obama speaks Indonesian (Bahasa) as well as some Spanish. Bush has a passing acquaintance with Spanish, but woudln't be considered bilingual by any stretch of the imagination.

I can't source this, but I'd be willing to bet Obama is quite familiar with the differences between fighter jets and rowboats. I'd also note that not showing up for most of your National Guard Service isn't much better than not having any military experience. I could also point out that there is no causal relationship between miltary experience and who makes a good and effective president, or that Bush failed at just about every "private sector" enterprise he was engaged in.

As for education, I've known people with degrees from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Oxford and avariety of world class educational institutions through my life. Some are quite brilliant, others are idiots and there are a large number falling in between.

With that said, I was too harsh. I'm sure you're not completely ignorant, but you also managed to get more than enough information wrong in your post to give it a fair shot. posted 07/15/2008 at 21:15:04

Just because a guy decides to take make his courtship and marriage into a reality show doesn't mean anybody has any business commenting on it publicly, oh wait, yeah, I guess it actually does...

Oh well. posted 07/14/2008 at 21:11:56

..or Mr. Smith goes anywhere without a body cavity search. posted 07/14/2008 at 19:05:23

I learned I was on it when I was consistently unable to access my boarding pass through the aouomated terminal and got a "see agent at counter" message. When you eventually get to the counter, the agent will take your ID and disappear for a bit, whereupon, usually, you'll then be issued a boarding pass. The first few times no one would tell me why this was happening, finally a ticketing agent acknowledged I was on the list. You never really find out why, although I was told it was because of my name (I have the most common surname in the United States, and I'm not joking). It then took several months of wrangling with the TSA before (I think anyway) I was taken off the list.

The list is obviously attempting to cover all the bases, but the result appears to be a list that is so inclusive that it's essentially meaningless. Please note, the list being referenced is not the same as the "no-fly" list. In my opinion, anyone who thinks the TSA is making us safer hasn't flown in quite a while. posted 07/14/2008 at 16:17:52

First off, the major job generating engine at this point is small business. Now I may be wrong, but I'd bet that the majority of businesses the regulation of greenhouse gasses would impact are larger manufacturers, smelters, energy companies and the like, none of which are owned or operated by small business owners. Secondly, unless the plan to control greenhouse emissions happens to be to burn money, none of those dollars would leave the economy. Instead they would end up in the hands of various entrepreneurs who would be developing green technologies and related service industries, all of which would benefit the economy rather than harm it. If you REALLY believe in the power of capitalism, why not apply it rather than provide subsidies to oil companies and the like which does little more than lock us into an aging and increasingly inefficient economic model that discourages development of new technologies that actually help the overall environment and at the same time create products that have great value in the broader global economy.

The "it'll cost too much" argument has never made sense, and your repeating it doesn't give it any more credibility. posted 07/11/2008 at 16:38:50

Nobody is suggesting that the companies should not cooperate with legitimate investigations where a warrant has been issued based on probable cause. The fourth amendment (RIP) couldn't be any clearer on the subject. As a matter of fact, the language used in the fourth amendment is some of the most specific in the constitution. It's a shame you apparently lack even the most basic understanding of the document that forms the very basis of our government. This isn't an issue that should break along party lines. Every single congressperson, as well as the president have taken oaths to uphold and defend the constitution. It is a guarantee of freedom, not of absolute safety.

It's sad and unfortunate that you view upholding the constitution as a partisan issue and even sadder which side of the argumnet you've chosen. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:23:50

Seriously, is it that you've never read the Constitution or do you simply not understand what it says?

The fourth amendment could not be clearer. Further, the only conditions allowed for that in any way allow diminishing those guaranteed rights are also clearly laid out. They are invasion or insurrection. Neither of those conditions are anywhere near being met. It is a guarantee of freedom not absolute safety. What are you so very afraid of that you would choose to throw those rights away not just for yourself but for every citizen of this nation?

I though conservatives believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution. What's your problem? posted 07/03/2008 at 18:32:36

Certainly that's true, but only to a point. There are many issues on which it's understood that compromise is essential. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, they don't include the destruction of the fourth amendment. I expect people that take a solemn oath to protect the constitution to take it seriously. That's not a point of negotiation. Tha's not a matter on which any of us shoudl ever be willing to compromise. Once those rights are given away, how exactly do you propose they will ever be returned to the people? posted 07/03/2008 at 20:06:41

I agree with you. The center of American politics has been seriously shifted to the right. In real terms, Hillary Clinton was a moderate conservative, as was her husband. I think the notion of some hard-core liberal left existing in the halls of congress (although it does exist to some degree among the electorate) is a fantasy.

