Ever wonder what it would be like to have a job where you couldn't be fired for forced to retire? The Supreme Court Justices know.
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80 and in frail health, smacked down the chattering class last week by announcing he had no intention of retiring. Sure he's dying of cancer. Sure he can barely get around. Sure he could barely raise his hand to swear in President Bush during the inauguration. But he's not retiring, and you can't make him. How's that?!
Not even federal workers have it that good. At some point, you have to submit retirement papers. Why should the justices be able to serve until death do them part? Perhaps it is time to look at a new system that gives them a set number of years on the bench -- one that staggers the end of their tenures so no one presi-dent can stack the bench. Maybe justices should have a mandatory retirement age. Why should they be exempt the rules that govern the rest of the workforce? Is this really in the best interest of the country?
Monday, July 18, 2005
Friday, July 15, 2005
Leak or the lie, Wilson gets leveled
If Joe Wilson is complaining that the White House tried to ruin him by outing his wife, he probably figures he’ll give them another chance to do the job right.
Wilson is now vocally complaining...aligning himself with Democratic senators...and playing right in to the Republican strategy to fight this latest Karl gate.
Check this out from a July 13 article in the Washington Post:
The White House can't comment about comments they made about an investigation that they shouldn't have commented on originally.
And now Joe Wilson is being destroyed the way the Republicans should have probably done it the first time.
Meanwhile in the rest of America....who won Dancing with the Stars?
Wilson is now vocally complaining...aligning himself with Democratic senators...and playing right in to the Republican strategy to fight this latest Karl gate.
Check this out from a July 13 article in the Washington Post:
"The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.The circular nature of this whole story is so ridiculous. It started, supposedly, when the Republicans were trying to discredit Wilson for crossing them. Now it ends with the Republicans using the same tactics of which they are originally accused while they are denying it.
Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse
Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than dis-couraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday."
The White House can't comment about comments they made about an investigation that they shouldn't have commented on originally.
And now Joe Wilson is being destroyed the way the Republicans should have probably done it the first time.
Meanwhile in the rest of America....who won Dancing with the Stars?
Friday, July 8, 2005
What crime, Beth?
Am I the only person in the world who thinks the Aruban government needs to release everyone they are holding in the Natalie Holloway case and quit assuming it is a crime?
Natalie Holloways's mom has been so effective at drumming up media coverage and casting suspicion on the last three people to be seen with her daughter that everyone seems to have overlooked one significant fact: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME!
There is no grassy knoll, no bloody glove, no hair, no fiber, no claims of responsibility from Al Qaeda, nothing.
Instead, Aruban police have been acting like Beth Holloway-Twitty has some Abu Ghraib pictures of them. Up until recently, they have arrested, released and detained anyone she wanted. When they finally decided to follow their own minds, Beth threw a hissy.
I'm sorry for your grief, Beth, but there is no evidence that Natalie didn't just cut her hair and hop on a Greyhound to Vegas.
That whole proximity argument is ridiculous. Being in the back seat of a car on the receiving end of Natalie's southern hospitality doesn't make you a killer. That wouldn't hold water in a U.S. Court and it shouldn't in Aruba. Johnnie Cochrane (God rest his soul) would have a field day if the LAPD used that as a reason to arrest Todd Bridges or any of the Drummond kids. Arrest an honor student son of a judge and Johnnie could phone that in from the Armani store.
Instead, these boys were held in jail for weeks while everyone assumed they were guilty. Let's all take a deep breath and call this what it really is: a missing persons case and not a murder investigation.
Natalie Holloways's mom has been so effective at drumming up media coverage and casting suspicion on the last three people to be seen with her daughter that everyone seems to have overlooked one significant fact: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME!
There is no grassy knoll, no bloody glove, no hair, no fiber, no claims of responsibility from Al Qaeda, nothing.
Instead, Aruban police have been acting like Beth Holloway-Twitty has some Abu Ghraib pictures of them. Up until recently, they have arrested, released and detained anyone she wanted. When they finally decided to follow their own minds, Beth threw a hissy.
I'm sorry for your grief, Beth, but there is no evidence that Natalie didn't just cut her hair and hop on a Greyhound to Vegas.
That whole proximity argument is ridiculous. Being in the back seat of a car on the receiving end of Natalie's southern hospitality doesn't make you a killer. That wouldn't hold water in a U.S. Court and it shouldn't in Aruba. Johnnie Cochrane (God rest his soul) would have a field day if the LAPD used that as a reason to arrest Todd Bridges or any of the Drummond kids. Arrest an honor student son of a judge and Johnnie could phone that in from the Armani store.
