Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Did you hear that?
Bill Cosby is a comedic genius and American icon. One of his bits involves a grandfather playing in the basement with his grandson. Grandma calls from the kitchen and grandad continues to play with the kid, who asks, "Did you hear that?" Grandad slowly replies, "Hear what?" without breaking his concentration on the playing at hand. Grandma calls again. Grandad replies, "I'll be right there." The kid asks why he didn't respond the first time. Grandad says, "If it's really important, she calls twice." Presidents seem to take the same approach with Congress.
Sen. Arlen Specter, current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is proposing a bill that will lead to a cage match featuring the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Expect Presidential "signing statements" to become part of the national lexicon very soon.
Here's how it works. Congress "A" sends bill to President "B" (party doesn't matter) to be signed into law. President "B" doesn't like parts of bill, so he (no female presidents yet, except for Geena Davis) signs it, but adds a crib sheet with his own analysis called a "signing statement." Ah, but the crib sheet isn't just a security blanky, it serves as an authoritative statement to executive branch agencies (i.e. the part of the government you and I interact with) as to how to "enforce" the law. So far, no big deal.
I say "enforce" because, according to Sen. Specter, the current Administration uses signing statements as legislative white-out, a kindler, gentler line-item veto. He is accusing the President of ignoring the legislative will of Congress. You may recall, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional during the Clinton Administration after Congress passed a law attempting to give Presidents the power.
In a speech Sen. Specter stated that only 600 signing statements had been issued prior to the current administration. According to Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. MSNBC reports that President Bush has used the sigining statement 750-800 times.
Eventually, this battle will go to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, arguing for the President, will likely claim that any increase in frequency and degree of signing statements is merely coincident with post-911 security concerns and the increase in national security legislation. The Solicitor General will also say that the President is entitled to his opinion, and that he is not entitled to enforce unconstitutional provisions that encroach on his obligation to defend national security and his authority to do so.
Congress will argue that the President has overstepped his authority, and that he can't ignore sections of law like kids ignore veggies on a plate. Congress will claim that the President's usurpation of powers threatens civil liberties and the constitutional system of checks and balances.
These arguments all fall under the rubric of governmental authority and responsibility. With signing statements the President wants freedom of action and freedom from answering to Congress on questions of national security. In a karmic twist, Congress wanted to avoid being responsible for its legislation by giving the President the line-item veto, so you'd think they'd be more sympathetic. Governing is not easy, but we don't elect the President to avoid the challenges of governing by ignoring the other branch of government. Nor do we elect the Congress to abdicate to the other branch to make tough budgetary decisions.
The President is going to lose this one, and he should. This is not about bashing Bush. This is about forcing the President to use his veto and force a two-thirds override, or to enforce legislation as debated and written by Congress. We have a judiciary to make decisions about encroaching on executive power. The President doing that for himself is the same as the fox guarding the hen house.
The Grandma here is also you and me. We have conditioned Grandpa government to ignore us until it's "really important." The problem is, we often realize too late what's really important. This is really important.
Sen. Arlen Specter, current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is proposing a bill that will lead to a cage match featuring the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Expect Presidential "signing statements" to become part of the national lexicon very soon.
Here's how it works. Congress "A" sends bill to President "B" (party doesn't matter) to be signed into law. President "B" doesn't like parts of bill, so he (no female presidents yet, except for Geena Davis) signs it, but adds a crib sheet with his own analysis called a "signing statement." Ah, but the crib sheet isn't just a security blanky, it serves as an authoritative statement to executive branch agencies (i.e. the part of the government you and I interact with) as to how to "enforce" the law. So far, no big deal.
I say "enforce" because, according to Sen. Specter, the current Administration uses signing statements as legislative white-out, a kindler, gentler line-item veto. He is accusing the President of ignoring the legislative will of Congress. You may recall, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional during the Clinton Administration after Congress passed a law attempting to give Presidents the power.
In a speech Sen. Specter stated that only 600 signing statements had been issued prior to the current administration. According to Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. MSNBC reports that President Bush has used the sigining statement 750-800 times.
Eventually, this battle will go to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, arguing for the President, will likely claim that any increase in frequency and degree of signing statements is merely coincident with post-911 security concerns and the increase in national security legislation. The Solicitor General will also say that the President is entitled to his opinion, and that he is not entitled to enforce unconstitutional provisions that encroach on his obligation to defend national security and his authority to do so.
Congress will argue that the President has overstepped his authority, and that he can't ignore sections of law like kids ignore veggies on a plate. Congress will claim that the President's usurpation of powers threatens civil liberties and the constitutional system of checks and balances.
