Mickey

They say "pop" in Geneva.

Shucks, that makes sense. Clearly you have more to fear safety-wise than a former President and current Senator what with nutcases shooting at Presidents being such an unheard of event. I guess that if one favors any type of gun regulation, that means you should do the "right thing" and disarm the police, the FBI, the ATF and all branches of the military because otherwise you are a hypocrite. There are good reasons to view gun regulations with a very critical eye and certainly many reasons to have a dim view of the Clintons but this isn't one of them.

I think we are finally seeing a demonstration of what the phrase "lame duck" means if even on just a small scale. At the same time, Republicans in the Senate are only too happy to help the duck out on the wiretapping and such. So he isn't that lame...yet.

Congratultions Dad. Your first?

It is actually even more puzzling than that. As explained in an article in Slate by William Saletan (Saletan), the law states: "...life begins at the time of conception," and "...each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization." But it also states: "Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing." Here is the kicker, "conventional" testing can't determine whether fertilization has occurred until certain hormones are released at implantation which is usually 5-7 days after fertilization. Thus, a fertilized egg can be treated with a "contraceptive measure, drug or chemical" as long as it is done less than 5-7 days after fertilization. Accordingly, a fertilized egg can be elimenated through the ingestion of drug or chemical as long as it is done during that mystery time period even though killing a fertilized egg is "murder". That means the law declares as murder that which it specifically allows. It permits what it calls murder under certain conditions but not under others. Those conditions are dependent on the technology involved with "conventional testing". So that is the razors edge between murder that gets you jail time and murder that doesn't. As Saletan points out, the reason for this is to give a backdoor out to rape vicitms. Pro-lifers couldn't allow an overt exception for rape and incest and be consistent in their point that all abortions are murders. This provides such an exception for women in such terrible circumstances but hides it in this convoluted way involving conventional testing and such. It clears the way for a rape victim to to take an abortion pill the "morning after". As much as they are trying to hide that inconsistency though, its is right there. As Saletan puts it: "Welcome to [the] world of ambiguity, pro-lifers. Out of compassion for women in tragic but medically non-threatening circumstances, you agree that unborn life, up to a certain stage of development, may be aborted. Now we're just quibbling over the details."

It will get that far. The law be challenged almost immediately, just as soon as a plaintiff can be found by whatever groups funds the legal challenge. It will be held unconstitutional pursuant to Roe and its progeny (yes, the abortion decision has progeny, how is that for irony?). Then the state of SD will appeal and no matter which side wins, the loser will appeal to the next highest court and so on until it reaches the Supremes. The only way they dodge it is if they decline to hear it which means the Circuit Ct. opinion becomes final on that case. I have to beleive that the Cir. Ct. opinion at that time will be to invalidate the law since a Cir. Ct. doesn't have the power to overturn a Supreme Ct. precedent like Roe. Thus, a refusal to hear the case by the SCOTUS would be tantamount to a reaffirmation of Roe. I don't see this SCT doing that. I think they would have to take it. Me prediction is that they will hear the case and invalidate the statute but find a convoluted basis for doing so that is tangential, unrelated to the core issues. Thus, they will dispose of the case for un-Roe reasons so that the law is out but Roe not strengthened. The basic message will be to tell SD that Roe will be disposed of but in the way the supremes want it done, not in the was SD wants it done. Roberts and Alito will not want to be remembered as being political judges appointed to overturn a specific precedent to achieve the overarching political goal of one party involving the dominant social issue of the day. They certainly are not going to want to be remembered as having expanded the scope and power of the government at the expense of individuals, non-fetal ones anyway. They want to overturn it without overturning it so they can credibly argue that they were not nominated just to kill Roe and in fact, did not do so. Mavericks defying prediction is what they will want to be known as. SD's approach, which I credit as at least being honest and straightforward about the whole thing, is going to by Kryptonite for these Super Supremes.

Nice to see you are still around olivier. What are the French up to lately?

