This is Sad
 

Well. I'm no Bush fan, but even I wouldn't accuse the adminisration of that.

You sure you're not a Michael Moore fan?

This is Sad
 

both sides did stuff in WTD- the not-in power party declared the war over, but I just meant it in the news can be simply created sense.

Does This Resonate?
 

No, it isn't.

No, it isn't.

No, he didn't. He said he had been previously, but had seen enough by the time the invasion started to doubt that there were any WMD, because he'd never found anything in the places we told him to look.

We weren't talking about this -- funny how you guys keep trying to change the subject.

That was one reason.

No, I won't. But it is proof that Bush said things to the American people that were inconsistent with what his senior advisers were telling him at the same time. (Also something we weren't talking about.)

Does This Resonate?
 

And here I thought we were reduced to telling Hank to kiss your ass.

[*Sniff*]

Does This Resonate?
 

yes it is.

I'll give you this one. 77-4



you're just wrong here.


goes to motive- why would the UN believe he had them, but still not vote to tak them?


78-4


I KNEW we hadn't found anything, I think you knew that. How was it inconsistant? I honestly never got why you think that meant anything. The statement "you know, we haven't actually found anything." That does not differ from anything I heard, or knew. Most of the time the inspectors were kicked out, and I didn't expect he'd let them find anything if it was there.

Does This Resonate?
 

What do you mean, "reduced?" It usually takes Hank dinner, a movie, and several drinks to get to that point.

Does This Resonate?
 

You should wash your ass more carefully, Ty. One Snapple, and he's licking away like a champ.

Does This Resonate?
 

No, it wasn't. 1-0.

Woo hoo! 2-0.

You are either playing on semantic distinctions, or you are misinformed -- I can't tell which. Read Blix's book, or this review of it. When the war started, Blix had found no WMD anywhere he had looked, believed inspections were working, and wanted to continue. The Bush Administration vilified him, personally, and told the inspectors to leave. If you think that "everyone" was in agreement about the state of Iraq's putative weapons programs, I'm not sure I can help you anymore. 3-0.

The UN has no sanctions against many other countries which possess WMD -- e.g., the US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, etc. 4-0.

I didn't realize that you were giving yourself a victory every time you agree with someone about something. Now that I understand, I've decided to keep score, too. 5-0.

When -- for example -- Colin Powell went before the UN with the "proof" that Iraq had WMD, "everyone" understood that the Administration was telling the world that it had access to information that the rest of us didn't have, on the basis of which it thought Iraq had WMD. We were supposed to trust Powell (and Powell did the talking because he seemed trustworthy). In retrospect, Powell has let us know that the intel he was given was weak, and that he scrapped portions of the presentation he was given because he didn't believe.

But you now claim to be a Cassandra. I wish you'd let everyone in on it. The Administration was busy telling everyone that Iraq had WMD, and it would have been nice if someone other than Blix had pointed out that no one had found anything.

Meanwhile, you are confusing my point about what Franks told Bush. On September 7, 2002, President Bush told reporters, unequivocally, "Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." If you can't see how that "differs" from what Franks told him, you should turn in your license to practice law.

6-0.

Consequences
 

I'm just cutting and pasting her post, cuz I'm lazy and it's easier:

Consequences
 

Why do you need to criminalize domestic violence, as opposed to charging someone with (e.g.) assault or battery? Not making any kind of argument here -- I'd like to know.

Does This Resonate?
 

I understood your point. But if you were a middle-class Arab, wouldn't you rather live in Egypt than Iraq right now? Or Qatar? Or Bahrain? Or Saudi Arabia?

wow
 

I was irritated by this post, and knew I'd seen a good response to it, but couldn't figure out where. A-ha -- it was Ezra Klein's new blog. Here's what he said:

• The "For Something" Trap
  I'm rapidly losing patience with the "Dems need to stand for something" trope, the one usually offered by kindly conservatives in the context of well-meaning advice. This week, the guidance was proffered by QandO's Dale Franks, and it's springboard is a Christian Science Monitor editorial that worries itself sick over the Reid-led move towards opposition party. The criticism follows the usual trajectory, a graceful arc from sadness over the failing opposition party to invocation of the now-unemployed Tom Daschle who, the writer predictably writes, would be glad to tell you how well this opposition party stuff works out. Too bad such a fun to write post is so intellectually bankrupt.
  
  Tom came from a crimson state that voted for President Bush in overwhelming numbers, so maybe if you're from Dubya country you might not want to be the nation's highest profile opponent of his policies. And I'm sure that's exactly what he'd tell you if you went to his door and asked, rather than simply imagined the conversation onto your keyboard. As for Reid and the Dems? They don't stand for anything? Really? Not even the 10 Leadership Bills that they unveiled last week as the centerpiece of their legislative agenda? Or did you just not take the time to look?
  