These arguments all fall under the rubric of governmental authority and responsibility. With signing statements the President wants freedom of action and freedom from answering to Congress on questions of national security. In a karmic twist, Congress wanted to avoid being responsible for its legislation by giving the President the line-item veto, so you'd think they'd be more sympathetic. Governing is not easy, but we don't elect the President to avoid the challenges of governing by ignoring the other branch of government. Nor do we elect the Congress to abdicate to the other branch to make tough budgetary decisions.
The President is going to lose this one, and he should. This is not about bashing Bush. This is about forcing the President to use his veto and force a two-thirds override, or to enforce legislation as debated and written by Congress. We have a judiciary to make decisions about encroaching on executive power. The President doing that for himself is the same as the fox guarding the hen house.
The Grandma here is also you and me. We have conditioned Grandpa government to ignore us until it's "really important." The problem is, we often realize too late what's really important. This is really important.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Hot for Teacher
On "You Tube" you too can watch teacher and former Ms. Monday Nitro of World Championship Wrestling dance in her skivvies. She also happens to be a sex offender. Yes, I'm talking about Pamela Rogers, the 29-year-old teacher who had sex with a student. According to ABCNews.com, she had sex with a 13-year-old student when she was 28 after cultivating a relationship. They did the deed not just once, mind you, not just a few times either. Rogers was convicted of "15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape."
Don't confuse Pamela Rogers with Mary Kay LeTourneau, a similarly blonde-coiffed teacher who fell for a student, or Debra LaFave, the blonde-coiffed teacher who...you get the idea. A lot of people, mostly men, seem to think this is somehow ok.
Let's say the age of consent dropped to 13. This is a disaster scenario. Here are 10 unintended consequences:
1) Talk about kids raising kids. Imagine a 27-year-old granparent.
2) Mickey Mouse Club including the feature "12 hottest under 12"
3) Playstation as a wedding gift.
4) Unfair dating competition. I have a hard enough time competing with people my age.
5) Teachers flunking students because of a recent breakup.
6) Sex ed in third grade.
7) Toys R Us ads in Penthouse.
8) Awkward social situations: "Sara, you have such a handsome son! Oh--I mean...husband?"
9) Proms cancelled--all the chaperones are attending with dates.
10) If a man's wife is 13, it will be very difficult to trade her in for a "younger woman".
Here are some actual posts reacting to the news.
"i would love to be that kid"
"I would so would have tried to be that kid when I was his age. I never had a teacher that hot though."
"Well. I would think any kid at his age would have done what he done with her. She is tottaly hot. A teacher. Which makes it better. Stunningly great looking teacher. Wether it be 14-16-18 you know damn well if you don't like something you tell some one. Obviously he liked it. how was it found out that she had relations with this young boy?"
These three posts capture the gist of the argument, such as it is. I get the humor, but kidding aside, the "kid" is just that, a kid. He wasn't 14, 16, or 18--he was THIRTEEN. Even 16 is pushing it, but the kid was attending Centertown ELEMENTARY SCHOOL in McMinnville, Tennessee. Why should I have to explain this?
"How can we send support messages to her. If all women were as kind and sweet, perhaps there's be less crime."
Yeah, right. First of all, I'm sure you want to send "support messages" to her. You're probably more interested in sending pictures of yourself sitting naked in front of your computer.
"This poor woman needs help, not incarceration. A beautiful lady of such accomplishments surely cannot be all bad.
Hopefully, she will be given help and rehabilitation, instead of prison, so that she may again be a productive member of society. God bless, Pamela!"
This is an old argument of help & rehab versus jail time. While I agree that counseling and psychiatric care is in order, she was given the chance to seek care after the first sentencing. She was serving a suspended sentence when she was caught communicating with him through the boy's 17-year-old sister. (Don't get me started.) According to reports, after she was caught violating the court order she started crying in front of the judge, claiming she would do anything to rehabilitate herself. Too little too late.
Here's an interesting argument:
"I think it has something to do with gender roles and perception. Because a man is naturally considered on the dominant side of the scale, this sort of activity is viewed as aggressively taking advantage.
Because we are so used to viewing women as a receptive force, when a woman is aggressive towards a man, it's exciting on two levels. 1) because an aggressive woman does feed a male fantasy and 2) all men secretly wish to relinquish the dominant role every now and then when dealing with the opposite sex."
Main problem with this argument. HE IS NOT A MAN, HE IS A BOY. A boy doesn't have secret fantasies about relinquishing his dominant role to a teacher. Sure, he might have fantasies, but at that age EVERYTHING is exciting. The wind changes direction and a boy gets excited. It's like a new toy, so to speak.
Celine Dion was 12 when she met her future husband Rene Angelil. He was 38. They WAITED.