Yes, I'll vote for Obama over McCain, but pretending this is a voice for radical change seems delusional. The guy is just another politician, perhaps more eloquent than most, but when you actually look at policies and ideas, there's nothing that would indicate much will happen to later the status quo or the obvious erosion of individual rights in this nation. The words are pretty, the cadence stellar, but in the end, they conut for little compared to his actions. posted 07/03/2008 at 19:42:30

It's fairly simple. McCain's military service was honorable and heroic, but being held captive doesn't qualify McCain, or anyone else to be president. There is no evidence that McCain's other positions in the military woudl either. Military service is a non-issue compared to current policy approach and how each candidate deals with the world we live in. Suggesting that McCain's experiences forty odd years ago make him instantly qualified to be president is nonsense. My concerns are where he intends to lead the country today, and that's an area in which, at least so far, he seems completely lacking. posted 06/30/2008 at 21:23:05

Well, he should do what he thinks is theright thing to do, which I hope he is. Do I agree with that decision? No. The law already allows them to seek a warrant retroactively, if the compromise had been something along the lines of an extension of that grace period, that would have actually been worth a consideration, but it wasn't. To this day, not a single person in the executive branch, or either branch of congress has been able to explain why the president, or anyone else for that matter, should have the right to abrogate rights so specifically spelled out in the constitution. Nor has anyone beenable to point to so much as a single case in which anyone was prevented from investigating a potential threat because of FISA requirements. That, in and of itself should have been enough to kill the bill. The cause of America is not advanced through governance by idiotic soundbites (he's "soft on terror"...), just look at where that's gotten us. Playing that game Obama is essentially signalling "business as usual." As for the telecoms, maybe they would have been punished, maybe not, but granting them immunity under the figleaf proposed in this bill guarantees they will never be held accountable.

If you're talking about the "audacity of hope" is it too much to hope for a politician who has the capacity to actually explain a position interms other than the cartoonish black or white we've seen forthe last seven years? posted 06/25/2008 at 20:23:39

It may distort what most Christians "understand," but it is an accurate relfectionof what the Bible actually says. Unless you can give specific examples within the New Testament in which Jesus, who as I recall happened to be a Jew, specifically disavowed dietary laws or other restrictions clearly spelled out in Leviticus, you don't have much of a case. Dobson, who in many instances advocates a literal translation of the Bible (not my opinion), has even less going on to support his argument.

At some point, picking and choosing which parts you deem literal andwhich you choose to ignore becomes nothing morethan a reflection of one's own personal prejudices. An example would be the condemnation of homosexuality by many evangelicals, yet that particular issue is only briefly addressed in t he Bible, and even then only as homosexuality among men, and only in conjunction with a broad listing of required behaviors. posted 06/24/2008 at 13:13:12

Admittedly, the article is a bit vague on the timeline, listing her addiction issues as occurring inthe mid-nineties, but how does that work out to "25 years since this happened"? posted 06/19/2008 at 21:08:49

Bad examples, 250 words isn't enough to cover all that's wrong with your post, but to give an example of why it's disingenuous....

A POW is held for the duration of the conflict, they are also identified as clearly being combatants through their formal identification within the military organization within which they operated. However, in the "war on terror" there is no end to conflict. Unlike in other wars through history, there will be no surrender on the deck of an aircraft carrier (to paraphrase Bush himself), there is no other state, or even a single cohesive group or coalition of groups that can agree to surrender, so there can be no formal end to the conflict. Terrorism is not a state, it is a tactic. With that in mind, you are saying that it's not unusual to hold someone without them being allowed to even hear charges or know what alleged evidence is held against them (which isthe problem with the current tribunals). As any rational person could figure out, a person can not refute evidence they are unaware of. That is an offense to the most basic of human rights and is unacceptable. If these people were "caught in the act" the evidence is clearly there to convict. If not, they are being held indefinitely on suspicion alone. That is tyrannical. Read the Declararion of Independence sometime. posted 06/13/2008 at 11:07:33

I enjoy a good hyperbolic rant as much as the next person, but what you're saying has absolutely no beraing on the issues at hand. Habeas corpus isn't guarantee of the rights of citizenship, it is the basic right to face your accusers and to hear the evidence that is presented against you. It's all very simple, if there's real evidence, present it, let the accused refute it ifthey can. If there isn't real evidence, then the assumption you are making, which is each of these people are already guilty is nothing more than an assumption of guilt based on nothing of substance. Are you suggesting that suspicion of guilt is enough to imprison someone, and that those that are improsned have no right to even know what they are accused of? It should be pretty obvious that presumption of guilt based on no evidence or evidence that can never be revealed to the accused (thus allowing the accused no chance to rebut false charges or even clarify a case of mistaken identity) is somehow just or accaeptable. Any justice with a knowledge of the constitution would have to rule that the actions ofthe administration are wholly unconstitutional and violate the most basic of human rights. As others have noted, the constitution is a guarantee of freedom, not of absolute safety. These people have had seven years oft heir lives taken away and you contend they have no right to hear the evidence which they supposedly are incarcerated because of? posted 06/12/2008 at 20:16:56

Are you unfamiliar with te fairness doctrine? It doesn't "limit" anything, it simply requires that time be provided for opposition opinions, regardless of whether those opininos lean left or right.