What are the "above operations"? Full military operations? What does that mean? I still don't understand precisely what we must achieve before we can leave and how it will be measured. If you are saying we can leave when the Iraqi's can do what we haven't been able to do, pacify the country, then I don't think we are ever leaving. I am not so sure that the make-up of the insurgency is such an unknown: Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division said in November 2003, “I want to underscore that most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not foreign forces.” Swannack said that only a small number of the 500 - 600 insurgents his forces had captured were non-Iraqi. Gen. John Abizaid, overall commander of U.S.forces in the Middle East region has said "I am confident that there is no flood of foreign fighters coming in [to Iraq]." Major General Joseph Taluto has said "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the US were Iraqis. After the battle for Fallouja in November 2004, of the 1,000 or so enemy captured, only 15 were foreign. At the time, it was reported that "American commanders said their best estimates of the proportion of foreigners among their enemies is about 5%." And further, "The overwhelming majority of insurgents, several senior commanders said, are drawn from the tens of thousands of former government employees..." As of July 2004, of the 17,700 security risks which had been detained by coalition forces over the previous year, only 400 or 2%, were foreign. At about the same time, in Ramadi, where Marines had fended off coordinated attacks by hundreds of insurgents, the fighters "are all locals," said Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment. "There are very few foreign fighters." Last January, General Swannak said "I think there are some criminal attacks out there on soft targets. But the majority of targets directed against us, coalition forces and probably Iraqis who support coalition efforts, are done by former regime elements still today." Swannak has also said "We are not fighting foreign fighters coming across the border in significant numbers, we are fighting mostly former regime locals." No doubt there is a foreign element in Iraq but it doesn't appear that they have played a large role in the insurgency we have been unable, thus far, to stop.

No, no, no, no, no. Trust me on this one. There are bad guys, you know, evildoers. Then on the other side there are good guys, I call them "gooddoers". We need to help the gooddoers do good by doing in the evildoers who are doing evil so they can't do any more evil. Simple, see?

...and what have you observed my son?

In the case of Wacka vs. Forces of Reason, 365 US 442 (2003), Justice Souter, writing for the majority, held that "There is no specific right to 'not to be shot in the face during a quail hunt' however, it has long been considered an inalienable right accept in cases of the extremely stupid where it is thought to be an act of mercy."

How do you know I don't think AQ is involved? Define "involved"? Do you mean "responsible for"? Do you think that if there were no AQ in Iraq, zero, that there would be no violence, no insurgency? Here is a hint: The reason that the only way Iraq could be governed was by a murderous nutcase was because Iraq, given its ethnic and religious tensions could only be governed by a murderous nut case. Iraq has a history long before this war which predates AQ by a long shot. It has been a problem and would be a problem with or without AQ. Define for me precisely what needs to be achieved in Iraq before we can withdraw and how those achievements will be measured. How long will we stay if those goals are not met before we admit failure and leave? 2 years? 5 years? 25 years?

This is actually a controversial action within the pro-life movement. Many favor a piece meal approach leading to Roe withering on the vine so that the SCOTUS doesn't have to directly overrule a clear precedent, one that has been reaffirmed. Its dicey asking the court to do that, they might balk, even one as conservative as this one. On top of that, this one has criminal charges for doctors and no exception for the life or health of the mother. The lack of a life and health exception could be fatal leading to, essentially, another reaffirmation of Roe. That would make it even harder for the court to overrule Roe. That would require them to overrule it after they reaffirm it. Before you celebrate this law being enacted you might want to check and see if Planned Parenthood is celebrating with you. The easiest law to defeat would be one with criminal charges for both mother and doctor and no exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother. This law has half of those features. Wouldn't that be ironic? South Dakota jumps the gun on an anti-abortion law that leads ultimately to Roe being dug in just a little deeper.

I think your real argument is that it is not covered as part of the constitutional right to privacy thus it is a valid target for local and state law. If it is a constitutional right, it is not a valid target for local or state law. States rights is not the issue, the constitutional right to privacy, whether there is one and what it covers is the issue. This particular law makes it a crime, a doctor can go to jail for 5 years for performing one and it makes no exceptions for rape or incest. It does if it is necessary to save the life of the mother but given that the doctor goes to jail if she is wrong when she makes that judgment, I don't see many doctors performing abortions for that reason, too risky. That "exception" given the punishment, is no exception at all. Getting back to the notion that letting states decide this because you "can have it every way you want" is a good way to go, I think that reasoning is short sighted. If fails to appreciate that the right to life movement is not going to be happy with abortions being available in other states. They will certainly press for a federal ban and if you can pass a federal ban on "partial birth" abortions, why not all abortions? What, in the absence of Roe, would prevent that? The states rights, let them all decided democratically, etc, justification is a load of bull in my opinion. States rights won't matter a bit when they try to stop abortions in California, NY, Mass and Ill. Further, the way the law is now, we can all have it the "way we want". You can't stop someone from having one and they can't make you have one. I don't see why its a bad thing for the federal government to decide this for all individuals but it is okay for a state government to decide this for all individuals. If deciding the way we want is such a great goal, then let people decide for themeselves. Peace.