Instead, these boys were held in jail for weeks while everyone assumed they were guilty. Let's all take a deep breath and call this what it really is: a missing persons case and not a murder investigation.
Who knocked off Natalie Holloway
(Off the front pages, that is.)
Two days and no stories about Natalie Holloway's mom. Everyone is blaming Al Qaeda, but it seems the Arubans had just as much to gain. :-P
Two days and no stories about Natalie Holloway's mom. Everyone is blaming Al Qaeda, but it seems the Arubans had just as much to gain. :-P
Jailed Journalist heralded and forgotten in the same news cycle: Priceless
Don't hold your breath waiting for fair and balanced coverage of that journalist who went to jail.
Media reporters were tripping over each other for their opportunity to denounce the sentence. Keith Oblemann went so far as to pronounce the judge as the worst person on the planet.
Meanwhile Judith Miller is getting her Martha Stewart fame -- success on a scale she never enjoyed when she plied her trade and was the target of scorn from many of those same journalists. You have to wonder if she's not secretly enjoying this as she pens her book: My time in a suburban DC jail.
Sucks to be the other reporter whose source allowed him to talk. Damn! His book: Almost a martyr, out soon.
The irony is that journalist's outrage was short lived when a real tragedy knocked them off their soap boxes. Thanks to "the terrorists" nobody seems to care about the plight of a jailed journalists anymore.
Now Judy sees how it feels to try and create news coverage on the same day a big story drops. Feel the pain of PR hacks everywhere.
For the record, I think having the government jail reporters for not revealing sources is a bad idea. But it's not like I claim to be fair and balanced.
Media reporters were tripping over each other for their opportunity to denounce the sentence. Keith Oblemann went so far as to pronounce the judge as the worst person on the planet.
Meanwhile Judith Miller is getting her Martha Stewart fame -- success on a scale she never enjoyed when she plied her trade and was the target of scorn from many of those same journalists. You have to wonder if she's not secretly enjoying this as she pens her book: My time in a suburban DC jail.
Sucks to be the other reporter whose source allowed him to talk. Damn! His book: Almost a martyr, out soon.
The irony is that journalist's outrage was short lived when a real tragedy knocked them off their soap boxes. Thanks to "the terrorists" nobody seems to care about the plight of a jailed journalists anymore.
Now Judy sees how it feels to try and create news coverage on the same day a big story drops. Feel the pain of PR hacks everywhere.
For the record, I think having the government jail reporters for not revealing sources is a bad idea. But it's not like I claim to be fair and balanced.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Assault on the media
This is a really good article. If I had time, I would have written it. :-)
LM
---------------------------------------
Vew the entire article.
LM
---------------------------------------
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, May 27, 2005; Page A27
So it turns out that the FBI has documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained about the mistreatment of the Koran and that many said they were severely beaten.
The documents specifically include an allegation from a prisoner that guards had "flushed a Koran in the toilet."
And yesterday, Pentagon officials said investigators have identified five incidents of "mishandling" the Koran by military guards and investigators. It was the first time Pentagon officials had acknowledged mistreatment of the Muslim holy book, though they insisted that the episodes were minor and occurred in the Guantanamo facility's early days.
What, then, is one to make of the Bush administration's furious assault against Newsweek magazine for bringing allegations about the abuse of the Koran to popular attention?
Vew the entire article.
Thursday, May 5, 2005
Free Lynndie?
Pfc Lynndie England beat the wrap in the Abu Ghraib trial, and I’m not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing.
An Army judge Wednesday ended the court martial trial of England — the woman who became the poster child for Iraqi prison abuse — saying that her guilty plea was not believable. Under military law, the judge could not accept England’s plea unless he was convinced she knew she was committing an illegal act. England first claimed she was only following orders, but said Monday that she knew her actions were wrong.
Why might this be a bad thing?
England finally admitted she was wrong, and the judge said “I don’t believe you.”
Having served in the Army during a deployment, I can understand how a situation like Abu Ghraib could spin out of control but not how a person wouldn’t know it was wrong.
In the Army, maintaining the integrity of the chain of command is paramount. If a soldier given a lawful order by someone senior, that soldier is expected to follow it. There is no tolerance for disobeying a lawful order, especially during wartime. This is essential because a wayward soldier making an independent decision could cost lives. The military works best when everyone is on the same page. Drill sergeants are fond of saying “we are here to defend democracy not practice it.”
