Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
...and my response to Former President Numbskull over this begins at about 4:18 in the clip below ("Misunderstood" is an awesome song also).
“It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.” – George Carlin
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
HouseCastle was a co-sponsor of this Boehner mess (The “Keep Terrists Out Of America Or Else They’ll Sneak Into Our Houses And Kill Us In Our Beds While We’re Upstairs With The Wife” Act), which pretty much explains his "No" vote here (and I thought this was interesting on Castle also; and Broder-esque propaganda notwithstanding, the looming Senate race between Castle and Beau Biden is a toss-up at this point, as noted here).
Homeland Security budget. Voting 307-114, the House approved the conference report on a $44.1 billion Department of Homeland Security budget for fiscal 2010, up 6.5 percent from 2009. The bill (HR 2892) funds agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Transportation Security Administration, and the Coast Guard. The bill prevents Guantanamo Bay prisoners from being transferred to U.S. soil except for court proceedings, and bars the release of photos and videos showing U.S. mistreatment of prisoners overseas since 9/11.
A yes vote was to approve the conference report.
Voting yes: John Adler (D., N.J.), Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).
Voting no: Michael N. Castle (R., Del.).
Guantanamo prisoners. Voting 193-224, the House defeated a GOP bid to prevent funds in HR 2892 (above) from being used to release Guantanamo Bay prisoners into the United States for court appearances or any other purpose.John Adler continues to disappoint, and Tim Holden is a bigger DINO than Arlen Specter.
A yes vote backed the motion.
Voting yes: Adler, Castle, Dent, Gerlach, Holden, LoBiondo, Pitts, and Smith.
Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Fattah, Murphy, Schwartz, and Sestak.
SenateThis week, the House took up the Coast Guard budget and solar energy, while the Senate debated Medicare payments to doctors, fiscal 2010 appropriations and possibly an extension of jobless benefits.
Energy, water appropriations. Voting 80-17, the Senate sent President Obama the conference report on a bill (HR 3183) to appropriate $33.5 billion for energy, water, and nuclear programs in fiscal 2010. In part, the bill provides $6.4 billion for maintaining the U.S. nuclear stockpile; $5.6 billion for environmental cleanup at nuclear sites; $5.4 billion for Army Corps of Engineers public works; $4.9 billion for research into long-term energy needs; $2.1 billion to counter the spread of nuclear arms overseas; $311 million for clean-vehicle technologies; $225 million for solar energy; and $172 million for upgrading the nation's electrical grid.
A yes vote was to pass the bill.
Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Ted Kaufman (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), and Arlen Specter (D., Pa.).
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In the hard-hitting and wide-ranging speech at Center for Security policy, Cheney targeted the new administration's decision-making process on how to proceed in Afghanistan, saying Obama has failed to give troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals, and appeared "afraid to make a decision."So Dick Cheney said Obama was “afraid” to make a decision about war.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Who says campaigns are mere exercises in the politics of personal destruction?Sooo…if “most of the provisions were enacted into law” anyway (despite the one-time opposition from Our Gal Condi Rice), why is Santorum ranting?
Take my last ad against Bob Casey in our 2006 Senate race. An Iraq war veteran spoke into the camera, demanding that the then-state treasurer stop investing state funds in corporations doing business with our enemies - enemies like Iran.
Last week on this page, Sens. Casey and Republican Sam Brownback wrote in support of a federal law to encourage state treasurers to do just that with respect to Iran.
I support Casey's legislation and President Obama's recent call for tougher Iran sanctions. Both, however, appear to be too little too late to halt Iran's weapons program.
That was not the case in the spring of 2006, when I tried to amend that year's defense bill with legislation I first introduced in July 2004. The "Iran Freedom and Support Act" imposed tough economic sanctions and, more important, authorized money to support Iran's pro-democracy movement.
Since this bill had 60 cosponsors, including 23 Democrats, it had a good chance of success. However, that spring the Bush administration was engaged with our European allies in negotiations to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program - sound familiar?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice thought the timing of my amendment would send the wrong signal. I countered that its passage would help the "negotiations" by showing that Congress was even more serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program than President George W. Bush.
The White House pledged to remain neutral on my amendment, but Sen. Joe Biden didn't - he blocked a vote on it for a week. Then, late one evening, we learned he was prepared to vote the next morning.