Fun fact: Celine is three months younger than her step-son, Patrick.
Source material:
ABC News story
Blog entries
Dickson Herald article
Celine Dion info
Tennessean article
Debra Lafave info
Don't confuse Pamela Rogers with Mary Kay LeTourneau, a similarly blonde-coiffed teacher who fell for a student, or Debra LaFave, the blonde-coiffed teacher who...you get the idea. A lot of people, mostly men, seem to think this is somehow ok.
Let's say the age of consent dropped to 13. This is a disaster scenario. Here are 10 unintended consequences:
1) Talk about kids raising kids. Imagine a 27-year-old granparent.
2) Mickey Mouse Club including the feature "12 hottest under 12"
3) Playstation as a wedding gift.
4) Unfair dating competition. I have a hard enough time competing with people my age.
5) Teachers flunking students because of a recent breakup.
6) Sex ed in third grade.
7) Toys R Us ads in Penthouse.
8) Awkward social situations: "Sara, you have such a handsome son! Oh--I mean...husband?"
9) Proms cancelled--all the chaperones are attending with dates.
10) If a man's wife is 13, it will be very difficult to trade her in for a "younger woman".
Here are some actual posts reacting to the news.
"i would love to be that kid"
"I would so would have tried to be that kid when I was his age. I never had a teacher that hot though."
"Well. I would think any kid at his age would have done what he done with her. She is tottaly hot. A teacher. Which makes it better. Stunningly great looking teacher. Wether it be 14-16-18 you know damn well if you don't like something you tell some one. Obviously he liked it. how was it found out that she had relations with this young boy?"
These three posts capture the gist of the argument, such as it is. I get the humor, but kidding aside, the "kid" is just that, a kid. He wasn't 14, 16, or 18--he was THIRTEEN. Even 16 is pushing it, but the kid was attending Centertown ELEMENTARY SCHOOL in McMinnville, Tennessee. Why should I have to explain this?
"How can we send support messages to her. If all women were as kind and sweet, perhaps there's be less crime."
Yeah, right. First of all, I'm sure you want to send "support messages" to her. You're probably more interested in sending pictures of yourself sitting naked in front of your computer.
"This poor woman needs help, not incarceration. A beautiful lady of such accomplishments surely cannot be all bad.
Hopefully, she will be given help and rehabilitation, instead of prison, so that she may again be a productive member of society. God bless, Pamela!"
This is an old argument of help & rehab versus jail time. While I agree that counseling and psychiatric care is in order, she was given the chance to seek care after the first sentencing. She was serving a suspended sentence when she was caught communicating with him through the boy's 17-year-old sister. (Don't get me started.) According to reports, after she was caught violating the court order she started crying in front of the judge, claiming she would do anything to rehabilitate herself. Too little too late.
Here's an interesting argument:
"I think it has something to do with gender roles and perception. Because a man is naturally considered on the dominant side of the scale, this sort of activity is viewed as aggressively taking advantage.
Because we are so used to viewing women as a receptive force, when a woman is aggressive towards a man, it's exciting on two levels. 1) because an aggressive woman does feed a male fantasy and 2) all men secretly wish to relinquish the dominant role every now and then when dealing with the opposite sex."
Main problem with this argument. HE IS NOT A MAN, HE IS A BOY. A boy doesn't have secret fantasies about relinquishing his dominant role to a teacher. Sure, he might have fantasies, but at that age EVERYTHING is exciting. The wind changes direction and a boy gets excited. It's like a new toy, so to speak.
Celine Dion was 12 when she met her future husband Rene Angelil. He was 38. They WAITED.
Fun fact: Celine is three months younger than her step-son, Patrick.
Source material:
ABC News story
Blog entries
Dickson Herald article
Celine Dion info
Tennessean article
Debra Lafave info
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Sunny Lebanon -- Wish You Were Here!
Unless you've been under a rock, you know that Israel recently launched a military offensive in Lebanon. In the last couple of days, the U.S. government has been evacuating Americans to Cyprus for further transfer back to the U.S. via charter flights.
Here's the latest. Within the last hour, the first evacuees arrived at Baltimore-Washington International Airport in the DC area.
From the AP report by Brian Witte, "Officials said an estimated 8,000 of the 25,000 U.S. citizens in the country wanted out."
Two questions. First question: The 17,000 U.S. citizens who want to stay--What are they thinking?
The destruction in Lebanon is no laughing matter. I understand that some of those who stay might be Lebanese-Americans with family ties there. There are over 3 million Lebanese Americans in the U.S. If you are Lebanese-American, this post is not about you. It is about people looking for somewhere to holiday for less pressing reasons than visiting family. My heart goes out to those who's families are in danger.