Would you like to explain how that qualifies as being fascist? posted 06/12/2008 at 13:06:58

"It amuses me every time someone does not agree with him, because they never explain why they don't -just that it is a challenge to debate someone more intellectual than they are."

Now, maybe I misunderstood your comment, but it seems to me that this isn't a question of agreeing or disagreeing. Tucker is flat out, 100% factually incorrect. It's not a matter of opinion or debate, it's a matter of Carlson's statement being historically wrong. That certainly seemed clear to me. So, if the guy is such an intellectual giant, why can't he get basic facts right? I also recall two instances in which Carlson's ignorance truly shown brightly, one in which he referred to cro-magnon's as having "prehensile brows, " which was both absolutely incorrect and accidentally hilarious. The second was his encounter with Jon Stewart in which Stewart exposed him as the intellectually shallow midget he actually is. You may find him quite charming and enjoy his commentary a great deal, but I don't think it's asking too much of him to actually get the history he's referencing factually correct. posted 06/16/2008 at 21:29:43

To be fair, when the ethanol programs began, it was assumed that issues with the energy used to produce it could be worked out. That was way the neck back in the seventies. It didn't come out that way, and like so many other programs implemented by congress, no one has had the sense to go back and bother to assess whether it is a workable solution or not. For most of us, it's pretty obvious it's not. In fact, it's pretty obvious that the world's increasing population and energy needs making attempting to "grow" fuel a non-starter in the long term. So, although the intentions were good, the program just doesn't work.

The simplest way to make a dent in the current problem is through increased fuel efficiency. That technlogy is real and available. In the long term, we need to find an energy resource that is truly renewable and sustainable. There's no way around it. We coul drill everywhere on the planet and still achieve little more than temporarily putting off the inevitable. In the interim, some real controls on the commodities market would be helpful. Speculation isn't the whole problem, but it is a part of it, and it's the easiest aspect to control. Every little bit helps. posted 06/09/2008 at 18:38:12

I wouldn't know as I haven't read the whole report, but there are more than a few sources that have alreadyreported the facts being fixed around the policy, rather than the facts driving the policy, and the reports conclusions are in line with those of the UN weapons inspectors and quite a few other sources, all of whom were correct about Saddam's weapons capabilities. The fact that the report was kept from being provided to the public for as long as it was would indicate that those preparing it were well aware of the damning conclusions. Certainly, there is more evidence supporting the reports conclusions than refuting it.

Even if the report were slightly skewed, it's conclusions will not lead us into an unnecessary war that costs billions of dollars. Are you having some difficulty grasping what the article was about? posted 06/05/2008 at 15:34:11

Maybe you missed the point. The evidence was cooked. Did it appear convincing to some democrats? Obviously yes, they voted for it. The issue here is that the evidence that was presented was cherry-picked to create an impression thta there was no question about the level of threat. In reality, that was a falsehood engineered by the administration. Even with that, fewer than half of the democrats in congress voted for the war.

Do you have any idea as to what percentage of the congressional members of the GOP followed blindly? posted 06/05/2008 at 13:14:22

Actually, the term "fellow travellers" well predates the Second World War and is common in part among those dedicated to labor/workplace reform in the early twentieth century.

Whether we purposely target civilians or not, the number of civilian casualties in this war, at least relative to those that can be classified as combatants is extraordinarily high. I'll grant you that we may not be intentionally targeting civilians, but the reality of it is they are no less dead whether that was intended or not. Using heavy ordinance in urban areas, no matter how "smart" the technology might be results in heavy civilian casualties. That's not an opinion, it's the reality of what's happening. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:38:01

If you think Germany and Italy were no threat to us, your grasp of history is not just poor, it simply doesn't exist. To concude they were no threat, you first have to completely ignore the formal alliance between those powers and Japan, as well as the importance of Europe tothe US economy, Hitler's plans for world domination and the attempts at development of nuclear weapons by the axis powers in the latter part of the war. You would also have to ignore the wartime development of advanced missile technologies and aircraft and and naval vessels, all of which greatly increased both in geographic range and destructive capacity.

