And I Swear....

I've been trying to pay attention to Alberto Gonzales in front of the Senate Judiciary committee today but one thing in particular caught my attention right off the bat...THEY DIDN'T SWEAR HIM IN!
Yo, What the hell? How can someone, let alone the nation's top law enforcement official, who's coming before a Senate committee for oversight hearings on the Bush administration's possible law breaking, not be sworn in at the start of his testimony?

Are we a nation of laws? Or are we simply a nation of compromises and conveniences?

Final Thoughts on tonight's SOTU

Why isn’t there a red carpet for the State of the Union? Is it because it falls right in the middle of awards season? (Props to Brokeback, by the way. Great film. Not as good as everyone’s sweating it to be, but still, very good.)

But back to my point. I mean, I know the President and most of the members of Congress can’t dress with even the smallest sense of style, but c’mon, something needs to liven up this show. A little Joan and Melissa Rivers talking trash about what everyone’s wearing and who they brought to the big show? That’d be awesome.

Democratic Response?

I know the response is always a little blah after the pomp of the State of the Union. My friend Kris had a great idea to make it more lively. Have the damn thing in front of an audience. I'd suggest a highly partisan audience and then maybe the Dems wouldn't feel like they have to put up such a centrist pussy!

I'm really disappointed with Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. I know Virigina is for haters but my friend Tom points out, he probably doesn't really hate gays, he just pretends he does to get elected. I think that's worse.

He just said something about "the light of liberty shining on all Americans" But just not the gay Americans who want to get married, right?

"Service is a better way to a new national politics" Well, I agree with that.

But what was the deal with his eyebrow all speech?

History's written in courage?

I thought it was written in prose. Perhaps in Times New Roman, depending on what font you like.

"We will renew the defining commitments of this land."

Can someone please tell me what the hell this line means? The entire ending stanza of his speech tonight was meandering. Is this some secret conservative code for 21st century manifest destiny? Or does this have to do with no gay marriages?

And what the hell up with the autograph hounds inside the chamber? And Democrats too! "Mr. President, can I have your autograph?"

I wonder if they know something we don't, like maybe his impeachment on the warrantless wiretapping is on the way and he won't make it to his next SOTU?

Helping America's Youth Initiative

Damn, FLOTUS Laura Bush is mad popular!

I guess someone has to do something with all the kids our government has failed to educate or prepare for the future. I mean, if we've cut taxes and can't afford to fund our public schools anymore, we're going to have to have mentors to pick up the slack.

Why didn't we just think of this before? Of wait, we did. It was called an apprenticeship.

Hmm, is indentured servitude up next? Then what? Serfdom?

No Child Left in School

PB (that's President Bush) says that No Child Left Behind has raised test scores. Oh really?

I wonder if that's because most poor students (particularly students of color, but white kids too) never make it all the way through high school?

Maybe that's why PB can get away with skewing statistics, without a decent education, who can catch him?

Like when he said drug use among youth is down 19%, it's because it's gone down from 11% to 9% of youth. Or something like that, I don't have the specific numbers in front of me. But what I do know is that drug use didn't go down from 20% to 1% of American youth.

Why doesn't he get more specific about what drugs are down, among what ages and give some of the raw data that his stats are extrapolated from?

No OBGYNs for you!

So the Prez wants insurance reform so 15,000 counties without OBGYNs can have them.

Doesn't he know that at least some OBGYNs preform abortions?

I mean, I know most medical schools won't teach you how to do them (at least without some student activist prodding) but still, 15,000 more baby doctors has got to mean at least a few more dead babies. (Relax, you know I mean fetuses.)

Hey, by the way, what's the plural of fetus? Is it feti?

Trade and Immigration

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again...

How can we have the free movement of goods and services without the free movement of people to accompany them?

Pass the Line Item Veto

Why did only half the Congress clap for this?

This is something partisans like when it's their guy in the Oval Office. I hate people that can't view things independent of their immediate political desires.

Bully Bush

"We will not sit back and wait to get hit again."

Do you get the feeling Bush was a little bit of a bully, maybe to his younger siblings, when he was growing up? Like, "Why won't you fight back when I pick on you? Hehehehe!"

To the Citizens of Iran...

WOW! We want to be the closest of friends with Iran? What happened to the Axis of Evil?

But I like Iran, really, I do. I think their youth are some of the most pro-American people in the entire Middle East. I love how the citizens of countries we pander to, (say, Saudi Arabia) hate us, while the citizens of countries whose governments hate us, love all things culturally American.