Biden began the debate by holding up a letter delivered that day from Rice opposing my amendment. Some neutrality! With Biden and then-Sen. Obama both voting no, the amendment failed, 46-to-53.
Negotiations with Iran collapsed that summer. By October, Biden and the administration's opposition did, too, and most of the provisions were enacted into law a few weeks before the election.
…(the amendment) had a very clear premise for people who claim to be as terrorist-hungry as the GOP consistently does: Stop U.S. corporations from financing terrorism.And do you want to know how Little Ricky voted? Click here to find out.
"This will cut off a major source of revenue for terrorists. What we need to do is to starve these terrorists at the source. By using this loophole, some of our companies are feeding terrorism by doing business with Iran, which funds Hamas, Hezbollah, as well as the Islamic Jihad," said Lautenberg on the Senate floor.
"I want to remind my colleagues that it was Iran that funded the 1983 terrorist act in Beirut that killed 241 United States Marines--241 Marines killed by Iranian terror--and yet we are currently allowing United States corporations to provide revenues to the Iranian Government. It has to stop," he continued. "It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues to terrorists, and we have to stop it. Here we have a clear view of what happens. We have a chance to stop it with this amendment."
Apparently forgetting that they're either "with us or with the terrorists," all but two Republicans voted against Lautenberg's bill and it went down in flames 51-47.
Thanks to Obama's policy decisions, the Russians and Iranians are emboldened and feeling safer. How about you?Actually, I feel much better that you’re gone, Ricky. Even with Dem-lite Snarlin’ Arlen, it’s nice to have Senators who actually aren’t holier-than-thou moralistic national embarrassments.
The Bucks County DA race is the marquee fight this season. Republican Judge Dave Heckler (former state rep and senator) against Dem Chris Asplen (ex-county asst. DA). But things are turning weird. Judge Heckler, who appears to be in the fight of his long political life, proposes what seems to be special status for military veterans who commit crimes in the county. At least, they will get tender handling in the courts, and cops on the street (many who are also vets) will be "trained" how to handle veterans who face special "problems."File this under the category of “visually impaired woodland creature discovers the location of sustenance,” if you will (ie. blind squirrel finding the nut), but J.D. is absolutely spot-on here.
Judge, everyone has "problems." Vets who commit crimes should not be treated any differently than the rest of population when it comes to justice.
Smells like he's appealing for votes from a powerful constituency.
(Sentencing Judge C. Theodore) Fritsch (Jr.) was a high-ranking deputy in the DA’s office when Cappuccio did his summer internship there in 2002 and had overseen at least one of Cappuccio’s trials.I think the prosecuting attorney blew it by not realizing that the judge felt a little compromised by asking if he and the defense attorneys were “comfortable” with him as the sentencing judge; rightly or wrongly, that’s where I come down here. If I’m prosecuting, knowing the past history of Fritsch and Cappuccio, I’m making a motion for a new sentencing judge.
He put those facts on the record at the start of Cappuccio’s sentencing hearing Tuesday and asked lawyers on both sides of the case whether they were comfortable with him deciding the sentence. Neither asked for him to step aside.
Fritsch declined to comment for this story.
Asplen called the punishment “obscenely lenient” and called for the state Attorney General’s Office - which handled the case after Bucks County District Attorney Michelle Henry stepped aside to avoid a conflict of interest - to petition Fritsch to reconsider the sentence and send Cappuccio to prison. Former Judge David Heckler, who is now running for DA on the Republican ticket, was less eager to jump into the fray. “As a DA candidate I do not choose to make political hay one way or another out of this tragic case,” Heckler said. “I have great respect for Judge Fritsch. The fact that the defendant pleaded guilty and did not force the victims to testify is a factor that I always recognized as a sitting judge. On the other hand, this was a terrible breach of trust that deserves to be punished.”Uh, yeah, I’ll say Cappuccio “deserves to be punished” also. And I don’t think saying that qualifies as “mak(ing) political hay.”