  If the Dems really were a bunch of idealess naysayers whose only use in life was implying things about Bush's nominees, I'd wholeheartedly jump on the "they suck' bandwagon. But it's just not true. What is true is that they are a minority party subject to the whims of a hyper-partisan majority that has choked off every opportunity for the Democrats to put forth an affirmative agenda. The evidence of the Republican Party's near-despotic rule over the House, and to a lesser extent the Senate, is voluminous and outrageous. Democrats can't bring bills to the floor, Hastert won't put legislation up for vote unless a majority of Republicans support it (a stark contrast with the bipartisan vote-counting of certain Clinton-era policies), Democrats are denied the judicial courtesies they offered Republicans, DeLay regularly augments egregiously conservative portions of bills when he finds they gain too much Democratic support, and so forth. This is a public strategy aimed at painting the Democrats a wholly negative, unproductive party. But, as with so many PR efforts, it's relation to the truth is creative.
  
  Fact is, Democrats have a publicly accessible legislative agenda that they're simply being barred from pursuing. They asked perfectly reasonable questions of Bush's nominees, queries that are all the more essential considering the mess these folks made of the last four years (does anyone really believe that the country was well-served by ignoring the August 6th PDB or the Geneva Convention?). And Republican dominance, for its part, is directly traceable to the determined bomb-throwing and demagoguery of that consummate oppositionist, Newt Gingrich. You tell me -- did it hurt them in the long run?
  
  I don't fault the Republicans for misrepresenting the facts, they're a political party focused on consolidating their power. I blame the pundits, editorialists, reporters and writers who don't do the reporting or questioning that'd lead this absurd meme to disintegrate. And that goes for normally freethinking guys like Dale over at QandO, who must know better and, if they don't, damn well should.

Does This Resonate?
 

Is there a middle class in those countries?

Does This Resonate?
 

Yes. And don't fight the hypo.

Does This Resonate?
 

I'll have to call this on a tie (npi). W may not have lied intentionally. He's not very smart. Maybe he just forgot.

Consequences
 

My guess, without looking into it further, is that people who live with each other generally have to, er, live with each other. There's often a power differential where one party is dependant on the other for food, shelter, etc, and the state wants to discourage violence between the parties. Certainly, the abused party could (and probably should) relocate, but often that's a financial, emotional or practical impossibility. If some random person on the street beats the shit out of you, you're in a much better position to stay away from that person in the future. If your spouse does it, your options are more limited.

Does This Resonate?
 

I think I would be perfectly comfortable moving anywhere in Iraq, other than the triangle. If I was an ambitious sort, I'd probably rather live there given the additional money I possibly could make in a new economy. But again, where the Arabs would rather live is not my point.

Does This Resonate?
 

I have a friend that just moved back to Iraq. He's being paid $80,000 every sixty days for security detail there. He was on home leave when I saw him on Saturday, and he shipped back on Sunday for another 60 days. He enjoys dodging bullets. He was trying to con me into going with him about a year and a half ago, but when I saw him on Saturday he said I probably made the right call.

I have another friend who has a lovely apartment in Alexandria, overlooking the Mediterranean. He's Egyptian (Naturalized American, actually, and with the world's sexiest voice, btw), and he'd rather live here than anywhere in the Middle East.

Query
 

Is the Iraq project a success if the Democracy Domino Effect doesn't come into play?

Hypo: our troops are there in force for another 18 months, we eventually withdraw, there is some civil strife but it seems like the government is working, the government is more religious than I think we'd like but at least it's not the wacky mullahocracy of Iran, BUT despite all this no neighboring countries are moved on their own to rise up for democracy. Is this a win?

wow
 

Please name 3 new ideas the DEMs have proposed in the last 4 years.

Query
 

Of course it is.

Query
 

Fuck, yeah!

wow
 

Didn't they suggest a balanced budget?

Does This Resonate?
 

Is he living in the triangle?
My response assumed that I was currently living in another Arab country. I would not voluntarily choose to live there.

wow
 

I don't think so, but you may be right. Regardless, that idea is hardly new.

wow
 

(1) Evolution
(2) Separation of Church & State
(3) Civil Rights

New to your side at least.

wow
 

After Bush II: The First Term, I think we can safely use the NBC Summer Rerun Mantra here w/r/t the GOP.*















*"It's New to You!"

wow
 

Oh, you're right. It's just been so long since we had one, I forgot what it was like.

eta: uh, speaking of reruns . . .

wow
 

"They don't stand for anything? Really? Not even the 10 Leadership Bills that they unveiled last week as the centerpiece of their legislative agenda? Or did you just not take the time to look?"

Consequences
 

My impression is that you can get an order of protection, requiring one person to stay from you, even if you aren't married. The domestic battery laws do allow a few things to happen. They allow a police department to mandate that officers take reports or make arrests, even when some dizzy broad is whimpering in a corner that "he didn't give me this black eye, i fell down". I'm not entirely sure, but I think it sometimes allows a judge to order one person out of the house vis a vis an order of protection. But that should still apply, regardless of whether people are married etc....

Which is to say, these laws are stoopid if they are trying to define protections for people in a sexual or otherwise-intimate relationship. If the laws are to address cohabitants, they should just say so. And anybody should be able to get an order of protection. In fact, anybody can. I'll bet that even includes gay people in Utah.