Let's hope the People of Iran heard the POTUS tonight and we'll all be friends before we blow each other up.

I hate DLC centrists!

What is Harold Ford Jr. doing sitting next to Sen. Joe Lieberman?

A Fallen Soldier

Why this guy's family and not the families of the 2,000+ other dead American soldiers?

I won't even dog him for the easy applause line one gets for pointing out the sacrafice families make. It's easy but everyone does it!

We are winning

Is something true, if you keep saying it?

Our Values?

"We'll signal to the world that we no longer believe in our own values"

Like what? The value that our government can't spy on us without a warrant reviewed by an independent judge?

Under POTUS Bush, we have no values, except GOP victories at all cost, ideology, values and traditional beliefs, like a limited government, be damned!

Respect for one another?

"... and I will do my part." Bullshit.

Who the hell does this guy think he's kidding? He's won two elections at least (I don't follow Texas politics) by playing to the voters worst fears. But wait, I forgot, he's a uniter not a divider.

State of Deez Nuts!

So I'm watching the State of the Union address. I'm going to try to write questions as I edit the SSDP Student Organizing Manual for homework. I know I shouldn't do my homework in front of the TV but what the hell.

Here's my first question...

Why did Brian Williams say "there's a lot of competition out there" for the television viewing audience? WHAT COMPETITION? Every friggin' network is showing the same damn thing tonight. (Not that I mind, I'm a huge political nerd, but still!) How many people are watching something on cable instead? Are repeats of Queer Eye getting a bigger share than the SOTU?

POTUS Bush II is walking in right now and everyone is dick sucking as usual. Isn't it nice? A bipartisan bj at the onset, just to set the tone. Here we go....

OR's Right to Die

Yesterday, the SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that Oregon's Death With Dignity Act was kosher and that former Attorney General John Ashcroft exceeded his legal authority when he threatened Doctors with a loss of prescription writing privileges. Not surprisingly, the "3" were Scalia, Thomas and now Roberts. I wonder where Alito would fall on this? From the NY Times article...

Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he observed that it was "perplexing to say the least" to find the court interpreting federal drug law narrowly in this instance when only months ago it had upheld broad federal authority to prevent states from authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes

While I've been described by some as more liberal than most, I disagree with many of my left-leaning friends when it comes to State's rights. Most people would have you take a consistent stand, either in favor of, or against this doctrine. If you are in favor of state's rights, you're either a redneck who never forgot who won/lost the Civil War, or you're a medical marijuana supporter who doesn't like the Controlled Substances Act.

But I take a different view. I believe that our Federalist structure is there to maximize the individual freedoms so eloquently enummerated in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, if the state (or local) government is abridging your rights, say, to eat at a particular lunch counter, you should be able to seek redress in Federal courts.

Similarly, if we fast-forward 40 years and now it's the Federal government seeking to limit your freedom to choose the appropriate medical treatment, up to and including hastening your death, you should be able to seek out appropriate remedies in your State, regardless of what the Feds (or one Fed in particular) may think.

Personally, I think people should have the right to die. But I recognize this is a sticky issue. At the end of the Times article was this juicy bit...

"We are disappointed at the decision," Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said at his news briefing today. He added, "The president remains fully committed to building a culture of life, a culture of life that is built on valuing life at all stages."

So here's my question, "Mr. President, what kind of culture is it that forces people to go on living after they've reached the stage where their lives have become living hells? Wouldn't a culture that respects the wishes of individuals that don't harm others be more in line with our shared culture, history and traditions, as Americans?"

Al Gore Has a Pulse

Today I went to see Al Gore speak at Constitution Hall. The topic was "Restoring the Rule of Law" The text of his speech can be read at the Liberty Coalition website, one of the event sponsors, along with the American Constitution Society.


Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) was supposed to introduce Gore but there were technical difficulties at the last minute with the video hook-up and no one got to see Barr speak. That was unfortunate, since I much prefer to hear government bashing coming from the right than the left, but that's just me.


So, in keeping with the spirit of Al Gore's call for renewed outrage at the Bush administration's warrantless spying on American citizens, here are my questions...


"Where was this energetic, outraged Al Gore when you were running for President? Were you told by your political handlers that it's better to take a safe road in the campaign and not offend anyone? Or did you simply not have all these ideas before you lost the 2000 election? Finally, if you did opt to take the safe road in 2000, where do you get off calling out Congress for doing what's politically safe?"

From the speech...

"I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you’re supposed to be."

