The Childish Logic of the White House (and the EPA Doesn't Come Off So Well, Either):

In a virtually unprecedented display of inexplicable childishness, the White House has decided that it's better off not opening an email from the EPA.

The reason? The EPA was ordered last year to study the question of whether greenhouse gasses are pollutants. The Agency did what it was supposed to do, and delivered the report to the White House. Via email, evidently. (This strikes me as beyond bizarre, and highly suspicious, but let's play along for now.)

The White House, in a display of bravado that's almost literally breathtaking, is claiming that it never received the report -- because no one opened the email.

I should be surprised, but the only thing that's surprising about this is the sheer creativity of it. Can you imagine being in that room, when this "course of action" was being decided? "Oh, I know! Can't we just not open it?"

Evidently, "that's the dumbest @!#@%$^ thing I've ever heard" lost out to "holy #$^%, why didn't I think of that?!"

Now the EPA, in true Washington fashion, is backing down, and is going to expunge politically unfavorable portions from the report. Chickens. All they're doing is joining the legions in our government abjectly abdicating their responsibilities because they don't have the guts to stand up and fight for what they know is right -- they're not even going to stand up and fight for themselves.

One of the soon-to-be-excised pieces (from the NYT link above):

"Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years."

So let's see. The EPA would, if left to its own devices, class greenhouse gases as pollutants -- theoretically, at any rate. The EPA's study concluded that we could actually make money by taking on the problem of greenhouse gas emissions . . .

. . . and yet, they'd rather not take a principled stand, or even take the base economic stand. They'd rather get their email read, so they can say "hey, we tried to tell them!"

Pathetic.

Germany 0:1 Spain

Today's match wasn't all that great, but the result reflects the game as it was played on the pitch. Unlike the Portugal game, when Germany was able to stifle the attack and push it back and outside, this time, the more athletic team was able to work its will on the tougher, grittier team.

The ref . . . was horrible, absolutely horrible, and adversely impacted the game as it was played, which is to say, the ref had a discernible impact. Terrible officiating, no consistency in what was being called when, and it was so bad that the commentators felt the need to point out that hey, he's the ref, he has his credentials. A more backhanded slap at an official I've never heard; to be honest, I've never heard such a cutting comment about an official in any sport, anywhere, because the understated simplicity absolutely belied the intent, and left us laughing and saying something suitably articulate, such as "DAAAAAAMN!"

Spain played a better game, and utilized their superior speed and offensive creativity to keep the German side reeling. Once Torres' goal was in the net, you could see a conflict among the German players. They knew that the Spanish outclassed them in terms of speed, and the remainder of the game was a peculiar mish-mash of a strong desire to advance and attack, but always with one hip turned halfway backward, as if they were anticipating the mistake that would lead to the Spanish counterattack. The result was that in the second half, but for about an eight-minute span fairly early in that half, the Germans never committed fully to getting that equalizing goal they needed, until it was so late that they were desperately cavalier about how they went about attacking. Unfortunately, some of them chose the worst possible time to have an off-night. It happens to the best of them, but Schweinsteiger in particular could have played better. Sure, he was working hard, but he was much more false hustle and making mistakes than having a positive impact on his team. Klose . . . couldn't stay on (though I'll be hornswoggled if he were actually off on two of those -- from every replay angle I saw, he was on a couple of the times he was called off).

All in all, congratulations, Spain. The Spanish played a magnificent tournament, and played unquestionably the better game.

A Lighter Moment on the Way Home from the Vigils Yesterday:

Still haven't fully processed yesterday, but when I do, I'm sure I'll blog something about it. It was my first two anti-death penalty vigils, seeing some people again for the first time in four or five years, including the mother of a wrongly accused on death row, and a lot more than that besides, so it'll take a couple of days to filter in and back out.

On the way back home last night, though, there was a light moment. Iris called, wondering whether I'd not yet left the vigil outside the prison (which, for the record, is simultaneously closer than I thought and solidly in the middle of nowhere). I was on the road, and while I ordinarily frown on gabbing on your cell phone while driving (and generally swear when I see jerks doing just that), I was that jerk last night. In my defense, I was literally the only vehicle visible on the road, so I felt ok with it.

