Mickey

I am not sure what you mean by "poverty rates" and why that means that this or that program failed. Many such programs enable people to survive poverty. Besides, the measure of success of a program is not, for example, if the percentage of uninsured has remained the same despite the presence of the program, it is whether there would have been more uninsured if there were no such program. We are not counting widgets here. Its like drug abuse. Increased use of drugs lead to an increase in abuse which leads to an increase in funding for treatment centers. Drug abuse would be expected to continue to rise for the same reason it rose to start with. The additional treatment would just slow down the increase. You don't judge the value of the added treatment based on some stat as to the absolute number of drug users, you look at the treatment centers and see if they are helping more people than they did before. The median income for the lowest 5th, in terms of income, of Americans has risen from $10,662 in 1947 to $24,000 in 2001 in inflation adjusted dollars. Of course, during the same period the median income of the wealthiest 5th grew from $54,333 to $164,104. High School Graduation Rates moved from 6% in 1900 to 31% in 1930 to 72.5% in 2001. They actually peaked in the late 1960's and early 1970's which is before cocaine hit the streets big time. The college graduate rate (number per 100 HS grads) has gone from 23% in the 1930's to a high of 49% in 1999. It has dropped for two years in a row and is now 47%. Infant mortality has dropped from 14.7% in the 1920's to only 2.8% in 2001. There are plenty of stats that show some good news regarding the quality of people's lives and the blunting of the effects of poverty. In some cases you could give at least some credit to a government program, in others the applause goes to a vibrant economy. It is not a black and white issue. Not every government program has been an abject failure nor an unqualified success.

Not only was it not "vociferously" denied, much of it was not denied at all. Further, other sources have emerged, including her own testimony before the 9/11 comm. that confirmed factual allegations made by Clarke and others regarding her pre 9/11 actions. Dubious or not, the evidence we have is the evidence we have. I could simply refuse to have an opinon on whether she would be a good SoS or I could reach an opinion as best I can based on the information that is available. I don't think it will be a tragedy to have her at State but I also don't see her as making much progress with our on-the-side-lines allies either. The biggest challenge will be the Palestinian issue now that Arafat is dead. I have a hard time picturing her as a strong enough SoS to force Palestinians and Israelis to move off square one.

The military has their orders and their own rules. They will investigate that matter and if necessary there will be a trial where all the facts will hopefully come out. I will neither condemn nor condone this action until the facts are in. The soldier involved deserves the benefit of the doubt. The speed at which people are willing to jump to conclusions with out all the evidence and the degree to which they are willing to become so entrenched in their position at such an early stage is amazing.

I see no connection between these two events. Killing an unarmed man who is not a threat and has surrendered is wrong. Is it "as wrong as" killing innocent people, beheading, strapping on suicide bombs and all that insanity? Of course not. Where does that get you though? I don't think there is a national debate over whether or not we are different than terrorists. Of course we are. We are doing what we can to stop terrorists. We should also police our forces and no doubt we will. Until all the facts are out regarding that incident, it is premature to reach a judgment on just what happened. There is no need however to wait in judging what these "insurgents" did. Barbarity, pure and simple.

Frist is not a very good historian. Johnsons nomination of Abe Fortas was filibustered in 1968. Filibusters have been used and used and used by the Senate for many, many years. I see no reason to exempt nominations from filibusters. The President signs treaties, not congress. Even so, congressional approval is required for the treaty to be valid and such votes are subject to filibuster. Congress's power to ratify treaties is no different that its power to advice and consent to nominations. Originally, any single senator could filibuster whenever he wanted. There was no way to stop debate so a single senator could frustrate legislation, nominees and treties. That forced a great deal of moderation on law makers knowing that just one guy could stop a bill in its tracks. In 1917 they changed the Senate rules to permit cloture, cutting off debate, by two-thirds vote. In 1975 that was reduced to three-fifths. The nuclear option now threatened would end filibusters period, on all matters, not just nominations. The first cloture motion wouldn ned 60 votes, the second, only 57, the third 54 and the fourth, only 51. Since there is no limit to the number of cloture motions that can be made, there is nothing to stop all such motions from being made repeatedly until a simple majority is all that is needed. I think they do that 3 by 3, step by step thing to make it look as if they aren't elimenating filibusters all together. If that is not the case, why bother with the 3 by 3 baloney? Who do they think they are fooling? The framers could have easily expemted advice and consent votes from filibusters but they didn't. Listening to Frist's obfuscation, you would think that it is those seeking to end filibusters for all time that are the ones fighting to keep our constitutional heritage. Bull. If they change that cloture rule they will have fundamentally weakened one branch of government to the benefit of the executive branch. It might not be the Reichstag fire but it is too close to that for my comfort. Getting rid of the filibuster will be a mistake that is with us long after abortion disappears as an issue.

