INTERIOR MINISTERS FROM 17 Arab countries have issued a joint statement calling on the government of Denmark "to take the necessary measures to punish those responsible." United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan was officially "concerned." Governments from Pakistan to Syria have demanded apologies not just from Denmark but France, Germany, Norway and other Western European governments.

What human rights atrocity has so inflamed their sense of outrage? A Danish newspaper published cartoons. Last September.
...
Such sentiments foster the dangerous notion that governments are responsible for, and answerable to, their countries' private media. And it judges all news content, satirical or otherwise, by the standard of how much offense it gives, a surefire path toward self-censorship.

fuck their religous sensitivites
you can't commit heresy if you don't belong to that faith or alternatively you're a heretic by definition because you don't belong to that faith in which case tough. We have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

The freedom to blaspheme - Los Angeles Times

The ironies abound. If this is how defenders of the NSA program must proceed in order to argue for its legality, they well fit the caricature of judicial activism that generations of conservatives have tarred liberals with when liberals argue for extensions of civil rights and civil liberties protections. That is, instead of being constrained by law in the first instance, defenders argue that a program would be good policy and therefore strain to find that it is not illegal or unconstitutional.

The conservative infighting begins.

[the law] offers us a place to stand when we object to the aggrandizement of power by those who are utterly convinced that they come to us as saviors. For many years conservatives warned us about would-be saviors of the left, who would sweep away legal restraints to pursue their vision of a just society. It is time to stand up to the would-be saviors of the right, who seek to concentrate unaccountable power in order to pursue their vision of national security.

nicely put

Legislating from the bench

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

It's a great strategic location on many levels. With Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, sections of Africa and Indonesia stabilized and brought to the world's diplomatic table, then we can move closer to a peaceful world. Sometimes, you have to band together and beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard.

Indonesia???!!
you mean because of East Timor?
local trouble and no part of global geo-politics
but invading countries because you don't like the regime is acting like a bully
plus the current US position in Iraq is borderline and could go either way
yes lets hope the position stabilizes and civil war is averted
plus do you think invading Iran is a viable option
and do you think China would stand on the sidelines if the US militarily threatened N Korea
it might be argued that by demonstrating a willingness to tear up international treaties like the Geneva Convention and arguably break international law by starting a war of aggression the US is demonstrating its will. It could be argued that it is demonstrating that it is not a weak willed liberal power with more bluff than bollocks, not a decadent violet. In the same way that Hitler regarded all the western powers.
a/ Hitler was wrong then and the west and the US now never needed to prove anything and should be grown up enough to know it.
b/ International law and treaties are part of the social global infrastructure we should be nurturing and upholding (by force if necessary as was the case with the first Gulf war). These institutions and laws are an essential element in banding together to "beat the shit out of the bully to acheive peace in the schoolyard."
c/ as far as needing to prove to the likes of Bin Laden that we have the will the invasion of Afganistan demonstrated that and I supported it. I believe we should act when the law allows it and circumstances demand it and I don't think that is true of Iraq. We don't need to beat people up to demonstrate to the schoolyard that we're big and strong. Bin Laden's hiding in a hole in Afganistan (hahaha it's only a matter of time Ossama) because we have the balls but we also need to show to the Muslim world that we act with justice in mind and can show restraint. The difference between a bully and a leader is that the leader rules by consent not force, knows when to listen and knows that while u may have the power to impose your will u don't always have the right; a leader knows when to demonstrate restrain.

RE: Cindy Sheehan arrested for... wearing a shirt!

Vile wrote:

adam wrote:

Iraq..A wisely chosen war, in terms of gaining a strategic vantage point.

and the moon is made of green cheese
Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reasons

Not gonna argue with you. Your side lost. Deal with it.

my side lost? Well yes in the sense that Bush got his pointless war but that still doesn't mean there was originally any connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. Deal with the facts not Bush's propaganda especially when using that connection to make spurious points about the war dead and support the troops.

RE: Cindy Sheehan arrested for... wearing a shirt!

"We're killing the planet! We're killing the planet!" Folks, I have some news for you, the planet is going to go cheerfully spinning around the sun just like it has for eons. It is simply going to do so with many fewer of us on it.

While "The Day After Tomorrow" scenario is (probably) bad science, the shutdown of the Atlantic current (which appears to actually be happening) has two big effects. One, the north pole is going to react to that funny warming thing by getting colder. A LOT colder. As in Europe and a lot of the northern hemisphere gets covered by a great big block of ice colder. Second, All of that water has to come from somewhere, guess where? Think the drought conditions ramping up across America's breadbasket are going to improve?

We're not killing the planet, the planet wants to kill us for being bad stewards.

so is the answer to say that this little experiment in sentient life should just be wrapped up or "Do not go gentle into that good night,...Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Dylan Thomas

The answer is this little try at sentient life better get it together. The other option is 30 million years from now the cockroaches saying "There is no such thing as evolution!"

which means as advanced thinking tool users, as Bush said in the State of the Union, we need to reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil but not just for short term reasons. We also need to cut our reliance on Mexican Gulf oil, cut our reliance on oil full stop. Cut dramatically carbon emissions and look towards technical solutions eg nanotechnology by locking up released carbon as graphite or diamond. These are achievable goals if we face the consequences of our actions and react sensibly and intelligently. With China and India developing fast we need to be able to give them better options than simply saying they can't develop their economies and must remain in poverty for the good of the planet. We need to start colonising the solar system so we're not just confined to this globe and to start extracting the solar system's physical resources and we need to build solar power stations in space. We have a huge power station a few light minutes away which won't run out of fuel for billions of years. We must find a way to start exploiting it. At the moment this is all science fiction but I believe it is all doable before the greenhouse effect really kicks in and we have nuclear exchanges in an ever more bitter fight over dwinderling food and water, particularly food as crops fail and rainfall patterns shift and consequently the global grain belts shift and the staple crops that we rely on to feed the planet are interrupted.
Fuck the cockroaches I want our species to live up to its name of "wise man".