"Where are you?"

At this point, I'm at roughly mile 240 of a 300-mile drive over the course of the day, though I don't know this at that point.

"I'm, uh, hmmm. I have no earthly idea where I am. 58. That's all I know."

Turns out I was in Courtland -- Nat Turner country. Go figure.

Shaq Raps (Sort of), Loses Badges:

By now just about everyone has heard that Shaquille "The Big Whatever The Hell I Claim To Be In This Particular Moment" O'Neal was videotaped rapping about Kobe Bryant kissing his ass, among other things.

First things first, and I say this as someone who never listened to Shaq rap before, but my god, that was terrible.

Second, I lost a fair bit of respect for Shaq out of this. Dude, it's been almost five years, and guess what? You got a ring in Miami, while Kobe struck out on his own. If you're still that bitter about it, fine, but don't go all Dave Mustaine in public like that. Grow up.

I was on Shaq's side in The Big Divorce (sorry, Big Fella), but this is just juvenile. It'd be marginally less pathetic were the rap at least clever, but alas . . . "Kobe, how my ass taste?" just doesn't get it done.

Here's where the story gets really interesting, though: Sheriff Joe Arpaio, you know, the nutball who "goes dark ages on they asses" just so he can boast about being "the toughest sheriff in America," and who had made Shaq both The Big Special Deputy and The Big Colonel of the Posse, has fired The Big Rapper. The reason? Racially charged language used in the rap.

Pardon me while I have a good laugh over the stupidity of the whole situation.

Oh, hey, Shaq? How Arpaio's ass taste, Big Fella?

James Dobson Has the Balls to Accuse Someone Else of Eisegesis:

I've got to tune into Focus on the Family today, or catch it online somewhere. I am really, REALLY interested to hear James Dobson, of all people, distorting the Bible.

I won't say much, since the basic idea I'd be going for has already been expressed more succinctly than I could, but I will quote James Megivern, author of, among others, The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey:

"There is nothing so fruitless as wrangling over the meaning of the Bible when the real object of debate should be the presuppositions brought to its interpretation."

I am, I think obviously and understandably, more sympathetic to Obama's reading of the Bible than Dobson's -- far, far more sympathetic, in fact. Still, I find myself exceedingly curious as to the content of Dobson's program today. Not least of my reasons is his unmitigated gall in accusing someone else of eisegesis.

Glass houses, Jim -- or, to be a bit more biblical about it, mote vs. beam.

Edit: Dobson's comments can be heard here.

God Busted: Deals Cocaine in Tampa:

The next time that someone tells you that they don't need drugs because they get high on Gee-Oh-Dee, ask them how long he lets you ride before taking dropping a plague.

"Ok, dude, listen. You don't pay me by next week, you get the frogs. You still don't pay me, well, you're fuckin' stupid, but it'll be your firstborn. No one ever rides three weeks, get me?"

Some News from Campaign '08:

First, McCain censures an aide who made the mistake of actually saying what the McCain campaign thinks (knows): a terrorist attack on America would be good for McCain's campaign. Let's be brutally honest here: it would be good for their campaign. After all, Republicans are stronger on defense -- whatever that actually means (style over substance in a big way). Oh, and don't worry about the cognitive dissonance of saying that the Republicans are stronger on defense and therefore more able to protect us despite this hypothetical second attack -- there wouldn't be any from anyone dumb enough to use that as a talking point.

How do you know they're right? Chuck Hagel is being rumored as Obama's VP. Some people, including a former Kennedy speechwriter, think this is a good idea.

Way to fight that stereotype, guys. Good going.

On Obama's side, seems they've retired the augmented presidential seal that made an appearance over the weekend.