Why in the world do you think that JP is a "real NFL QB" ??? Even if he is good, it won't be for 2-3 years. Ben R. is the exception, not the rule when it comes to QB's. Besides, JP's injury has cost him tons of development time. This team's O-line is a major, major issue and that problem hasn't even begun to be addressed. Given how well TD's other high profile picks have done, I don't think JP is a lock to be a great or even good player. By the time he is ready, Fletcher and Spikes and Moulds and some other key players will be at the end of their contracts. We are staring another rebuilding phase square in the face.

By what standard have they "not worked"?

Frankly, I don't see unilateral or bi-lateral talks as the key to a solution of this problem. The questions for both NK and Iran are, A) why do they want nukes and B) is there something they want more? and C) is there another way to get what they want besides nukes? Beyond that there is a question of "what if?" What are we willing to do to prevent these nations from getting nuclear weapons? Are we willing to go to war with them? Are we willing to launch air strikes against facilities involved in their nuke program? Is living with a nuclear armed NK and/or Iran preferable to a world war? Neither candidate addressed these issues which I think are the real nuts and bolts of the issue. For Iran, I think they were scared to death when we invaded Iraq fearing that as another member of the "axis of evil" they were next. With that mind set, they were, intellligently I might add, all too eager to get their nukes up and running asap. Now that we are getting dragged down in Iraq, I don't think they see us as realistically prepared to invade them any time soon. I don't think they see their nuke program as essential for the time being. Still, having some nukes would pretty much end the threat of invasion from the United States. It is the same reason Castro wanted them. There are ways to give Iran some assurances against an invasion they might find worth delaying a nuke program for.

Unfortunately, no one is inviting me behind the scenes to see what is going on. All we have to judge them on is their public performance and the information from behind the scenes, loaded with salt, that we can get. The alternative is to assume that there are stunning achievments on her part that have been kept a secret. The information provided by Woodward has not been denied by the administration and in fact, the book was highly recommended by them at the party web site. Very little, if any, of the information from Clarke on Rice's pre 9/11 performance has even been denied let alone effectively denied. That doesn't mean that everything either has written is gospel truth. It is kind of like being on a jury. Unless you witnessed the crime yourself, you can't be 100% sure of the truth. You have to do the best you can with the evidence you have and then make the best judgment call you can under the circumstances.

Not surprising. The frequency with which they threaten to amend the constitution or alter some other set of fundamental rules is indicative of the much larger problem: power corrupts. This gang finds defeat so intolerable that when it can't win by the rules, it is willing to try and change the rules. Traditionally, redistricting is done every 10 years following the census cycle. That didn't set well with Delay and the Texas republicans. They violated tradition and instead forced a redistricting plan in a non-census year. They essentially gerrymandered their way into I don't know how many additional seats. If others were to follow that folly, you could have redistricting going on every year there is a change in control of a state house rather than once every 10 years based on the census. Republicans have threatened changing the rules of the Senate to emascualte the minority party. They call it the "nuclear option". Basically, if they don't get their way, they are willing to "go nuclear". They have threatened to tamper with the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court to insure they get the results they want with regard to the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act". That makes sense, huh? Mess with the fundamental balance of power just to win one lousy case. If that isn't exchanging expediency for principle, I don't know what is. Add in threatened constitutional amendments on gay marriage, abortion and whatever else is their latest cause (term limits? campaign funding?) and a clear picture emerges of a party willing to change the rules to win. It is not so much that they are overstepping constitutional limits, they are seeking to selectively vaporize them. That is of course unless you are talking about the constitutional right to own a rocket propelled grenade launcher. There are limits after all.

