On February 19, 1777, the Pennsylvania Journal published a "new catechism" in a series of political questions. One of the first questions asked,What is the chief end of offensive war?The correct answer wasTo gratify the ambition of a tyrannic prince.
Angie, Angie -- they can't say we never triedThe rest of the web log is certainly over the top, under the bottom, or otherwise adverbially related to some abstract noun, but my there sure are a lot of laughs there.
Could it be a Reagan-Thatcher thing? It's just too soon to tell and I really don't know enough about Angela Merkel, but I felt she was charmed by Dubya and that the relationship is off to a good start. When asked to describe the meeting with her, he carefully chose the right sentiments:
"We've got something in common, we both didn't exactly landslide our way into office."(Humor! Humility! Realism!)
"I'm convinced that we will have a really important and good relationship."(Sounds like commitment to me.)
"First, I do want to send my best regards to Gerhard Schroeder. We spent a lot of time together, and we talked about issues. Listen, there was room for agreement and room for disagreement. And I do hope he's doing well."(Shows real sensitivity and an open mind.)
"Our job now is to work together. We've got big interests. Germany is a really important country. It's right in the heart of Europe; it's vital that Germany take the lead on a lot of issues."(She is important. She is the heart of Europe.)
"And I look forward to working with the Chancellor on common objectives. And my first impressions, with 45 minutes alone in the Oval Office, were incredibly positive."(She's a player on the world stage.)
"She's smart -- she's plenty capable. She's got kind of a spirit to her that is appealing. She loves freedom."(First and foremost, she has brain power -- but that's not all that's appealing.)
"I was particularly touched by hearing about her early life in communist Germany. There's something uplifting to talk to somebody who knows the difference between just talking about tyranny and living in freedom and actually done it."(He could listen to her life story all day long. She's compelling, and experienced in matters of freedom.)
"So we're going to have a very good relationship. And that's important for our respective people. I'm looking forward to consultations, visits, contacts, phone calls, all the things you do."(He can't wait to see her again. He'll be waiting by the phone.)
"And now I'm going to take her to lunch."(Bingo! Knows the way to the woman's soul and he's treating!)
I was paying $420 a year to the pharmacy for the one prescription drug I take.
I now pay $320 a year to an insurance company (one of 67 screaming for my baksheesh) and approximately another $100 co-pay to the pharmacy.
I'm still taking only one prescription drug and I'm pretty sure I'm equally screwed whether I signed up or not. I won't find out until I get another prescription, I guess.
"Germany is a really important country. It's right in the heart of Europe."These sentient remarks were delivered to the respective leaders of these countries.
The Monsanto grant, he says, flowed from the company to the Hudson Institute to support his work. A portion went to overhead and "most of it" went into his salary. He says the money was simply folded into his salary for that year, and therefore represented no windfall to him personally.As the prophet said, "Of the huffing and puffing of hypocrites, there is no end."
"If you don't want it known, don't use the phone."
Vice president Nelson Rockefeller, 1971.
Bush = Nixon - BrainFinally, in honor of the Freudian little zero's fixation on his father, I give you
Bush = Reagan - Heart
Bush = Bush - Bush
How to question Harriet Miers
By Rashi Fein | October 14, 2005
A FEW DAYS ago I had occasion to visit the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse in Boston. The building is adorned with numerous inscriptions: the preamble to the US Constitution; the First, Fourth, Sixth, and 14th Amendments; excerpts from the constitutions of Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, and great quotations carved in stone.
I stopped to read and think about the two inscriptions at the entrance stairways of the courthouse, one by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, the other by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. I then walked through and around the building and read others.
All of them, from the first by John Adams in 1776 to the last by Justice Stephen Breyer in 1991, are deeply moving. They are part of our rich history and legal tradition, a ''democratic conversation," in the words of the courthouse brochure. And so I offer a suggestion: Suppose the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were to spend less time asking questions a nominee to the Supreme Court would either choose not to answer, deem ''inappropriate," or just plain evade. Suppose instead they were to engage with the nominee in a conversation about the quotations from Boston's federal courthouse. Wouldn't the members of the committee and we, the public, learn more about the nominees' views than we do from questions that go unanswered?