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The idea, aides said, is for the president to take a breather while Democrats resolve their internal conflicts, so he can come back strong with a fresh sales pitch when the legislation moves closer to floor votes.A “less than enthusiastic supporter,” huh? This tells us that the Dem senatorial traitor from Nebraska isn’t a “supporter” of health care reform at all (and the only “process” Nelson is interested in when it comes to this vitally important matter is a “process” that destroys reform altogether…as much as I detest the Repugs, I have to admit that they NEVER would have tolerated a crack like that against Dubya – even now, with their congressional majorities, the Dems have volumes to learn from “The Party of No” when it comes to message discipline).
“I think his time is better spent on this particular issue in conversation with members and in talking to his own advisers and instructing them on how to proceed,” David Axelrod, senior adviser to the president, said in an interview Tuesday. “That’s the phase that we’re in.”
…
“I don’t know how much it helps, but it certainly doesn’t hurt the process to have him quiet,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who has been a less than enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Obama’s health care agenda.
…in New York on Tuesday night, he told volunteers for Organizing for America, his campaign arm, that Democrats, who “can be their own worst enemy,” should “keep our eye on the prize” and come together around a health care bill.I should note that the country doesn’t appear to be “confused” about the public option, which, according to CBS, is supported by 62 percent of those polled here, a number which has held steady more or less for the last few months.
But that is preaching to the converted, a task much different from trying to rally a confused country around a complex policy issue that could reshape one-sixth of the American economy.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top U.S. Senate Republican invoked the memory of the scandal-marred Nixon administration on Wednesday to urge U.S. President Barack Obama: "Don't start an enemies list."(By the way, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters had what I thought was a good take on the comparison between Obama and Nixon here.)
Senator Lamar Alexander told Reuters he sees the Obama White House adopting an attitude similar to that of the Richard Nixon White House four decades ago, that "everybody is against us and we are going to get them."
Alexander cited as examples the Obama administration threatening to strip the insurance industry of its exemption of federal anti-trust laws, "taking names" of bondholders who opposed the auto bailout, its reported aim to "neuter the U.S. Chamber of Commerce," boycotting Fox News Network and "calling out" of others who oppose it.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told rival cable channel CNN's "State of the Union" that Obama considers Fox News "not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."I guess remarks like this from Alexander aren’t realty surprising, though, when you consider that he also whined about trying to achieve a “consensus” on Iraq in 2007 (here), even going so far as to try and reform the utterly pointless Iraq Study Group here (pointless for anything except propaganda purposes, I mean). Also, Alexander voted for a Medicare reform bill that rooted out provider fraud here, but he needed to be prompted by the return of Ted Kennedy to the Senate in July ’08 after Alexander and many of his fellow Senate Repugs initially opposed it.
"And that's a different take," compared with other news outlets, Emanuel added.
Obama's closest political adviser, David Axelrod, told ABC's "This Week" that Fox News "is really not news. It's pushing a point of view."
…
The two Obama advisers yesterday shrugged off boasts by News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch that his cable network's ratings have soared since the White House made it a target. Murdoch also owns the New York Post.
Axelrod said Murdoch "has a talent for making money," and insisted that Obama aides will "appear on [Fox] shows and participate" anyway, despite the alleged bias.
It's a grim future for Lower Makefield, and for all of us.Ha and ha, you nitwit (However, he is “keeping it local,” sort of; I’ll give him that much…I’ll explain below).
When oil production peaks in 10 years or so, the energy apocalypse will be upon us. Fossil fuels will become scarce and energy so expensive that even watching TV will become a luxury. Food supplies will be disrupted, the economy will disintegrate and the comfortable SUV-driving, centrally air-conditioned middle class lifestyles we know will evaporate quicker than Al Gore's political career.
Our indebted nation is borrowing money to give to oil companies, who despite dwindling resources, continue to produce and poison their customers.I wish I could just accept that at face value as a call to action, but I can’t; as noted here, Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, said that “Easy oil and easy gas—cheap-to-produce oil and cheap-to-produce gas, close to the markets where it is consumed—will peak one day, because it is simply depleted,” but “If you look at the total of what Mother Nature has put in the ground, we have a very long way to go” (and of course, this assumes that you can trust any of the cretins involved in the business of drilling holes in the earth and plundering it to line their own pockets above all else, while threatening our health and siphoning off untold monies in this country that could be better spent elsewhere).