Chickens. "It was a one-time thing." Sure was, but you'll never convince me that it was intended to be single-use. Amy calls Obama out on this, for two reasons. First, "nobody likes the guy who's cocky enough to act as if the contest is over before it's even begun." There's some truth to that, but I disagree with it somewhat: we, the voters, are supposed to like confidence and leadership and decisionificatering, or whatever, so the guy who acts like he has it in the bag probably has an advantage over the other guy who is just gunning for the job. (I'll leave aside that this jab came from an ardent Clinton supporter, who certainly was never guilty of comparable acts of presumptuousness, either in quality or quantity. ;) )

Second, "if you want to ingratiate yourself with working class white voters who think you're elitist, you don't do it by translating your campaign slogan into latin." Agreed in principle, but this isn't exactly out of character with America. E pluribus unum, and all that, not to mention my own state's motto, Sic Semper Tyrannis. As with so many things, though, it's probably the when more than the what that makes the difference, and if in this case the what is no big deal (and I don't think it really is), the when was just dumb on his part.

So yeah, it was a one-time deal, but not from advance intent. The coward caught some shit, got embarrassed, and pulled it. Good decision that was unfortunately prompted by a bad decision. This one seems to be somewhere south of breakeven for the moment, but it'll be a non-issue in fifteen or so more seconds. Ah, the moronic American voter . . . short attention spans and all.

Netherlands 1:1 Russia 90th Minute:

However this game ends, one thing's for sure: this year, this tournament, Russia is no joke.

Good match today -- and if yesterday is any indication, then extra time could be a killer.

Germany 3:2 Portugal

Adequate game this afternoon. I had hoped for a better, more competitive match, because despite the score, this one wasn't really that close. I'm surprised both ways. As badly as Germany played against Austria, I'm somewhat surprised that they played so well against a much, much better team than the Austrians. At the same time, I'm surprised that the Portuguese played so poorly.

Part of that was a function of the different styles. The Portuguese are unquestionably quicker and more athletic than the Germans, but in this instance, power overcame finesse. Not always cleanly, of course -- reference Ballack's goal. Doesn't matter what sport it is, when you push off and extend that far, you've committed a penalty. Doesn't count unless it's called, and it wasn't, so the goal stood, but it's more emblematic of the toughness and grit and nastiness with which the Germans played, as compared to the finesse of the Portuguese.

Should be an interesting match tomorrow: Croatia v. Turkey. If Turkey wins, then the semi-final should be very interesting around Germany, what with Europeans being incapable of not resorting to violence in the aftermath of big soccer games and all.

Still, I kept seeing analogies between this game and the NBA Finals. For all of the Lakers' superior athleticism, they, like Portugal, fell victim to a meaner, tougher team that was willing to punch them in the mouth to get the win.

Seen at the Texas GOP Convention:

Congratulations Boston:

Normally I'd say more, but Jamie did it for me: to lose by 39 in a game like this is an absolute disgrace, and the Lakers should, individually and collectively, be thoroughly embarrassed.

Kobe, hit the FT line, and practice. Matter of fact, everyone do that -- with Shaq long gone, there's no excuse for such consistently poor FT%.

Gasol, learn how to attack and grab passes, rather than letting them come to you. Re-learn it, rather, because you did it up until the Finals.

Fisher, well, you're actually ok.

Odom, remember how you were aggressive, using your body, and making plays here and there? Do that more often. You weren't in foul trouble last night, so no excuses, buddy.

I do look forward to a rematch next season, though. I like the Lakers a lot better in a series with Gasol at F and Bynum at C, but this time, there's no denying the simple fact that Boston was better in every phase of the game and just stomped them down.

I'm halfway inclined to take a flyer on the Bruins next season.

You Have to be #$#$^$ Kidding Me!

I sincerely hope this changes and this game becomes competitive, but I have never seen a team look less like it belongs in a championship series than the Lakers do right now.

It's hard to believe that they are capable of getting this far, of winning the conference, of having the best record in the West -- and still sucking this badly in an elimination game.

Horrible.

Game Six Tonight:

Were I a betting man, I'd say Boston takes the series and the championship tonight, but the way they went after Game 5, they may try to postpone their celebration for a few more days.