I have posted about these nut cases before so I am familiar with their lunacy. Even so, I couldn't even guess, as I read the article, what in the world their beef was with fallen soldiers and their funerals. Half way through, the article explained that the US harbors homosexuals thus it is an evil nation and the thus it follows, to their diseased minds, that the US is justly being punished for its gay loving ways when their soldiers are killed. They aren't protesting, they are celebrating the death of American soldiers which they believe is His will being done. I think real christians and atheists probably have more in common than these freaks have with true christians. No one should smear other christians with the lunacy of these people. What it does highlight though is the kind of issues relgion in the public square can lead to. Can you imagine these people praying in public schools or the kind of display they might want to see in the Town Square? Certainly, there would be a major difference between what they would pray or display and what mainstream christians would but how would you determine that? A committee to determine acceptable prayers or acceptable displays? They are an extreme, even an absurd one but the point is uavoidable, some religious expressions and displays in certain places, are problematic. Some calls, like this group, would be easy ones but it isn't hard to imagine closer calls that would be far more difficult to make. That is why we sometimes see the remedy of just barring all religious displays in the public realm. Sure, it is extreme and seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater. No question there. Still, there is a reason for it, there is logic behind it. It saves us from having to have a committee essentially determining acceptable from nonacceptable religious displays on public grounds. Imperfect solution though it may be, it is not the product of a war on christianity as so often portrayed any more than being against these people celebrating the deaths of soldiers at their funerals would be anti-christian.

I think that despite its actual words, the intention is to enshrine their version of christianity into law, an opinion to which I am entitled. You pointed out that the specific language stops short of that, my repsonse was to use an example of the type of coded language we've seen from the far right before. Were I you, I would have added one or two just for effect but I refrained to avoid a pissing match with you. Your knee-jerk reaction was to go after me rather than simply point out that in fact this isn't an example of coded language if that is in fact what you believe. This is why so many see you as such a hypocrite. Go over our posts on this and see who decided to overreact and go personal first.

It is just ridiculous. As if calling the violence in Iraq something other than "civil war" would change reality. Violence at a level which makes the government unable to govern, to deliver the basics, is the issue. No government is going to survive for long that can't keep the lights on, the hospitals open and enough peace to enable society to function. Whether that violence is the product of an unacknowledged civil war or the insurgency or whatever, the result for us is the same, we stay the course. Understanding the precise causes and all is vital to figuring out ways to improve the situation but in the grand scheme, uncontrolled violence is what is doing us in. Its like all that mad looting that happened in the early days. Only it's violence instead of theft. Keeping the peace is the most basic of all basic governmental functions, without it you do not have a functioning government. Liberal? Republicans and some conservatives are saying the same thing.

It is not a civil war, Iraq has just fallen victim to an unusually lethal epidemic of domestic disturbances which includes death squads, exploding mosques and armed rival factions killing each other. I think everyone here who thinks Iraq is going just swell should move there and set up house outside the greenzone from which they can send out daily posts telling us of the paradise we have built that the media ignores.

If the process will work with poster dung, TBD will be the new OPEC. Serisously, the article doesn't show how much energy went in and how much they produced which is always the problem with synthetic fuels. The raw material is certainly abundant enough. Imagine breeding cattle, not for meat or dairy production but for crap production. I can hear the auctioneers now, "why this here calf when fully grown will produce enough sh#t to fill a silo every week". Generating the heat and pressure to squeeze that gasoline out without using more energy than you are producing has to be the hard part. Gotta love the Japanese. Great TV's, solid cars and now this.

Our collective future isn't the only thing in the world worth discussing in my view. To someone who needs one, its probably a lot more important than whether we invade North Korea or Iran next.

Right, and "culture of life" doesn't mean anti-abortion.

Kentucky weighs in with a survey asking legislators to declare whether or not they have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. Sort of an unofficial religious litmus test. Christian Litmus Test? I think South Dakota and Mississippi are trying to pass legislation outlawing abortion. Hmmm.......could it be that some folks think that the nominations of Alito and Roberts, you know the guys whose views on such matters are supposedly a mystery, give these measures a chance of surviving constitutional challenges? Naaaaaaa.

I love the part about "we the majority". It is a declaration that christianity is the majority religion or close enough. I'm not sure what happens if, in the future, Zoroastrians become the majority religion in the state. Maybe they should keep a running tote board?

Christianity: Official Religion of The State Missouri It was only a matter of time. "State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion 12:28 AM CST on Friday, March 3, 2006 By John Mills, News 4 Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion. House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature. Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday. Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution. The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs. The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition." State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone. KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond. "

This kind of thing, bad though it is, pales in comparison to what he and Casino Jack managed in Saipan and the NMI. That stuff is just plain sickening.