If it is so limited, why do they continue to devote time and money to furthering its use? Royal Dutch Shell estimates that within seven years, the world’s oil supply will be depleted, leaving us with little time to waste. That time and money is desperately needed to further develop alternative energy sources that are sustainable. Meanwhile, we remain at war and in debt over oil which ruins our environment and consequently our lives.
Our right to life is jeopardized as we are unknowingly poisoned by the very thing that fuels our day. Wildlife die and water is contaminated by oil spills and irresponsible disposal of oil. Aside from the obvious consequences that we know about oil, we cannot overlook the resource that poisons us right at out backdoor.And as noted here, from June of last year, in the matter of our water and food supply…
The Appalachians, a beautiful landscape that makes our home unique, is being destroyed while its rivers and lakes are being contaminated as a result of coal mining. It has been found that freshwater lakes and the fish we consume from them have been tainted with mercury due to the burning of coal.
West Virginia and Kentucky have fallen victim to this conspiracy more than any state due to our widespread coal mining industry. While those who work in mines are poisoned by poor working conditions, their families are being harmed by the very product they derive from the Earth. The Center for Disease Control reports freshwater fish in the United States contain dangerous levels of mercury.
A map of world food trade increasingly looks like a map of the water haves and have-nots, because in recent years the global food trade has become almost a proxy trade in water — or rather, the water needed to grow food. “Virtual water,” some economists call it. The trade has kept the hungry in dry lands fed. But now that system is breaking down, because there are too many buyers and not enough sellers.Now granted, I have no current data on rainfalls in this country since the article by Fred Pearce was published. However, I think we would be as foolish as J.D. to ignore the long-term warning signs when it comes to production and consumption of food and maintaining our water supply.
According to estimates by UNESCO’s hydrology institute, the world’s largest net supplier of virtual water until recently was Australia. It exported a staggering 70 cubic kilometers of water a year in the form of crops, mainly food. With the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s main farming zone, virtually dry for the past two years, that figure has been cut in half.
The largest gross exporter of virtual water is the United States, but its exports have also slumped as corn is diverted to domestic biofuels, and because of continuing drought in the American West.
The current water shortages should not mark an absolute limit to food production around the world. But it should do three things. It should encourage a rethinking of biofuels, which are themselves major water guzzlers. It should prompt an expanding trade in food exported from countries that remain in water surplus, such as Brazil. And it should trigger much greater efforts everywhere to use water more efficiently.
For more than a century, the federal government has spent billions of dollars, building our dams, reservoirs, aqueducts and pipelines. Ironically, in the same way that extracting/ transporting and processing water consumes large amounts of energy, the operation of power plants consume large amounts of water.And given all of this, I think it’s important to look at some “lessons learned” from Cuba that J.D. refers to in his column (from here, about the so-called “Special Period,” in which a group of Australians taught “permaculture” to Cubans after the collapse of the Soviet Union, on whom the country depended, as J.D. tells us)…
Thermal energy is one of the largest water users in the United States. However, irrigated agriculture accounts for 80 percent of water consumed in the U.S. This high percentage is partially because of low water use-efficiency (the portion of water actually used by irrigated agriculture relative to the volume of water withdrawn). For the western United States, agricultural farms are the single largest water user, half of which is used by the largest 10 percent of the farms. High levels of irrigation subsidies, combined with archaic water laws make water use in the western U.S. highly wasteful and inefficient. But there is room for improvement in agricultural water use in almost all parts of the U.S. Water use should be such that for a given locale, appropriate incentives are put in place to ensure that water withdrawals do not exceed the recharge rate; that water conservation techniques (such as rain water harvesting) are central to land use planning; that improved irrigation efficiency and better nutrient management (to reduce non-point water pollution from farm run-offs) are rewarded; and that growing water-intensive crops in water scarce regions discouraged.
In reality, when (the "Special Period") began, it was (out of) necessity. People had to start cultivating vegetables wherever they could," a tour guide told a documentary crew filming in Cuba in 2004 to record how Cuba survived on far less oil than usual.Also, as noted here, “Water scarcity as a result of climate change will create far-reaching global security concerns, Nobel laureate and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra K. Pachauri has warned.”