This has turned into a poor showing from both teams. Boston has all of the advantages, and has probably been the best team in all five games thus far, but has only managed to close out three of them, and one of those just barely. Granted, the third of those wins was the biggest comeback in Finals history, this less than a week after the Lakers nearly accomplished what would have been the identical feat, but -- and not to put too fine a point on it -- that "greatest comeback in history" should have been the backbreaker.

It was more of a leg drop, it appears, or a maybe a turnbuckle drop kick. The Lakers were staggered and dazed, but in a way, it's hard to shake the feeling that they were blading. To drop the pro 'rasslin' metaphors, they were kicked hard where it hurts -- roughly where Lamar Odom took a knee on Sunday -- but managed to keep their feet and, barely, hang on to the top rope to keep from going down.

Sportscenter this morning posed a question of its panelists: Is Game 6 a must-win for Boston?

Allow me to take a crack at that one:

Yes, it is.

Much has been made -- rightly -- of the Lakers' ineptitude on defense. Let's call a spade a spade here: the Lakers have sucked defensively this series. Sucked, with a capital S. Oh, they're acting like they're working hard defensively, and in a way, they are, but what they're doing isn't playing defense, it's wasting energy. Jeff Van Gundy had it right the other night: it's fake-hustle defense. You know, run around extra hard, looking like you're giving it your all, but really, you're just out there burning calories.

No time for cardio, boys -- this matters. Take a charge, rather than swatting at a driving Celtic. Look at how you're being defended, and emulate it; the Lakers have formations where they have a size advantage, but they're failing to take advantage, on both ends. Which brings me to:

The Lakers have sucked offensively this series. Abysmal is too kind a word for a team that has undergone longer droughts than the Atacama. It gets so bad that it almost feels like they drop an accidental bucket in from time to time, just because the law of averages says some shots have to fall.

Why is Boston up 3-2? Because the Lakers have sucked at both ends of the floor, and Boston hasn't. They haven't been stellar offensively, except in stretches when offensively, they're executing almost flawlessly (not coincidentally, these stretches tend to take place when the Lakers couldn't hit the ocean from a damn boat). Defensively, they have some periodic breakdowns, but they're much, much tighter -- and tougher -- on defense than the Lakers have been. (That said, allow me to gripe about two Lakers being tackled in the paint the other day -- if that's not an offensive foul, then nothing short of blatantly punching or kicking someone can be.)

The Celtics have been the better team in each game, with the possible exception of Game 3, but let's be clear about something: as great as Kobe was in Game 3, Sasha Vujacic is the reason the Lakers won that game. Kobe was more of a footnote to the sharpshooter, who seems inexplicably to recalibrated his sights after that game.

The Celtics have been better because they've been sharper and more coordinated, and while it's easy to blame Kobe for not facilitating, the fault only lies so deep with him. The rest of it is just poor play from his teammates, all of whom -- Kobe included -- disappear for long stretches of time and then start to play frustrated. When they play frustrated, they play poorly -- or engage in fake-hustle play.

The Celtics have been better because they've been tougher. Pau Gasol, where have you been? Apart from doing your best Dirk Nowitzki impersonation, I mean. Lamar Odom, where are you?

Kobe Bryant, couldn't you play tougher, too? Paul Pierce is taking charges; you're committing fouls.

You cannot always force a team to run with you, but when you can't, you darn well better match their intensity and toughness. In 2004, only Shaq was able to do that against Detroit, in the five-game sweep. In 2008, the Lakers collectively have only managed to match Boston's toughness for stretches at a time. Unsurprisingly, when they match Boston's toughness, their superior athleticism allows them to take big leads or make big runs . . .

. . . precisely until Boston dials up the toughness, then it all falls apart.

And yet, here we are, in Game 6.

Boston took LA's best punch in Game 4, then took them down. That should have ended the series. But it didn't. And we're here, looking at Game 6.

Don't get me wrong, I expect Boston to win this game, and I'd be lying if I said I even expected it to be close; it may be close on the scoreboard, although I doubt that, but it'd be one of those "deceptively close" scores.

But if they can't finish the deal . . . if the strain of playing an extra third of a season catches up to them . . . if they can't overcome the injuries . . . if the Lakers manage to elevate their game to anything approaching the way they played in the conference playoffs . . .

