Campy

Now that is funny - and probably accurate too!

He better get movin' if he wants to beat Jesse.

If that's the case, he has the whole politician-thingy figured out!

Dang politicians will say anything to get elected!

I only got as far as this post in the thread so forgive me if it has been already mentioned, but honestly FFS, I couldn't disagree more. I'm 6'2" and if I'm in the company of a group of people that are no taller than say, 5'5", I would expect to be called the "tall man." If I'm the only person of European descent in a Mexican or Chinese restaurant, I wouldn't care if the hostess told the waiter that "a new customer; the Anglo" was just seated in his section. The term "black girl" was probably used because "black-haired girl" would have applied to too many others to make it a definitive description. IMO, anyone being upset about this (not racism but identifying this incident as racism) really needs to find a bigger issue to champion, and in this day and age, there's no shortage of those...

Great, great post. I do think the impediments that are faced in providing us with whatever we feel is important is very worthwhile, especially if the alternative is hypocritically trampling upon the same or similar things in people whose only crime is that they weren't born American. I have a real problem with that. I'm not naive enough to believe that it hasn't happened in the past, that it doesn't happen now, or that it won't happen in the future, but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate it based upon the fact it's my countrymen doing the trampling.

Just picking a nit or two, but I do disagree with your interpretation of the role of government - which may explain why I hold some of the opinions that I do. I define government thusly: An organization of people responsible for- 1. Physical Security/Defense - maintain a standing military and police force to enforce laws and defend from invasion. 2. Collective Goods & Services - provide things that is impractical for a sole citizen to provide such as roads, sewers, and libraries. 3. Economic Stability - Not full-blown socialism mind you but monitor the economy, and when it's required, regulate the growth or slowing of economy eg, rasing/lowering interest rates. 4. Conflict Resolution - Since individual disagreements are inevitable, a mechanism to resolve the issue peaceably. IMO, everything beyond that is just political dogma. Regardless of the political leanings, that dogma generally leads to what I call the "7 year-old boy syndrome" in that 2 boys of that age tend to resolve an issue by punching each other until one of them gives up. Then the kid who "won" has to prepare himself for the eventual payback and revenge. Around and around they go in a cirlce and eventually, nobody really wins, they both lose.

If they are being detained as POWs shouldn't they be treated as POWs under the Geneva Convention? If they are not POWs, is it not illegal for the US government to hold them and deny due process? Afterall, the Supreme Court has opined that the right to due process does indeed extend to any person, citizen or otherwise, who is detained by the government provided he is not a prisoner of war. IMO there's a glaring inconsistency going on there, and I don't see how it can be justified under the law of the land.

I'm just curious, what makes you say fillibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional?

Amen to that. This issue swings both ways, and like most issues, the "for" or "against" is based more upon major/minority and not some grand political ideology.

I've read it, but I don't believe that all of the people who are detained there were members of an unorganized force that the Convention claims are exempt from the protections provided within it. In any event, as a taxpayer, I don't take issue with the gov't buying Quarans for Muslim detainees, and that's where I (think I) differ from some others here who seem to make it out to be a much more charitable act that it really is.

Now that's something that you and I agree on.

Dunno' about the world's reaction, but I imagine it would be pretty harsh. The media's reaction is an easy call: "After the break, more on the Michael Jackson trial..."

Yes, it is.

Man, that makes for a difficult fight. You're in my thoughts and prayers Fergy.

According to whom, the majority of the planet or the White House Counsel's opine? I perceive them to be "people whose liberty has been detained" and that "all the persons who have been deprived of their liberty or whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to such conflict, as well as those deprived of their liberty or whose liberty is restricted after the conflict for the same reasons, shall enjoy the protection of Articles 5 and 6 until the end of such deprivation or restriction of liberty.." As the signatory of the Geneva Convention, the United States has agreed that "in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity." Regardless, it's a pretty sad time when the US of frickin' A chooses to not meet minimal humanitarian standards.

Article 5, provision 1(d) of the Geneva Convention requires they be allowed to freely practice their religion. To practice my religion I need a Bible, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to let them have their Quaran.

Couldn't resist a shot at Carter eh? General Herrera started that process long before Carter arranged for control to be finally turned over in '99. He put Panama in severe debt by overspending on public works projects which granted, made him very popluar with Panamanians, but they (the Panamanian gov't) weren't exactly rolling in money.

The French were to build it orignally but sold the rights to the US after something like 22K people died building it. The problem was that it wasn't France's to sell, it was Columbia's. In sweeps the US to "assist" the junta rebels against Columbia in much the same manner we would later "assist" General Diem in Vietnam. We then required the newly-created Panama to deed us the land rights around the canal. We made a fortune on fees, but the real goal was to allow the Navy to deploy any vessel on either coast to either the Atlantic or Pacific because imperialism has always required control of the seas.

Sorry. Your analogies just don't cut it. Excessive noise and pollution infringes upon others' rights - that whole "pursuit of happiness" thingy. In other words, it's easier to not make noise than it is to ignore noise. It's easier to not pollute than it is to not get sick living at Love Canal... Lastly, the part where I said there's no such thing as judicial activism pretty much addresses the (non)issue of judicial activism. But go ahead with your talking points, I'm listening. Really.

As I said in the same sentence, in addition to aid, if they are taught skills it would certainly help. Like Israel? It's not like it can't be done. The UK attempted to establish a profitable colony there but their efforts were repelled and Hawaii was still a sovereign nation, one which prohibited foreigners (including the English) from owning land. That doesn't sound like the usual traits of an English colony to me, but that's just me. The Hawaiin monarch (I can't recall her name) tried to raise tariffs on exports, especially sugar, and was subsequently toppled at the request of American business. That "investment" certainly worked out to be lucrative for the US but let's not call it an "investment." Let's call it what it was, an unprovoked imperialistic military action against an independent sovereign nation executed to exploit the resources of the same -Which was pretty much my point before I had to stop and give history lessons.

I was commenting on the "activist judiciary" rant that has become the con buzzword. There is no abuse, they are doing what they're Constitutionally required to do. I'll type slowly so you can follow along, 'kay? Two parties have a dispute and are unable to settle it between them. They go to court and present their side of the issue, and, in the case of the Supreme Court, the Justices hear the arguments made and then look for applicable law in rendering their judgment. In the event that a specific law hadn't been passed, or if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution, the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights. Lower courts will then use the Supreme Court's opinion as guidance in addressing future cases because of (drumroll please) precedent. If you find that to be disturbing, perhaps you should reconcile that you live in a country in which her citizens are entitled to certain rights, although it really does sound like you'd prefer a system whereby the government is even MORE involved in your life than it is now, telling you right and wrong, and what you can and cannot do. Personally, I wouldn't like the government to be anymore involved in my life than it already is. In fact, I'd prefer it if the government would just kinda' back off, but that's just me, I'm a believer in individual freedom and rights, but that's just me. You mention abortion. If you don't want one, don't get one. But don't try to force your beliefs on that issue on others.

I guess on the plus side, a nuclear war might help stem the flow of outsourced jobs to India

Great idea. Let's encourage two nuclear armed nations to attack each other.

Giving them aid and teaching them skill will make them self-sufficient, not denying them of all aid. That will only make the situation worse. Sub-Saharan Africa is a case-in-point to demonstrate what I'm talking about. Hawaii wasn't always a state. In fact, it was a soveign nation before the US ordered the Marines to take it over at the request of American business. In Panama, we made a token payment and knocked the Columbians back (Panama had been part of Columbia for years) so we could install a puppet government. Panama was essentially cut in half as the canal area was US territory until recently.