Politics

Obama has nominated Elena Kagan, the first female Solicitor General, as a Supreme Court justice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8669268.stm Kagan has generally been received well among Democrats. Republicans apparently have "questions" for her. I've seen many complaints among non-Democrat liberals that she's too moderate and won't provide the balance needed to offset the conservative influence Bush added to the court with Roberts and Alito. I generally agree with this position and would like to see a more liberal nominee, however I don't directly oppose Kagan, other than I think it's a bit creepy how much she looks like Kevin James.

A new poll from Rasmussen shows that on the economy Obama-blame has finally oustripped Bush-blame. He gets one more percentile point -- 48 vs 47. This is easily within the margin of error, but it's a notable change from a year ago when he lead the former present by almost 20 points. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/august_2010/48_blame_obama_for_bad_economy_47_blame_bush Unfortunately for the GOP, Americans want them back in power even less than they want Democrats to stay in power, according to this Washington Post poll. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_real_reason_dems_are_tying.html Wha…

Recently a thread here asked whether Fox News Channel was a "legitimate" news outlet. I was surprised to see so many intelligent people here failing recognize the boots-on-the-ground reality of the American news landscape, and I don't mean the popularity of that network in the red states, I mean the simple reality of the mechanics of news reporting. So let me pose the subject a different way, stating my opinion in three key points: 1) Fox News Channel has become the "news of record" for the United States of America, supplanting the New York Times and Washington Post. 2) This is a good thing, because it introduces a kind of ideological competition that was despera…

I thought you all would appreciate this. I saw part of this quote in Politico's one-liners segment today, so I traced it back and found that it came from an appearance by Dee Snyder on the Wendy Williams show, which airs on Fox network affiliates. http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1007/the_week_in_oneliners_35.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMRC

This comes from an interesting article that was posted by Newsweek a couple of days ago. Apparently there is a movement in this country dating back centuries, but which has been recently resurrected by some conservatives (including the Republican Party of Iowa), to acknowledge an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that is not currently recognized. They claim that the amendment was ratified, and should have become the 13th amendment, but people just "forgot" about it. (No, really.) The amendment itself is interesting, and perhaps sheds some light on their motivation. Though at first blush, it seems fairly harmless, right? So, one might as…

Police: "Do you understand your rights as they have been described to you?" Suspect: "Yes" Police: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Suspect: "Yes" The suspect said nothing further, but the jury convicted him, largely on that one-word confession. A court of appeals overturned the case because the police had not obtained a Miranda waiver, a common practice that notes the suspect's comprehension of his or her rights on paper, but neither party disputed the fact that the suspect had indicated that he understood his rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, and stated that a written waiver is not required…

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2010-07-28-cashcows28_ST_N.htm Where else would it be? The people predominantly at the top, who aren't necessarily in favor of Obama's agenda, aren't in any hurry to play into his hand, hoarding up record amounts of cash. I guess the question is how long will they hold out?

Currently there's a halt on all offshore drilling at "deep water" sites (not just new sites, but existing production). The original halt on sites over 500 feet deep was stopped by a lawsuit that continues, but a judge refused to support a moratorium, so the administration issued a second moratorium banning new activity by floating platforms, which is not yet being fought in court (some say it will be more difficult for the industry to attack legally). Is the moratorium necessary? I think this is a good question, and I haven't been able to fully decide, though I'm leaning toward "no" and I'm going to throw that opinion out there to spark discussion. My reasoning is…

or is it not? i'm not exactly willing to debate something here, it's just something that's been stuck in my head for sometime. if you choose what the majority chooses, you're saying what the majority chooses is right. that's wrong of course. a handful of smart people are able to and should decide what's better for the rest. iow, many people are like children, they need grownups to look after them and overwrite their "wants". an experienced advisor shouldn't have the same voice as a cook or a cab driver.

I just found out that Glenn Beck is a Mormon. The Tea Baggers went nuts with conspiracy theories about Obama being a Muslim, but we don't hear anything about Beck. That seems odd to me. I was under the impression that most Tea Party people are of the religious persuasion that thinks Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are non-Christian cults. Did I miss something?

French Parliament votes almost unanimously to ban the burqa. Fox News and CTR are ranting about how this means they're less tolerant of free speech than the US, but Bill O'Reilly pointed out, as have some columnists today, and the French themselves are saying, that this is actually a move against the men who force their women to wear them. The idea seems to be that a total ban is the only way to prevent this abuse. I think that's what France is doing, but I think it also lies in sync with French socialistic principles. That idea wouldn't fly in the US not because it's wrong to fight domestic abuse, but because it's wrong to place limitations on free speech even to …

The president is blaming Republicans being blamed for the non-extension of unemployment compensation, but I think he's playing politics. - Republicans aren't saying "no", they're saying "pay for it", as in fund it without adding to the debt. - There's still unspent stimulus money. If unemployment compensation is stimulus as the administration claims, then why hasn't it proposed using that money to pay for the extension? What do you think?