. . . then we could be looking at a Game 7. Smart money would probably have to be on Los Angeles then.

Let's see how the shots drop tonight, and let's see why.

My Father's Day Present:

Behold:



Unbelievably cute. Real kids do indeed wear black, even if they're drooling feverishly (a couple more teeth en route, apparently).

Some more recent reasons it's great to be a dad:

Happy Father's Day:

One good thing about being back stateside: an official Father's Day, sorely lacking in Germany.

So, Happy Father's Day to all of those men out there taking care of their kids, being dads. Lunchbox, J-Rob, holla -- you're two of the good ones.

Thomas Paine PWNZ0R3D By Teh Intarweb:

I laughed.

Percy Walton's Death Sentence Commuted:

Governor Tim Kaine commuted Percy Walton's death sentence to life in prison.

The immediate effect of this is that Virginia stays in double digits for post-Gregg period, if only for two weeks: Robert Yarbrough will be number 100 in less than two weeks, with two more to follow over the following four; none of these three men can reasonably expect a commutation, despite some legitimate due process claims. In Yarbrough's case, for example, the trial judge at the second trial -- the VA Supreme Court overturned the first death sentence -- refused to answer the jury's question as to whether life meant natural life; i.e., will this man die in prison if we sentence him to life? This is a common question -- it is also commonly ignored by judges terrified that their decisions might be later overturned on technicalities. Unfortunately, the refusal to answer the question leaves people with the common, if misplaced fear that life means somewhere around 12 years (flatly not the case, not that anyone has realized this just yet). Jurors left with this misperception tend to vote for death, even when their obvious inclination is to go life. Yarbrough's lawyers will put this question in their brief requesting clemency, and Kaine will probably deny them anyway.

What's particularly interesting is the way that Kaine presents his argument for clemency. First, he locates the chain of events that led to the clemency decision to the stay issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia in 2003, a few days before Walton's first scheduled execution date. Signal: the courts started this, not myself, and not former Gov. Warner.

Second, Kaine shifts to the fact that Walton may have schizophrenia, an "illness [that] can cause serious deterioration of mental competence." Signal: this Walton is not the same Walton who was originally sentenced to death. Kaine later says that he didn't act as early as he could have, or perhaps would have wished to, because there was a chance, however unlikely, that Walton's condition would improve.

Absent that improvement, Kaine made the right decision and commuted the sentence. It was the responsible thing to do, as the executive, to commute the sentence of a man who is sufficiently mentally disabled as not to understand what is to happen to him. It was also the correct decision constitutionally, since Eighth Amendment jurisprudence makes it clear that the mentally incompetent cannot be executed.

At the same time, Kaine gets a few shots at the system in there:

"The Court has ruled that the Constitution forbids executing an individual who: commits a capital crime under the age of 18 years old; was insane at the time of the capital crime; or is mentally retarded due to intellectual disabilities evidenced before the age of 18.

"In this instance, Walton committed these murders less than two months past his 18th birthday. While he was not insane at the time of his crimes, there are strong indicators that his mental illness started prior to the murders. While he scored a 6 on his most recent IQ test, which is below a standard for mental retardation (70 on an IQ test) set by the Supreme Court of Virginia, he appears to have fallen below that standard for mental retardation only after he turned 18 while the relevant legal standard in the Commonwealth requires that retardation be in evidence prior to that age."

Signal: the system is arbitrary; whether or not we're willing to live with a thoroughly arbitrary system when life and death -- in multiple ways -- are involved is for voters to think rationally about, rather than dismission emotionally.

Ultimately, Kaine's statement on commutation says nothing about his faith, nor his personal opposition -- and nor should it. It stays exactly where it should, within the legal question.

Looks Like This One Is Just About Over:

I can't believe the Celtics won this game, but it looks like this series is over. The only question is whether the Lakers can get it to the weekend and Game 6.

Something that troubles me about this series: where the hell is Gasol? I know it's his first time on the big stage, so it may be unfair to judge him based on his total, absolute absence this series, but he's starting to give off a Dirk Nowitzki "loser" vibe.