The crew included the staff of The Community Solution, a non-profit organization in Yellow Springs, Ohio which teaches about peak oil – the time when oil production world-wide will reach an all-time high and head into an irreversible decline. Some oil analysts believe this may happen within this decade, making Cuba a role model to follow.
"We wanted to see if we could capture what it is in the Cuban people and the Cuban culture that allowed them to go through this very difficult time," said Pat Murphy, The Community Solution's executive director. "Cuba has a lot to show the world in how to deal with energy adversity."
Scarce petroleum supplies have not only transformed Cuba's agriculture. The nation has also moved toward small-scale renewable energy and developed an energy-saving mass transit system, while maintaining its government-provided health care system whose preventive, locally-based approach to medicine conserves scarce resources.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Based on my experience trying such cases, and what I saw as attorney general (civilian courts cannot try the Guantanamo detainees). That is not to say that civilian courts cannot ever handle terrorist prosecutions, but rather that their role in a war on terror—to use an unfashionably harsh phrase—should be, as the term "war" would suggest, a supporting and not a principal role.So, by that logic, Timothy McVeigh should have been tried at Guantanamo (or a non-civilian court of some kind, since his case predated Guantanamo). So should Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad (the latter apparently has an execution date coming up shortly, based on the Wikipedia article).
The challenges of a terrorism trial are overwhelming. To maintain the security of the courthouse and the jail facilities where defendants are housed, deputy U.S. marshals must be recruited from other jurisdictions; jurors must be selected anonymously and escorted to and from the courthouse under armed guard; and judges who preside over such cases often need protection as well. All such measures burden an already overloaded justice system and interfere with the handling of other cases, both criminal and civil.
…to a federal court why they have held our clients in GuantΓ‘namo for over six years. The other two rounds (of congressional legislation) followed losses in the Supreme Court - the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, passed a year and half after…the Center for Constitutional Rights won the first GuantΓ‘namo case, Rasul v. Bush, in the Supreme Court, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed a few months after the administration's defeat in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Supreme Court explicitly said last month in Boumediene v. Bush that the two prior attempts by Congress to intervene to prevent detainees from having access to the courts were unconstitutional, and that the lower courts should get on with the business of hearing these cases. Unfortunately, that hasn't prevented our nation's highest law enforcement official from trying again to ensure that no court has a chance to rule that one of our clients was wrongly detained during his watch.Mukasey also notes the case of Michael Finton, an American who was radicalized into following militant Islam in one of our prisons (and to achieve maximum shock value, Mukasey also tells us of terrorist Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who partially blinded a prison guard). And yes, state prisons can be breeding grounds for terrorists, but the study cited below (funded by DHS) about trying to de-radicalize terrorists tells us, in part, the following…
...
The (Bush) administration has learned that it can readily invoke panic by mentioning the possibility that Guantanamo detainees might be moved to high-security prisons in the United States, as John McCain had proposed as a means to shut down GuantΓ‘namo. Traditionally, detainees are brought to court to witness their habeas hearings, but it has already been suggested that the easiest way to take detainee testimony is by setting up videolinks or having the judges and lawyers head down to Guantanamo (which federal judges have done in the past). Putting all that to one side, Mukasey's "security" concerns are ridiculous. If we can't "safely" bring a detainee into the U.S. to hear his testimony, then maybe we should all move to that salt mine with Dr. Strangelove."
This method proved itself, especially in Egypt. Over the past decade, the Egyptian authorities succeeded in convincing Muslim militant groups such as Jamaa Islamiya and the Jihadists to abandon the armed struggle. Those authorities managed to do so with the help of distinguished religious leaders from the Al-Azhar University, who held long meetings with senior leaders from those two terror organizations. After the terrorist leaders were convinced - through the help of theological arguments - they published articles, books and manifests, calling upon their followers to cease terror and violence, and concentrate on political activity and religious studies only.Mukasey continues…
It was anticipated that if those detainees were to be tried at all, it would be before a military commission where the touchstone for admissibility of evidence was simply relevance and apparent reliability. Thus, the circumstances of their capture on the battlefield could be described by affidavit if necessary, without bringing to court the particular soldier or unit that effected the capture, so long as the affidavit and surrounding circumstances appeared reliable. No such procedure would be permitted in an ordinary civilian court.That’s right – civilian courts wouldn’t allow such bogus standards of admissibility.