So what about the non-Lebanese-Americans who are staying? How many are reporters, maybe 50, 100? Are the rest tourists? I'm all for hanging in there when the going gets rough, but once bombs start dropping, I say vacation's over. Honey, take a picture. We're leaving.
Second question: Of those tourists who evacuated, why did you decide to vacation in a war zone in the first place? Anyone traveling overseas should at a minimum visit the website of the Department of State for a heads-up. Today, they still have a January 20 description up, and even it is ominous.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_948.html
Here are some of the choice selections from the January 20 description at the State Department website.
"Since February 2005, there have been 15 separate bombings in Lebanon, resulting in ten dead and 121 wounded."
"Americans have been the targets of numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the past. The perpetrators of many of these attacks are still present and retain the ability to act."
"Tensions remain in Lebanon's southern border with the possibility of Hizballah and Palestinian militant activity at any time."
"In addition, dangers posed by landmines and unexploded ordnance throughout south Lebanon are significant..."
You get the point. Don't go on vacation to places where there is a possibility of "militant activity" at any time. I'm not advocating avoidance of all risk, mind you. Just because there are Basque separatists in Northern Spain doesn't mean you should never go to Spain. But to my knowledge the Basques aren't particularly anti-American.
Moreover, Lebanon is a relatively small country (~4,000 sq mi), smaller than Connecticut (~5,500 sq mi). It's much harder to avoid trouble in a small country than a bigger country (depending on the kind of trouble, of course).
Let's say the trouble is confined to southern Lebanon. I suppose you can enjoy yourself on the Med and be the only American on the beach. But if the crap hits the fan, where are you going to go? Syria? That sounds like a plan.
If people want to risk their own necks, that's fine with me. If you endanger your family, I can't stop you. Just be prepared when someone questions your judgment as you board the armored landing craft I just helped pay for to save your butt.
You are welcome to disagree vehemently.
As for me, I'd much rather go to Cyprus.
For current travel warnings, go here:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html
Here's the latest. Within the last hour, the first evacuees arrived at Baltimore-Washington International Airport in the DC area.
From the AP report by Brian Witte, "Officials said an estimated 8,000 of the 25,000 U.S. citizens in the country wanted out."
Two questions. First question: The 17,000 U.S. citizens who want to stay--What are they thinking?
The destruction in Lebanon is no laughing matter. I understand that some of those who stay might be Lebanese-Americans with family ties there. There are over 3 million Lebanese Americans in the U.S. If you are Lebanese-American, this post is not about you. It is about people looking for somewhere to holiday for less pressing reasons than visiting family. My heart goes out to those who's families are in danger.
So what about the non-Lebanese-Americans who are staying? How many are reporters, maybe 50, 100? Are the rest tourists? I'm all for hanging in there when the going gets rough, but once bombs start dropping, I say vacation's over. Honey, take a picture. We're leaving.
Second question: Of those tourists who evacuated, why did you decide to vacation in a war zone in the first place? Anyone traveling overseas should at a minimum visit the website of the Department of State for a heads-up. Today, they still have a January 20 description up, and even it is ominous.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_948.html
Here are some of the choice selections from the January 20 description at the State Department website.
"Since February 2005, there have been 15 separate bombings in Lebanon, resulting in ten dead and 121 wounded."
"Americans have been the targets of numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the past. The perpetrators of many of these attacks are still present and retain the ability to act."
"Tensions remain in Lebanon's southern border with the possibility of Hizballah and Palestinian militant activity at any time."
"In addition, dangers posed by landmines and unexploded ordnance throughout south Lebanon are significant..."
You get the point. Don't go on vacation to places where there is a possibility of "militant activity" at any time. I'm not advocating avoidance of all risk, mind you. Just because there are Basque separatists in Northern Spain doesn't mean you should never go to Spain. But to my knowledge the Basques aren't particularly anti-American.
Moreover, Lebanon is a relatively small country (~4,000 sq mi), smaller than Connecticut (~5,500 sq mi). It's much harder to avoid trouble in a small country than a bigger country (depending on the kind of trouble, of course).
Let's say the trouble is confined to southern Lebanon. I suppose you can enjoy yourself on the Med and be the only American on the beach. But if the crap hits the fan, where are you going to go? Syria? That sounds like a plan.
If people want to risk their own necks, that's fine with me. If you endanger your family, I can't stop you. Just be prepared when someone questions your judgment as you board the armored landing craft I just helped pay for to save your butt.
You are welcome to disagree vehemently.
As for me, I'd much rather go to Cyprus.
For current travel warnings, go here:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html