Yeah, Hitler and an army bent on world domination and genocide are no threat, but a bunch of guys with box cutters, that's worth the deaths of over 100,000 people, the displacement of several 100,000 more and bankrupting the nation over. The GOP definitely needs you, no one with any actual capacity for reason is likely to vote for them. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:27:33

You know, I've heard the same regurgitated slop from the right in regards to habeus corpus and Lincoln again and again, The constitution provides for exactly two events that allow for the suspension of rights guaranteed by the constitution. Those are invasion and insurrection. Unless you're arguing that a civil war can't be construed as insurrection, your point is baseless.

As for JFK, you provide no specifics, but I would say that wrong is wrong and if he auhorized torture, he should have been tried for doing so. It certainly doesn't justify authorizing torture again any more than the pogroms and genocides in the past would justify those actions today (given that someone appears to have stolen the needle from your moral compass, that means torture, pogroms and genocide are not now nor never will be moral or acceptable).

You need to read the constitution sometime, you may find it fascinating. Also if you would point out specifically where the constitution declares that the basic human rights that our founders clearly declared as belonging to all men stop at our borders or don't apply to those holding current citizenship, I'm sure that would be helpfulto the rest of us as well. posted 04/02/2008 at 17:08:52

"We have killed and arrested and tortured hundreds of thousand civilians around the world."

Sadly, that' s not hyperbole. Taking just Iraq alone, the numbers of civilian dead, our dead, those in prison, and those that have been tortured does, in reality, constitute over a hundred thousand people. I do not believe the poster is saying we've tortured hundreds of thousands, but those we have tortured (however large or small that number may be, and neither you or I have any way of knowing), when combined with the other categories is well over one hundred thousand individuals just in Iraq. My only quibble with Hume Skeptics post is that it neglects the massive number of refugees also created bythe actions of the United States.

This isn't about "hating America," it's about seeing the truth and demanding justice. posted 04/02/2008 at 14:48:41

Wow, that's the most off base analysis I've seen in quite a while. First, both Maliki and the Badr Brigades which formed the bulk of the official Iraqi Army around Basra are much, much closer to Iran than Sadr's people will ever be. You are seeing a violent playing out of a struggle withinthe governent. Despite the fact that it's always dangerous to oversimplify, it's really an issue of those that see a unified Iraq as being their desired future (Sadr) and thos ethat see Iraq partitioned into semi-autonomous regions (Maliki). The issues are less about religion and more about economics, access to natural resources, etc.

If you're going to blame Iran, at least take the timeto figure out who they are aligned with. posted 03/31/2008 at 13:08:07

Okay, first off the fact that the Earth has experienced past climate change doesn't mean that the impacts of technology and over-population are not playing a role in creating the current trend in climate change or in making what might have been a relatively minor climactic shift more severe. Thos eare two very different things. Secondly, you pointto the ice age as an example. The ice age caused mass extinctions. Generally speaking, that's not considered a positive effect. You are corerct in saying that climate change has occurred before, but absolutely wrong in assuming that it somehow can't have a massive negative impact on life as we know it.

Personally, I think the planet is much more likely to do us in during the course of climate change than we are likely to destroy it. Maybe you see that as a positive thing.

The other question would be, why don't you accept the factthat we can create new industries that are earth-friendly that will not only stimulate the eceonomy but also be good for the planet? It would seem that would be a much wiser approach to stewardship (as well as a potential gold mine relative to economic development).

What's the problem with that? posted 03/31/2008 at 19:20:00

Kind of, but not really, the situation is substantially more nuanced than you imply. There are actually two militias in play in Basra:Sadr's Mahdi army and a second Badr militia that was incorporated wholesale into the Iraqi army. In essence, your seeing tribal warfare between rival Shiite groups for control of Basra. You can argue, if you choose, that the Badr militia's association with the "official " govrenment of Iraq might make it more legitimate, but I doubt that's how it plays out to the average Iraqi. Odds are it looks more like an effort to push Sadr's people out of the government.

All things considered, the actual surge proper did little. WIthout Sadr's cease fire, and the general hatred the Iraqi's have for Al-Queda, a group that was not present in Saddam-controlled Iraq prior to our invasion, which created the awakening (that and money and weapons given to the awakening councils) no substantive decrease in violence woudl probably have occurred. As Sadr steps back from the cease fire, we see a rise in US casualties and other non-Al Queda related attacks.

Al-Queda is mor likely to be hiding than "crushed," and despite the play they get in US press, have, at least by our military's account, never been more than a small (well under 10 percent) part ofthe insurgency. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:32:35