I take a more pragmatic approach. There are situations where government involvment is not only useless but worse, counterproductive. However, there are situations where government involvment is a necessity. Take air traffic control for example. Can you imagine trying to divide air space up by state lines? The Constitution is not a set of iron shackles. It just isn't that clearly defined. There is a lot of room for experimentation and choosing between alternative policies before you start bumping into constitutional prohibitions. Most policy decisions do not implicate the constitution but instead rise or fall based on their efficacy or lack thereof. Of course, sometimes even if they are effective they fall if a constituency with enough political clout sees it as goring it's ox. Can you imagine a surgeon making an important medical judgment based on some philosophy rather than on the basis of the health of the patient? Sure, there are extremes where limits have to be respected but within those limits, decisions should be made based on pragmatism, not philosophy or ideology.

Given the threat presented by the USSR, I can see why her expertise in that area would be so valuable???. She is a brilliant woman, no question about it but I don't think she has the expertise needed in the next four years. Moreover, she doesn't have any more credibility with foreign governments than Powell ultimately ended up with. Likely, she will have as little influence with the President on policy as Powell had. Cheney and Rumsfeld are driving that bus. Powell learned that the hard way. Leaders of other nations would be foolish to listen to anything she has to say if it in any way conflicts with what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Wolfowitz have to say. I think it is unfortunate that you chose to bring race into this discussion. What does that have to do with anything? Just because she is a black woman does not mean that I have to gush and giggle over her promotion does it? I think an objective assessment of her record and her expertise is what is called for, not a discussion of her race. We are at war and she has no military experience having never commanded troops in the field. She is an expert on the USSR, not the middle east and though you may not have noticed, there seems to be some trouble in that area of the world. Powell was frequently publicly embarassed by being trumped on foreign policy by Cheney and company. I don't see that changing with such a weak appointment. She has been loyal but not effective. Books by Clarke, Woodward and others pretty much demonstrate that behind the scenes, she is a light weight in this administration.

I'm not sure who she is talking about. I have argued for democrats here plenty of times and I don't think that I have ever once mentioned Kofi freaking whats his name. I am not sure I really agree with her on the "getting back the working man" thing. Democrats are never going to be the anti-gay, anti-abortion party. I don't care how many elections they lose. If that is what they have to do to get the working man back rather than to support the economic policies that benefit them the most then forget it. Instead, they should go after the moderate republicans who, but for the tax the rich crap too many democrats love, would vote for democrats. There are plenty of republicans who cringe at the mixing of politics and religion, gay baiting and the like. However, given the democratic stance on taxes, they hold their noses and vote Republican. Arlen Specter is learning what it is like to even hint at being something other than an anti-choice zealot. If Rudy runs he will learn what McCain learned the hard way, stand in the way of the evangelicals and you will pay. Republicans long ago realized that they were going to be a minority for a long time if they didn't go after marginal democrats. They went after them and got enough of them to win plenty of elections. Democrats have to do the same, enlarge the party by going after marginal Republicans. Democrats will never be able to outflank the Republicans on divisive issues like gay rights and abortion. No matter how far to the right they move, their opponents will take another step to the right themselves. Democrats could end their opposition to so-called partial birth abortion but it wouldn't win them hardly a single voter. Republicans will just go after abortion with another piece of legislation. One thing there has never been is a shortage of legislative initiatives designed to chip away at abortion. They will just pull another one out of the hopper. Again, democrats will never be able to outflank the right on those kinds of issues, never. Economically however, how hard is it to be for any and every tax cut that comes down the pipe? That is the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do. It requires no courage whatsoever. Yeah, it could turn the awful deficits we have now into something even worse but you know, the voters haven't ever made any politician pay a price at the ballot box for ballooning a deficit in part through an ill advised tax cut. Democrats could do this with impunity and thereby attract plenty of marginal republicans.