Great article by Roger Simon at Politico, talking about how a number of progressive special interests are forming their own "movement". The groups include unions AFL-CIO and that whacky, always-getting-into-trouble SEIU, the NAACP (who recently declared the tea party movement "racist" in one of the boldest pot-kettle-black moves in recent politics) and the National Council of La Raza. Most people have probably never heard of the latter, but it's a hispanic activism group ("La Raza" means "The Race"). Simon compares the collection to the tea parties, saying that while the tea parties are a movement in search of a leader, progressives are many leaders in search of a move…

I'm sure someone has posed these questions and I simply haven't found the post yet. Google is filled with this rhetoric and I was hoping one of you might set me straight on the issue. Please don't quote me on the following, but it's verbatim from the internet. If the quotes below are true, I repeat, "TRUE", then: WE have BEEN "HAD" BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT OFFICALS FOR NOT CHALLANGING THIS MAN"S PRESIDENCY? IF NOT TRUE, THEN ME AND OTHERS LIKE ME, OWE HIM OUR APOLOGIES. THE FOLLOWING ARE QUOTES FROM GOOGLE: *BARACK OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DUE TO THE FOLLOWING: * The United States Constitution mandates the President of the …

Decisions to go to war are usually based on qualitative reasoning, but what if we apply rational cost-benefit analysis to the War on Terrorism? Has anyone ever calculated whether resources are more rationally spent on protecting the homeland from attack through expenditures on police and intelligence capacities than through invading terrorist bases abroad, or how much would be gained by increasing police resources at the expense of military investments? Prima facie it seems that foreign invasions are highly cost-inefficient, since huge expenditures for logistics, for the military's supporting bureaucracy, for propping up local puppet governments, for building local infr…

ABC News ran a piece on Friday saying that Congress has pretty much thrown in the towel on further bailouts, stimulus, and any further exceptions to PAYGO. No new spending will be considered unless money is cut from other programs to pay for it. PAYGO or no-go. Two weeks ago the President said he needed $50 billion in aid to states or up to 300,000 teachers would be laid off. That proposal is dead. Congress also stopped short of extending unemployment benefits this week, saying that they didn't have a way to pay for it. Sadly, Democrats are pushing back against their moderate partners and Republicans, pushing for more spending and more aid programs. T…

If that statement was meant for my own edification, I wouldn't have opened my mouth. Perhaps none of you on the forum, but some bleeding heart will immediately jump on it with both feet and ten good reasons why I shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. People, we live at a very precarious time. Someone recently described it as; "Sleepy Sheeple Peope time". Do I wonder why? Hell no! The following video is of a Texas lawman targeted for murder by a couple illegal aliens. Is he a good cop, a bad cop, I have no idea and at this time, really don't give a damn. What I can see is; with the video cam rolling; two illegal maniacs are trying to kill this American cop. Give …

Will the universities and non profit groups/government run the pharmaceutical not the private sector. That look at the dirty sloppy rich pharmaceutical companies .Most of the fruits have been picked it is getting harder and harder to come up with new drugs now for this reason.Also there is less and less incentive to come up with new drugs to fight infectious disease do to new strains ,mutations and so many new pathgans every year coming out.Where is incentive to come up with drug to fight TB or AIDS virus when in year or more it can mutate or have many strains of the TB or AIDS virus .Look at comman cold so many strains.With so many infectious disease out there and …

So how about those 11 russina spies who have been allegedly working for the russian intelligence agency. Apparently they have been undercover and being watched by the FBI for quite a few years, but the arrests were made after the recient "resetting" of the russia-US relations. Do you think they were actually spies, or have they been set up in a political subterfuge by either government to destroy potential realtions for a unkown third party for thier own unkown gains? http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/28/russian.spying.arrests/index.html?hpt=T2 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/29/femme-fatale-rounded-nest-alleged-russian-spies/

Reagan is often thought of as the Republican's top role model. Cenk Ugar(host of TheYoungTurks) has a clip on MSNBC comparing Reagan and Obama. He aims to see which is more conservative. ILg1-H6oNuM Thoughts?

The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today overturning an outright gun ban that appeared to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/eveningnews/main6627913.shtml Perhaps the most interesting thing about this decision, which was somewhat expected following a similar decision last year that only affected Washington, D.C., is that the vote was 5-4. Since a decision the other way would have resulted in immediate bans in many cities, it seems that a single individual just determined the outcome of the gun ownership issue in this country. Justice Breyer's dissent is an interesting walk through the history of the founding father's…

That's the interesting question posed by Joshua Keating at Foreign Policy today. The question refers to the recent arrest of Colorado construction worker Gary Faulkner, who was arrested last week in Pakistan on a weapons charge. Faulkner had apparently been planning to stalk and kill bin Laden. The article goes on to talk about "letters of marque and reprisal" (not issued since 1812), and Ron Paul's recent efforts to revive the concept in order to allow private militias to go hunt him down. The article makes an interesting point in saying that any group that planned such a activity while within the US could be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit m…

A must read, especially if you are ideologically predisposed to believing in confirmation bias. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/ Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them. Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for informat…

The Obama administration says it's going to file a lawsuit against Arizona over its new immigration law on the basis that only the Federal government can deal with matters of immigration. But the courts have said that states can enforce immigration law. Here are a number of appellate decisions that were not (for whatever reason) overturned by the Supreme Court. And in this 2005 Supreme Court decision, we find a ruling related to the questioning of an individual on his immigration status by a local law enforcement official: So why is the administration bringing this case, exactly? Could this be just a p…

President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan apparently sees value in limiting free speech. And some of the instances of her expressing this opinion were notably absent from documents submitted as part of her confirmation process. Specifically, a speech she gave in 1993 (while not employed by any administration) offering suggestions for how to eliminate pornography. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39034.html Porn is considered by many a dead subject, but it has not been that way for very long. The Bush administration was days away from launching a "war on porn" via the Ashcroft Justice Department in the fall of 2001. 9/11 shelved those …