I'd love for him to show up Game 5 and prove me wrong. Even if it doesn't impact this series, it'll help going into next season.

I won't congratulate the Celtics yet, but god, have they been good.

Kobe Bryant: The Great Facilitator?

I'm curious about something: the announcers this evening keep referring to Kobe as "the Great Facilitator."

Is it just me, or does that smack of all of Shaq's various "The Great X" nicknames?

That's gotta piss Kobe off.

For the Pro-Hillary "Spite Vote:"

Bear this in mind about John McCain: he has no compunction about calling his wife a cunt and trollop in front of others.

My wife and I have had some pretty good arguments, but I've never dropped that one. So for everyone complaining -- however correctly -- about the sexism that was directed at Clinton (how much of that from the other Democrat, again?), remember who bears the other standard.

Lethal Injection Not Out of the Woods Yet?

A judge in Ohio ruled the three-drug cocktail unconstitutional, finding that it causes an unacceptable risk of unnecessary suffering during the process. This is somewhat different than the Kentucky process that was upheld in Baze, because Ohio's process differs from Kentucky's, and Ohio's law also explicitly prohibits causing pain during an execution. Still, interesting to see this pop up just a couple of months after the three-drug cocktail was sustained in a challenge.

My Old Record Collection:

Since we've been back, we've been taking a bit of time to consolidate and jettison some of the stuff we left here when we moved to Germany.

I also discovered that the turntable around the house still works, so I'll be having some fun listening to some of my old records.

Right now, it's an Iron Maiden LP.

That's right.

LP.

And yes, they still sound better than any subsequent format.

Once Again Proving that Politicians Miss the Point:

Senate Republicans have blocked a windfall tax on the oil companies, who continue to bring in record profits while prices keep going up.

In another display of the capacity of elected officials to stand just a couple of paces to the side of any given issue:

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem."

"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," McConnell said.

A GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.

Way to miss the boat, folks. "Let's just produce our way out of this, consequences be damned!"

Here's why the alternative was better:

The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks — worth $17 billion over the next 10 years — with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

It took them two full years -- i.e., right smack into the next presidential election cycle, but the Democrats are finally getting off their worthless butts and doing something.

The Republicans, on the other hand . . . :

Separately, Democrats also failed to get Republican support for a proposal to extend tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. The tax breaks have either expired or are scheduled to end this year.

Awesome. Let's not tax the people making the money by engaging in business-as-usual, but let's not give any boost or financial assistance to companies trying to take that next step forward.

Why would we want to do a silly thing like that, anyway?

Cedric Benson Released By Bears:

Yet another idiot screws up one too many times and is now in jeopardy of not having a job.

Unlike Chris Henry and Odell Thurman, however, Benson hasn't displayed the talent and on-field ability to compensate for his off-field stupidity. Could be tough getting another job any time soon, and I can't imagine any owner dumb enough to offer him more than a minimum contract loaded with escape clauses. Even then, I doubt he's worth the risk.

Here's the potential upside: what would the Bears be willing to part with for, say, LaMont Jordan?

Just sayin'.

Buying Beer:

I'm 30 years old, and I was carded buying beer tonight.

Awesome.

Amending My Democratic VP Prediction:

It looks as if the Veepstakes is in full swing after yesterday, and not a moment too soon, if only because I'm so darn curious as to the identity of the as-yet-unnamed ticket partner.

Obama is in full search mode, while Clinton made it clear she'd take the position (I maintain that this would be a catastrophic decision, and this has nothing to do with my general dislike of Senator Clinton).

A couple of weeks ago, I predicted Mark Warner as the Veep. I'm going to back off of that one.

I still like the idea of Bill Richardson, but here's my pick, and one that I may stay with for a little while:

Jim Webb.

Watch for it.

Justice Clinton?

