Friday, June 16, 2006

SSDD, but slightly better

My Way News:
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, and the military warned it expected the new leader of al Qaeda in Iraq to continue the bloody tactics of his slain predecessor.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have also been killed since the U.S.-led invasion more than three years ago to overthrow Saddam Hussein, igniting an insurgency by his once-dominant Sunni Arab minority that is showing little sign of easing.
Has anybody else noticed that the press is starting to tell the truth again? Not always, and not exactly in the headlines, but in the stories themselves there is more often the reporting of facts along with the propaganda; facts that often refute the words of those who are quoted.
On a day when at least 24 Iraqis lost their lives in five separate incidents, an Iraqi official said the security forces had seized documents giving key information about the militant group's network and its leaders in the country.

"We believe this is the beginning of the end of al Qaeda in Iraq," national security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie said.

Rubaie said earlier this year the insurgency against the U.S.-backed, Shi'ite-led government had been defeated.
See what I mean? I hope this is a trend that has legs and gets stronger as we approach the midterms and beyond. Maybe there is hope yet for democracy, one of the columns of which is a free and honest press. Well, don't get too excited yet. Just something to notice.

Depends On How One Reasonably Defines Reasonable

Court Limits Protection Against Improper Entry - New York Times:
The conditions that made deterrence necessary "in different contexts and long ago" no longer exist, Justice Scalia said, adding that a strict application of the exclusionary rule as envisioned by the court in 1961 "would be forcing the public today to pay for the sins and inadequacies of a legal regime that existed almost half a century ago."
Sure, things are much better today when it comes to police following procedure and all. Oh, wait, isn't that why this case went to the Supreme Court in the first place?
It is rare to find Justice Scalia, a self-described "originalist," incorporating evolving conditions into his constitutional analysis. Almost always, when the court in a constitutional case takes account of changing conditions, the result is an expansion of constitutional rights, rather than, as Justice Scalia advocated in this case, a contraction.
Once again proving that this government has conspired to take the position that the law is only to be followed when doing so furthers the causes of the few (but mighty), and can be ignored whenever doing so would be inconvenient or an obstruction to the will of the few (but righty).
One puzzling aspect of the decision was a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy, who said that he wished to underscore the point that 'the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt.' Nonetheless, he signed the part of Justice Scalia's opinion that suggested that the exclusionary rule rested on an increasingly weak foundation.
Thereby demonstrating the kind of logical inconsistencies required to support the dismantling of the Constitution in the name of upholding it.

Depends On How One Reasonably Defines Reasonable

Court Limits Protection Against Improper Entry - New York Times: Sure, things are much better today when it comes to police following procedure and all. Oh, wait, isn't that why this case went to the Supreme Court in the first place?
It is rare to find Justice Scalia, a self-described "originalist," incorporating evolving conditions into his constitutional analysis. Almost always, when the court in a constitutional case takes account of changing conditions, the result is an expansion of constitutional rights, rather than, as Justice Scalia advocated in this case, a contraction.
Once again proving that this government has conspired to take the position that the law is only to be followed when doing so furthers the causes of the few (but mighty), and can be ignored whenever doing so would be inconvenient or an obstruction to the will of the few (but righty).
One puzzling aspect of the decision was a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy, who said that he wished to underscore the point that 'the continued operation of the exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not in doubt.' Nonetheless, he signed the part of Justice Scalia's opinion that suggested that the exclusionary rule rested on an increasingly weak foundation.
Thereby demonstrating the kind of logical inconsistencies required to support the dismantling of the Constitution in the name of upholding it.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Ideal World? What's That?

Wrenching Changes on the Line - New York Times:
"In an ideal world, America would join the overwhelming majority of developed countries and hammer out some kind of national health care system. Failing such a sudden and unlikely onset of sanity, creative solutions are needed. Sen. Barack Obama has proposed striking a bargain with American automakers to help them with retiree health care costs in exchange for higher fuel efficiency standards. While we have some questions about how to make such a system work, it is at least a worthy new idea — one of a very few in a field desperately in need of them."

Or did this editor mean Idea World? Ideal worlds never exist. Idea worlds, on the other hand, can spring to life at any time. It just takes some clear thinkers with the courage to challenge the status quo and stand up to the demagogues. We need more Obamas in congress, and a lot fewer Leibermans and Frists; unless Delay comes back, then we need a whole lot less Delays.

Same Game, Less Subtle

Phone Seizure Seen as Example of Russian Corruption - New York Times:
"Next month Russia will play host to the Group of 8 meeting, during which it will strive to convince the West that it is a responsible and reliable energy partner that welcomes outside investment. Yet, Mr. Ryzhkov and others say that the voraciousness of officials has expanded beyond soliciting bribes, a routine practice in Russian business, into theft, extortion and racketeering."

Give it some time, and they'll be just as good at corrupting working the system as Duke Cunningham or Dick Cheney.