Brilliant analysis. You are, however, pretty much proving the point that it isn't principle, it is the result that matters. Any analysis or rule of construction that permits abortion is no good. Any analysis or rule of construction that creates a second amendment right without limit is okay. If that means a narrow construction for one right, good. If that means a broad interpretation of another, no problem. I'll ask again, should Judges narrowly construe the individual rights found in the Constitution? It is a simple question.

I don't at all accept your premise that Kerry is "weak on defense" but I know better than to argue it with you. Politics by platitude: "tax and spend", "weak on defense", "activist judges", "big goverment", "liberal elite", etc, etc. Frankly, I think it is a littel childish to be talking about national security in such vague and abstract terms as "strong" or "weak". It is a tiny bit more complicated than that. If we must use such terms, I prefer "smart" defense to "stupid" defense. I think Iran would have been willing to make more concessions and concrete ones at that under President Kerry. First of all, they would have less of a reason to worry about a pre-emptive strike from the United States, the primary reason they would need a nuclear arsenal. About the only thing nukes do for a country with respect to its relations with other nuclear nations is to offer it protection against a first strike. That is Cold War Doctrine Basics 101. You shoot them, they shoot you and they can because they have nukes too. Now, which leader would be more likely to lead a pre-emptive attack on Iran? Bush, easily. If you are the defense minister for Iran, how do you counter that threat? Nukes baby, nukes. That's how. Of course, if there is no threat of such an attack, then if you are Iran you can afford to negotiate, to delay, to trade getting nukes today for some tangible benefit now. You can always get nukes tommorow anyway. I won't even get into Kerry actually having some credibility internationally. I know the right wants to down play it or treat it like it isn't a big deal but the fact is, the rest of the world sees Bush as an idiot/liar because of the whole WMD debacle. Whether or not they are justified in that belief is beside the point entirely. Fact is, that is the international verdict and as such, has an impact on diplomacy. I will skip getting into this issue any deeper because I know you totally excuse the President for screwing that up royally so there really is no point. You'll say "they are wrong for blaming him on that" and I'll say "but they do" and then you'll just say "who cares? they don't matter."

Is my assessment that Iran's "committment" is of little value amounting to nothing more than a public "pledge" not accurate? Or is the actual issue of no concern to you? Beyond taking shots at me because I see no reason to be impressed with a public promise by Iran of all nations, do you have anything substantive to add to this debate?

She would whup him. He would have to run so far away from his record as a republican shill that it would be pathetic.

along with three other Secretaries (Energy, Education and Agriculture). Reportedly Powell stated that he had little choice in the matter given that he had lost every scrap of dignity he had outside of the US given the WMD speech he gave to the UN. Not.

So your standard is "no physiological function"??? How about wings on a chicken? Here is an easy view of homosexuality as playing a role in enhancing the survival of the species: Competition among males for females can become deadly and result in a reduction in the number of males thereby decreasing the available hunters, gatherers and workers toiling to improve the suvival of the group/tribe. Homosexuals would not be competing for females yet would be available to help in completing all other essential tasks from hunting to defending against human and animal predators. Adults procreating, as any modern day parents will tell you, have very little free time given the rigors of raising their young. Non-procreative adults would not have their time, time that could be spent working for the benefit of the group, dominated by child rearing activities. Homosexuals would be non-procreative and therefore be able to perform the work others have no time for or to help in child rearing. It could well be argued that groups of humans or hominids with a strain of homosexuality that persists without growing beyond a certain point would have a survival advantage over groups without that trait. As for the "design" of body parts, A hammer might be designed to pound in nails but it works just as well knocking a hole through a wall if that is what you need. Not as good as a drill but it'll work. Heterosexuals have anal sex, does that mean therefore that heterosexuality is a "disease"? Your comparison to alcoholism is way off. Some people are more likely to develop a physical addiction to alcohol than others. Two people can drink the same amount but one becomes addicted and the other does not. That makes alcoholism a disease. Lastly, everything that is not normal, is not wrong or the product of a disease. An athlete who can run the 40 in under 4.4 is not normal, but we don't call it "abnormal" though technically it is because "abnormal" has a negative connotation. Instead, we would call this ability "exceptional" which is just a positive way of saying "not normal". All you are doing by selecting those kinds of phrases is expressing your opinions by making a value judgment that homosexuality is bad and therefore, rather than being simply unusual, it is abnormal. That is fine, just don't pretend that there is some scientific basis to it with some prattle about the design of the anus.