Just over there, at the entrance stairway, is a statement by Oliver Wendell Holmes, made in 1881 before he was elevated to the Supreme Court: "The life of the law has not been logic: It has been experience." And from the brochure, we learn that Holmes went on to say, "In order to know what [the law] is, we must know what it has been and what it tends to become." In Holmes's view, then, the law is alive and ever-changing.
Does Harriet Miers stand with Holmes or does she find his statement wanting, thinks Holmes ''too activist" a justice? Let's talk that through with Miers.
And let's have a look at the words of Justice Louis D. Brandeis and talk about the role of the Executive Branch and the application of executive power. Here is what he said in 1914: "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole world by its example." Brandeis, the brochure notes, went on to say, "In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously" and "if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law . . ." Does that statement inform our discussion about the application of the Geneva Convention and, if so, how?
Or we might focus on and discuss what Justice Frankfurter in 1951 wrote, in words that some would argue apply to ''enemy combatants" and others: "No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it." He went on to emphasize that "the validity and moral authority of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was reached" and, as the brochure states, "He warned that a fair process is especially critical 'at times of agitation and anxiety, when fear and suspicion impregnate the air we breathe.' " Does Miers agree with Justice Frankfurter? If not, how would she amend his statement?
There are more than 30 engravings on the Moakley Courthouse. Every one is both a witness to and a maker of history. It would be useful for the US Senate to know what Miers thinks about those statements, statements that the designers of the courthouse considered significant to the understanding of the role of law and the pursuit of justice.
In the jury assembly hall of the courthouse are inscribed the words of Justice Brandeis: "Those who won our independence believed . . . that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government."
Applying those words in the forthcoming hearings would enable the citizenry to listen to the discussion and to be educated in the issues involved. Such a "democratic conversation" would be invaluable, far more useful and instructive than yet another round of predictable questions and equally predictable responses.
Rashi Fein is professor emeritus of the economics of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
That the White House's over-the-top outrage about the Times scoop is a smokescreen contrived to cover up something else is only confirmed by Dick Cheney's disingenuousness. In last week's oration at a right-wing think tank, he defended warrant-free wiretapping by saying it could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Really? Not with this administration in charge. On 9/10 the NSA (lawfully) intercepted messages in Arabic saying, "The match is about to begin," and, "Tomorrow is zero hour." You know the rest. Like all the chatter our government picked up during the president's excellent brush-clearing Crawford vacation of 2001, it was relegated to manana; The NSA didn't rouse itself to translate those warnings until 9/12.Ed's note: The spell checker offered travesty for trifecta.
December 18, 2005 | 11:05 PM ETEd's note: And, yes, the question "Who made Galileo look like a Boy Scout?" will be on the test.
On Friday, the House of Representatives took a vote on the war, with a resolution that said Congress was committed "to achieving victory in Iraq." How did it go? Well, it passed, but "Democrats voted against the resolution by a roughly two-to-one margin."
Uh oh. Sunday night, President Bush gave a speech -- you can see the video here -- and in the speech he went out of his way to identify himself with the Iraq war. He didn't have to do that -- Congress voted in favor of war by an overwhelming margin -- but he did. He spoke repeatedly of the war as his decision, and he took full responsibility for it.
Why did Bush do that? Because we're winning, and he wants credit. What's more, he wants to make clear in the minds of Americans that we're winning in spite of the Democrats' opposition, because he wants people to remember that come election time.
Bush obviously thinks that by the 2006 Congressional elections, and especially the 2008 Presidential election, it will be obvious that we've won in Iraq, and he wants to make sure that the Democrats can be portrayed as defeatists and losers -- imagine the television commercials that Republicans can run regarding Democratic members of Congress who voted against a commitment to "achieving victory in Iraq."
It looks to me as if the Democrats have been expertly maneuvered into a very uncomfortable position. Before long, I think it will look that way to them, too.
In an e-mail, DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the donations were not a factor in the congressional activities of the Texas Republican and former House majority leader.
"Mr. DeLay makes decisions and sets legislative priorities based on good policy and what is best for his constituents and the country. Any suggestion of outside influence is manipulative and absurd," Madden said. "Mr. DeLay has very firm beliefs and he fights very hard for them."
February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007XML Site Feed