Global Image of the U.S. Is Worsening

Global Image of the U.S. Is Worsening, Survey Finds - New York Times

Read the survey results here.

Most of it comes as no surprise (you can spin total failure for just so long), but the most disturbing bit of news here was this:
More than 9 in 10 Americans, Germans, Japanese and French opposed Iran's acquiring nuclear arms.
Anybody still think the "Coalition" is going to stay out of Iraq? Or that when they don't, it won't be another total failure? Watch while Iraq goes the way of Afghanistan....

FEMA Trailer -- Not A Movie

Lives Crammed Into 240 Square Feet - New York Times:
FEMA trailer. The phrase has nearly lost meaning, so embedded is it in the national memory of last year's crushing hurricanes, Katrina and Rita. The Federal Emergency Management Agency provided trailers to people whose homes were damaged or destroyed; got it.

But tens of thousands of people continue to live crammed in FEMA trailers, greeting this year's hurricane season the same way they said goodbye to the last one: in light-metal boxes that even a tropical storm could flip like playing cards and which seem so vulnerable alongside the brush fires crackling through some stretches of the Gulf Coast.
Up here in the Northeast, we don't get a clear picture of what's happening (and NOT happening) down in the Gulf any more than we have a clear picture of what's happening in the other Gulf. Are we just kidding ourselves that any real solutions to the problems of either Gulf are going to come from this administration or even from the next (it takes time to really change direction in Washington, since it takes time to get enough voters across the country on the same page if not the same book)? God help us all.

A Flood of Fraud

Study Finds Huge Fraud in the Wake of Hurricanes - New York Times:
WASHINGTON, June 13 — As much as $1.4 billion in government disaster aid to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita — nearly a quarter of the total — went to bogus or undeserving victims, a new Congressional investigation concludes.
Couldn't get to this yesterday (I have a day job!), but I thought it was just so bad that it needed more attention here. The spin doctors on the right keep saying that some fraud in disaster aid distribution is inevitable, but 25%?! And look at the kinds of "errors" FEMA made:
In one case, a man stayed more than two months on the government tab at a hotel in Hawaii that cost more than $100 a night. At the same time, he was getting $2,358 in government rent assistance, even though he had not been living in the property he claimed was damaged in the storm.

Emergency aid was used to pay for football tickets, the bill at a Hooters in San Antonio, a $200 bottle of Dom Perignon, "Girls Gone Wild" videos, even an all-inclusive weeklong Caribbean vacation, the report says. More than $5 million went to people who had provided cemeteries or post office boxes as the addresses of their damaged property.

FEMA also provided cash or housing assistance to more than 1,000 prison inmates, totaling millions of dollars; one inmate used a post office box to collect $20,000. Some of the inmates may in fact have owned property that was damaged, but most should not have been eligible for the aid.
Don't these people have computers? It wouldn't take much effort to stop some of the most egregious errors.
In another case, 24 payments, totaling $109,708, were sent to a single apartment, where eight people each submitted requests for aid eight times, each time using their own Social Security numbers.

Another person collected 26 payments using 13 different Social Security numbers — a total of $139,000 — even though public records show the individual did not live at any of the addresses reported as damaged.

Aaron T. Walker, a FEMA spokesman, said the agency was moving to correct management weaknesses that might have contributed to the fraud, including establishing a system that will block multiple registrations for aid filed under a single Social Security number.
You mean they didn't have such a "system" in the first place, long before Katrina?!!! This is absurd, especially for a federal agency. If this is the best DHS can do on their budget, we're all screwed!

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Rove Indicted, But Cooperating?

Rove Won't Face Indictment in C.I.A. Leak Case - New York Times:
Truthout.org said today in a posting that it still believed its initial report — that there was a sealed indictment against Mr. Rove — was accurate, but that he was cooperating with the prosecution.

Elsewhere, liberal blogs were filled with disappointment, disbelief and anger — and occasional postings from conservatives seeking apologies — after the news broke today.

In a statement, a lawyer for the Wilsons, Christopher Wolf, indicated that the couple was considering taking civil action against Mr. Rove.

'The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons,' Mr. Wolf said. Mr. Wilson said in 2003 that he wanted to see Mr. Rove 'frog-marched' out of the White House.
For TruthOut's response and further info, go here and here. Not sure what's going on under the "covers" but it sure feels like business-as-usual for Rover.

Dude! Where's The Party?

Bush Makes a Surprise Visit to Baghdad - New York Times:
"Arriving here under extraordinary security, President Bush signaled that he had come to Baghdad to shore up Mr. Maliki's new government and to signal that that the Americans were preparing to reduce their responsibilities, with the war now well into its fourth year."

He was heard to say, "'Specially now that the last war (in Afghanistan) is gettin' worse and the next war (in Iran) is way behind schedule! Let's get crackin', y'all!"

Followers

Blog Archive