Well, since bashing was not your goal, you might have thought a little bit more before titling the thread "....would this have happened had Kerry won?" Anyway, all they did was "pledge" that they wouldn't use the gook (its a technical term) for weapons. They did invite the IAEA to do some sort of inspection at some future date. However, it is those same kind of inspections that failed to discover the program we now they had in full swing so.....

...and because Bush won there are plenty ready to spin it into a great victory of gunboat diplomacy. Your point?

The Bill of Rights are actually amendments to the Constitution so when the President says he wants to strictly interpret the Constitution, that includes individual rights. If he meant to broadly construe part of the document and narrowly construe others, he could have said that. He didn't. I am simply taking him at his word. You will have to explain to me how a broad interpretation of, for example, the freedom of speech, would be a "threat to liberty"? It would seem to me that a broad interpretation of the freedom of speech would protect us against an "unrestrained" government whereas a narrow interpretation of the scope of that freedom would expand the government's power to limit our speech and consequently our freedoms. Should judges broadly or narrowly construe the individual rights found in the Constitution?

"Strict construction" is a legal concept well known and used in construing documents from contracts to constitutions. It means to stick to the exact words and go no further. There are times when the law favors a broad interpretation of words in documents and times when it favors a narrow interpretation. "Broad" is considered the opposite of "strict". I am on firm legal ground here that a "strict construction" is the same as a narrow interpretation or construction. If by using the term "strict" the President actually meant the opposite of the widely known and accepted definition of the term supported by a couple hundred years of legal precedent, he might have made that clear. Statutes for example are often passed to create an exception to common law. In NY for example, you can't get damages for the economic losses, ie lost wages, of the deceased in a wrongful death case under common law. To correct this problem, the legislature passed a wrongful death statute providing for an award of lost wages to the heirs of the deceased who depended on the financial support of the deceased. The right to those damages did not exist at common law, it was a new right carved out by the legislators. As such, the statute was said to be "in derogation of common law" and therefore was "to be strictly construed". That simply meant that only the economic losses mentioned spefically in the statute were recoverable, the courts couldn't read into the statute additional econmic losses even though they would be in the spirit of the law though not the letter. "Strict" and "narrow" are interchangeable when it comes to rules of construction, of interpreting the law. Sometimes the law favors a broad construction of a statute. In NY, we have a scoffolding act that makes owners and contractors responsible to provide a safe place to work especially when the work is being performed at a height. Because of the public policy goals of the legislature in passing this act and the danger that its very purpose would be lost if it were too narrowly construed, the rule of construction for the scaffolding act is that it should be construed broadly. I see no reason for the individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be strictly or narrowly construed. Quite the opposite. I think the rule of construction should be that those rights should be broadly construed. That is what leads to more freedom, not less. Every law dictionary I could find backs me up on this, that "strict" construction and "narrow" construction are the same thing. If the President is for a broad construction of individual rights and a narrow construction of other parts, he should make that clear. My belief is that "strict construction" is a catch phrase that garners lots of applause from those who can't be bothered with an issue that is far too complex to be so simply stated. When it comes down to it, I think the right favors whatever reasoning will result in the laws and policies they favor passing constitutional muster. If that means a narrow interpretation of the right to privacy, so be it. If that means a broad interpretation of the second amendment, so be it. It is politics dressed up as principle.

This is the man who was to build a winner here in Buffalo and any doubt there was that he has failed spectacularly was removed last night. To anyone who would defend Donohoe: watch a tape of last night's game. The team that he has built from the coaches to the players was exposed as a joke, a laughing stock on national television. Competetive? We didn't belong on the same field with that team. Donahoe has had plenty of time to build a half way decent team and he has failed. Now we are supposed to start from scratch again and wait another 2-3 years? Bye-bye TD.

>crickets<