RE: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Stark warning over climate change

finethen wrote:

Hundreds of federal search-and-rescue workers and large numbers of boats, aircraft and bulldozers were offered to FEMA in the hours immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit, but the aid proposals were either ignored or not effectively used, newly released documents show.

Also: George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Close. George bush does not give a shit about Poor people. I don't think the race issue has as much to do with it

RE: What really happened at FEMA during Hurrican Katrina?

Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said.
...
In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."

Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said the report's conclusions would be a shock to many people.

rather a contrast to Bush who's having scientists gagged (see nyt)

Currently, the atmosphere contains about 380 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, compared to levels before the industrial revolution of about 275ppm.
...
"We're going to be at 400 ppm in 10 years' time, I predict that without any delight in saying it," he said.

"But no country is going to turn off a power station which is providing much-desired energy for its population to tackle this problem - we have to accept that.

"To aim for 450 (ppm) would, I am afraid, seem unfeasible."

i've never seen the figures before OMG
plus see the arctic retreat
we're in trouble

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Stark warning over climate change

International counterterrorism is said to have been successful in "degrading Al Qaeda as an organization and in decreasing its ability to conduct massive attacks." What survives is "a patchwork of homegrown networks and 'lone wolves,' where almost everyone can be linked, at least indirectly, to almost everyone else," but in casual and nonoperational ways.
...
European security agencies have reported "a growing tendency of self-radicalization and self-recruitment." The latter is now thought to be more important in producing jihad candidates "than any organized international network,"
...

This radicalization of young Muslim militants in Europe is superficially religious, but usually takes place outside mosques and "more often than not involves individuals with college education."

The sources of extremism are social and political alienation, exclusion (and unemployment) among the offspring of immigrant communities, but the international drama mobilizes them.

William Pfaff: To Europe, Bush is only creating more terrorists - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

State of the Union, state of war: They have a nice ring. When George W. Bush goes before the Congress and the nation Tuesday night, he will present himself (again) as a war president. Personally and politically, the identity defines him.
...
The so-called "insurgents," who wreak such havoc, are not America's enemy. They are not our rivals for territory. They are not our ideological antagonists. Abstracting from the present confrontation, they have no reason to wish us ill.
...
Al Qaeda is a free floating nihilism, not a nation, or even a network. Al Qaeda is a rejectionist idea to which deracinated miscreants are drawn, like filings to a magnet, but that drawing power is generated in Washington. Bin Laden was a self-mythologized figure of no historic standing until George W. Bush designated him America's equal by defining 9/11 as an act of war to be met with war, instead of a crime to be met with criminal justice.

Is America actually at war? - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

Bush, whose aides said they consider the issue a clear political winner, is resurrecting tactics from the last campaign to make the NSA spying program a referendum on which party will keep the United States safe from terrorists. He has dispatched top White House officials almost daily to defend the program and has sent a message to party activists that he considers fighting terrorism with tools such as NSA eavesdropping the defining issue of the November elections

Worth reading. Troublesome.

The story here is not whether or not it ought to be authorized but whether or not is was authorized. Almost no one understands this distinction. The Republican talking points are:
1. Its legal.
2. Its needed to defend America.
3. People raising questions about its legality are partisan hacks who don't care about the safety of the American people.

The problem is that its probably not legal. I haven't seen a legal analysis coming from outside the administration that jives with the position of the administration. But the common man is not going to understand subtle Constitutional questions. The Democrats have to fight this fight, because its a basic separation of power issue. They can't just leave it on the floor. However, they are going to loose the political dialog because you really have to think about this in order to understand it, and most people are incapable of doing that, and many who aren't are partisan enough to be unwilling to do it objectively. If the Republicans loose in court they are likely to be able to spin that its another example of judicial activism and the ACLU hates America, etc...

What it really comes down to is the honesty of the Republican Party at large. They are being told, via this message, to tow the line on this. They are trapped in a position where if they disagree on this issue they must risk the support of the party and their political chances in November in order to take a stand. This issue will not fly if enough Republicans take a stand on it, but its going to be a very, very difficult decision for them to make (which is why Rove is putting the above sort of pressure on them).

On the balance is the entire idea of the rule of law. If the President can simply violate the law at will, argue that the court system is biased, and pressure the legislature into towing the line for political reasons, there effectively is no law. Or, in particular, there is no law with regard to minority interests. As long as the President is capable of garnering popular support for something it can be pursued irrespective of the checks and balances in our system.

The Miers nomination demonstrated that the Conservative legal community is capable of fighting the President when it wants to. This is a time and place where it ought to. We'll see if it has the guts. If it doesn't, we'll have slipped quite far down the slope toward an unravelling of the rule of law...

Rift Between Parties Over NSA Wiretapping Grows