Bold words from a man with no office to win ever again. Last questions, Mr. Former Vice-President, "If you think Congress needs such bold and effective leadership, why don't you run for a seat in the U.S. Senate? I hear there's one opening up in 2006. Is it because you couldn't even win your own home state of Tennessee when you ran for President? And why is that, do you think?"

5 Questions for U.S. Senators

This is a day later than promised and certainly more than $1 short on creativity, but here are the 5 questions I'd like to ask....

...only rather than do what's already been done and ask questions of Judge Alito, I've got some questions for the U.S. Senators doing all the asking (and most of the talking) in these hearings.

1) To Everyone on the Judiciary Committee: "ARE YOU SERIOUS? Are these the best questions you can come up with? Is this the best you can do to show the American people what the Senate does with its role to advise and consent? I guess that's three questions, but they're all related.

2) Sen. DeWine (R-OH): Was it really necessary for you to take up the first 10 minutes of your 30 minutes of question time heaping praise on Judge Alito? Is there nothing you would like to know from the man who could possibly shape American jurisprudence for the next 30 years or more?

3) Sen. Kennedy (D-MA): Did you really think Sen. Specter would go into executive session in the middle of a session questioning Judge Alito, to vote on a subpoena on papers relating to his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton? I believe that you sent him a letter and that he coincidentally has no recollection of seeing it, but wasn't that all just a stunt that resulted in the entire U.S. Senate looking like a bunch of schoolkids fighting one another?

4) Sen. Specter (R-PA): Am I really supposed to believe that you didn't receive the letter that Sen. Kennedy sent to your office? What? Did the U.S. Postal Service fail to get the letter from his office to yours? Wouldn't you be more concerned if letters between Senate offices were being lost on a regular basis? Shouldn't your outrage have been saved for whomever on your staff stopped you from seeing the letter in the first place? Finally, aren't you embarrassed by the spectacle of you and Sen. Kennedy going back and forth like a couple of kids in gradeschool..."I know what I sent!" "Well, I know what I received!" The two of you should shut the hell up, take a timeout and think of some better questions for Judge Alito.

Or at the very least, steal the ones from Monday's NY Times (see the above post)!!!

And just so I don't feel like I totally copped out on my original plan to come up with some questions of my own for Judge Alito, here's one...

5) Judge, much has been made of your decisions while on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals with regards to various immigration issues, particularly those concerning asylum seekers. What substantive right do you believe immigrants have in immigration court proceedings, with regards to a right to counsel, given the fact that immigration court proceedings are administrative law hearings and the Immigration Judges are not covered under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution?

Does it matter that prosecutors in Immigration courts ultimately have the same boss, the U.S. Attorney General, as the Immigration Judges they appear before?

If outcomes in immigration court proceedings are determined largely on the basis of an immigrant's ability to find, hire and pay for a competent attorney, do you think the controlling principle in Gideon v. Wainwright would apply, thereby guaranteeing immigrants to this country a right to counsel and a fair deportation hearing, particularly when deportation or "removal" as it's now called, could be construed as a punishment worse than death, depending on the individual and his or her circumstances and reasons for leaving their country or origin?

I know some of you have been paying attention to these hearings and have some questions of your own. Please, post them in the comments.

Peace.

God Bless the "Liberal" Media

This is the first of what I hope will be many posts, and the beginning of the end to my friends asking me, "Dan, when are you gonna get a blog?"

The point is for me -- and everyone else reading this -- to be able to pose questions to various people, on any subject that seems relevant, particularly those questions that most people wouldn't ever have the chutzpah to ask.

I've been thinking about this for some time and now, with Judge Alito's (By the way, it really is great coffee from Ward's in Newark. I drank it all the time when I worked down the street!) confirmation hearings upon us, I thought, if I don't do this now, I probably never will.

But really, I never would have done this now, if I hadn't been reading the series of op-ed's in yesterday's New York Times where "Six legal minds contribute five questions they would ask Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr." (There's an inset on the left that links you to the rest of the questions.)

From what I gather from the brief bios at the bottom of each series of questions, the "liberal" NY Times tried to get a balanced panel of wise commentators -- each, in my opinion, regardless of their political position, asks very interesting and poignant questions that I would enjoy hearing Judge Alito answer.

If anyone has the ear of any U.S. Senators on the Judiciary Committee, do what you can.

In my first post, I won't be so presumputious as to attempt to match wits with some of the greatest legal minds in the nation, so for now, I'm going to take the easy way out and let their questions stand on their own.

After listening/watching today's hearings, I'll drop a couple of questions of my own in my next post.