Here's an idea that intrigues me, even though I'm quite late to the party: Justice Hillary Clinton. It may be a bit of a stretch to pop her up to the Supreme Court, being that she's never been a judge, but the idea is incredibly interesting. Clinton, whatever else you may say of her, is a supremely intelligent woman, and I do respect what I can see of her approach to problem-solving: although she too often comes to conclusions with which I don't agree, she gives every indication of being aware of and conversant with the range of options. Thus, while I dislike her conclusions and stated policy aims, I like what I see of her thought process. Freed from the nastiness of needing, or believing that she needs, to triangulate, we may find that she has what it takes to be a good justice. Of course, we may find that she doesn't, so it's a crapshoot. I don't know that she has the temperament or character that I would want to see in a justice, which is a concern, and maybe it would be better for her to hit the bench elsewhere, but the idea itself is remarkable.

Needless to say, if something like this is worked out, it had better be double-secret probationary information, or it'll probably cost Obama the election.

All things equal, I'd certainly take Justice Clinton over Justice Scalia, though within their own element it'd be a race to the bottom to see which is capable of being more breathtakingly intellectually dishonest. Scalia probably wins, and it may only be close into the fourth quarter, but there's an idea: Political Intellectual Deathmatch. Claymation Clinton vs. Soil-Sculpted Scalia, beating the hell out of each other in an animated ring.

I'd probably watch that.

Birthday Wishes from my Baby Girl:

So my girls are over in VA while I'm hanging out in Boulder, waiting for a panel to start, and taking advantage of the wireless in the building to check my email for the first time today (the hotel I was in last night had its modem stolen recently [!!] and so didn't have any access in the rooms), and look what I discover in my inbox:



Is that cute as hell or what?

Happy birthday indeed!

More Jackbooting:

Immigration officials evidently have decided that in the interest of rounding up illegal immigrants they can:

1. Break your door down and claim to be police.


2. Storm homes and remove children from their parents.


3. Stroll into minority neighborhoods and round up anyone who looks suspicious, regardless of whether or not they have any probable cause or reasonable suspicion that particular individuals may be illegal.


4. Work from quotas.

No immigration problem is bad enough, ever, anywhere, to countenance such grotesque violations of the Constitution.

"But illegals aren't citizens, and therefore not subject to Constitutional protection!"

No kidding, dipshit, but you've got the important bit wrong. The Constitution does not confer rights -- it sets out limitations on the ability of governments to limit those rights. To think otherwise is to betray a) that you actually haven't read or have failed to understand the document and b) are one of those morons who tend to get other people into trouble by being insufficiently critical of power.

And while we're on the subject of abuses of power, check out Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities Report.

Look at how much is redacted or was withheld from the FOIA request. Now look at what's left.

Two things are immediately apparent.

First, the only thing that is admitted to is waterboarding, which suggests that this is probably among the most "innocuous" of the activities mentioned in the original. What else was being done, or is being done, that we don't yet know about? That waterboarding is so prominently mentioned -- that the redacters seem to have gone out of their way to make it obvious and visible -- suggests that there are other, far less savory practices going on or having gone one.

Second, we only get waterboarding in this report because we already knew about it. Had this been sought to prove alleged waterboarding via official documentation, it would have been redacted.

Nixon, apparently, was a rank amateur.

She Said That? Seriously?

In a staggering display of dishonesty, Senator Clinton compared her second-place standing to elections in Zimbabwe.

There is a similarity, to be sure -- but it's not the one that she points out. She claims that the voice of the people is not being heard, and claims to be the leader in the popular vote (which worked so well for Gore, when it wasn't the relevant metric, lest we forget). How she knows this I'll never be quite sure of, since her numbers include "estimates" (no doubt exquisitely friendly ones) for caucus states. So she claims to be the vote leader, but without the numbers to back it up; thus, her complaint that the nomination is being stolen from her at the expense of the majority of voters is quite a stretch, and at best dishonest.

The similarity is that Clinton, like Mugabe, is working through back channels to actually turn the legitimate results into something more favorable to her, and thus to take a win and a position by back-channel power-brokering that she could not legitimately win on her own.

Too bad she invited the comparison, because while it's unquestionably hyperbolic, it's a perfect fit, particularly because she brought it up. What a stupid way to flash your "I know what's going on in the world, so vote for me" cred.