You’ll notice that I was careful to note that you are duty bound to obey a lawful order. The military also makes that distinction because if you receive an unlawful order, you are also duty bound not to follow it. That’s part of your instruction during basic training. Moreover, if you do receive an unlawful order, you should report the person dispensing those unlawful orders. Those are the rules.
So England now says that she thought she was receiving a lawful order. Everyone was doing it. She didn’t receive training. It was war. He was older. Blah Blah Blah.
The Army shouldn’t need to tell you that putting a naked man on a leash and taking a picture with him is wrong. You should have received that block of training from your Mama. That’s called home training.
I can’t imagine any conditions under which I would let somebody, of any rank, talk me into doing what England did. And if any child of mine ever did, the Army wouldn’t need to discipline him — at least not until I got first crack at him. They can have what’s left after I’m done with him.
How many times have you heard a mother say, “I don’t care how many people are doing it. If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?”
Well they all jumped off a cliff and England followed them. She was clearly wrong, and she knew it. That she might not experience any consequences of her actions is a bad thing.
Why might it be a good thing?
It could force the Army to confront the systemic problem of leadership. It was no surprise to anyone familiar with military culture that the only people prosecuted were enlisted, and lower enlisted to boot. These are the people at the bottom of the scale in terms of pay, responsibility, training, and everything else. Yet, they carry all the weight in this scandal.
When an enlisted crew does outstanding work, every officer in their chain of command falls over themselves to take credit for the “inspirational leadership that created the conditions for success.” When things go awry, that same leadership should also be accountable. If that happens, it would be a good thing.
My college professor used to say, “ambivalence is watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand new BMW.”
Watching England potentially go free elicits the same emotions.
An Army judge Wednesday ended the court martial trial of England — the woman who became the poster child for Iraqi prison abuse — saying that her guilty plea was not believable. Under military law, the judge could not accept England’s plea unless he was convinced she knew she was committing an illegal act. England first claimed she was only following orders, but said Monday that she knew her actions were wrong.
Why might this be a bad thing?
England finally admitted she was wrong, and the judge said “I don’t believe you.”
Having served in the Army during a deployment, I can understand how a situation like Abu Ghraib could spin out of control but not how a person wouldn’t know it was wrong.
In the Army, maintaining the integrity of the chain of command is paramount. If a soldier given a lawful order by someone senior, that soldier is expected to follow it. There is no tolerance for disobeying a lawful order, especially during wartime. This is essential because a wayward soldier making an independent decision could cost lives. The military works best when everyone is on the same page. Drill sergeants are fond of saying “we are here to defend democracy not practice it.”
You’ll notice that I was careful to note that you are duty bound to obey a lawful order. The military also makes that distinction because if you receive an unlawful order, you are also duty bound not to follow it. That’s part of your instruction during basic training. Moreover, if you do receive an unlawful order, you should report the person dispensing those unlawful orders. Those are the rules.
So England now says that she thought she was receiving a lawful order. Everyone was doing it. She didn’t receive training. It was war. He was older. Blah Blah Blah.
The Army shouldn’t need to tell you that putting a naked man on a leash and taking a picture with him is wrong. You should have received that block of training from your Mama. That’s called home training.
I can’t imagine any conditions under which I would let somebody, of any rank, talk me into doing what England did. And if any child of mine ever did, the Army wouldn’t need to discipline him — at least not until I got first crack at him. They can have what’s left after I’m done with him.
How many times have you heard a mother say, “I don’t care how many people are doing it. If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?”
Well they all jumped off a cliff and England followed them. She was clearly wrong, and she knew it. That she might not experience any consequences of her actions is a bad thing.
Why might it be a good thing?
It could force the Army to confront the systemic problem of leadership. It was no surprise to anyone familiar with military culture that the only people prosecuted were enlisted, and lower enlisted to boot. These are the people at the bottom of the scale in terms of pay, responsibility, training, and everything else. Yet, they carry all the weight in this scandal.
When an enlisted crew does outstanding work, every officer in their chain of command falls over themselves to take credit for the “inspirational leadership that created the conditions for success.” When things go awry, that same leadership should also be accountable. If that happens, it would be a good thing.
My college professor used to say, “ambivalence is watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand new BMW.”
Watching England potentially go free elicits the same emotions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