Hello

PS Clubby, posted that doll story as a Chicago Tribune article yesterday. WTF?

wow
 

So you admit the Dem game plan of leaving terrorists entire countries to make plans to blow up our office buildings goes back to early clinton era.

wow
 

No. I leave that to the neo-cons and current Afghanistan. Thank god we got rid of those WMDs...I mean thank god for...DEMOCRACY!

Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?

Someone has to have done a Where's Osama* book by now. Right?

*Where's Waldo

http://www.funny-tshirts.biz/store/i...roductid=16255

Whoring for benefits
 

Article on woman losing benefits for refusing to work as prostitute.

I find this issue really interesting. I actually agree that, if prostitution is legal, it should be no more refusable than other objectionable jobs w/r/t unemployment bens. I am particularly moved by the statement of the brothel-owner, that she pays her taxes like any other employer and should have access to the same public services as other employers (particularly given German employment taxes). I also am curious to check out german bars, since they are apparently indistinguishable from brothels. However, I'm not really comfortable with making a woman work as a prostitute to avoid losing benefits to which she is otherwise entitled. I'm not entirely sure where my dysfunction is, but I have been having some fun over the last few days considering it.

Time for my counterfactuals: (i) A committed ethical vegan refuses to work at a meat-packing plant. (ii) a man refuses to work as a prostitute. (iii) An orthodox Jew refuses to work at a pork abattoir. (iv) The committed vegan refuses to work as a waiter at a saussage-house. (v) the committed vegan is one because he is a buddhist. (vi) a hypochondriac refuses to work as an orderly in a TB ward. (vii) a strict muslim refuses to take a job that would force her to work with non-related men in contravention of her religion (I don't know if this is ever applicable, but it is irrelevant for these purposes). (viii) Wiccan refuses to work at an evangelical church as a Sunday school teacher. (ix) woman refuses employment as a surrogate mother. (x) Our stalking horse: woman refuses work as prostitute.

My initial gut reaction is to find the following to be unacceptable job refusals: (i (but not v)), (ii), (iv (v or not v)), and (vi). (x) and (vii) are both right on the border, but I wouldn't require them to do it.

I think this shows (a) an assumption that society should perhaps make certain concessions to enable people to adhere to religious beliefs, moreso that other ethical beliefs (which I admit makes no sense at all), (b) a belief that women's morality is more important to protect than men's (which does make some sense since I think western (and most other) cultures punish women deemed immoral more severely than men, and often consider a wider collection of behaviors to be immoral for women), and (c) that I think segregation of the sexes, whether religious or not, is stupid.

Maybe I'm saved here by the fact that women aren't actually being forced into prostitution - they are free to choose not to engage in prostitution. They will merely be expected to accept the consequences of their self-imposed limitations, just like someone who objects to mucking out stables, serving meat or working with people of the opposite sex. I've long held that children who object to dissecting the frog should refuse to do it but live with the F. Society isn't required to make it painless to stick to your personal moral code, though sometimes it may be in society's benefit to do so with certain moral positions (yes, that was my whistleblower safe-harbor).

Maybe my objection is really that, just as I don't feel that one person's morality should be forced on another (by, say, criminalizing porn), I don’t feel that … well, the other's morality should be forced on the first person in the other direction, either. But I don't know how you square that with determining whether one receives social benefits to which one is otherwise entitled based on engaging in morally or ethically objectionable activities.

Then again, I am one of those libertarians who think prostitution should be legal and unemployment benefits shouldn't exist, hence alleviating the potential problem.

ed for crappy spelling

wow
 

I don't know what a "leadership bill" is, but a bill is not a new idea. You obviously don't know what 's in those bills either.

Whoring for benefits
 

STP?

wow
 

I know you're not a litigator, but you're the one with the burden of proof here. I'm sure that I could find out what's in those bills fairly quickly, but I don't need to look at them to conclude that the Democrats are not without ideas. You, on the other hand, are arguing that there's no there there, but can't be bothered to look.

eta: It took me about four minutes to find this, and that was while making small talk with a bunch of Canadians on a conference call.

wow
 

You're the guy who isn't bothered by the other side playing hide the ball on discovery, right?

wow
 

Hank, my clients understand that this is a new world now. We don't worry about "documents" and "testimony" and "facts" and things like that. While the other side is litigating about discernible reality, that's not the way we're doing business anymore. When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're taking discovery about that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can litigate about too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

wow
 

Today's media understands the world as well. They learned from the Administration's, and CBS', profound mistake of "presenting evidence," as in each case that evidence may turn out to be wrong, or at least disprovable.

No, today's media understand the limits of evidence, and the power of ..... inFLECTion?

Does Hank spend his spare time pleasuring GOP contributors? Sure, there may be little evidence for those who haven't looked for it, but the reeeeeal value lies in asking the question. For about 5 weeks or so. Then we'll let the public decide.*





















* (c) 2005 Steven Colbert, TDS

wow
 

That's what I thought. Ty, it's very unlike you to post and back something before you've thoroughly vetted it. Perhaps all those losses to Hank have taken their toll?

I counted 1 new idea there. What did I miss?