Entries from January 2006 ↓

She’s joining him on the mountaintop.

The State of the Union address. All the standing up and sitting down is so the clap-happy audience gets a chance to give their brains some air.

And cribbing directly from Americablog:

Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research – human cloning in all its forms … creating or implanting embryos for experiments … creating human-animal hybrids … and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos.

Seems that he wants to make sure we don’t mate any more humans with chimpanzees.

C-span is keeping a running tally of Senators’ declared intentions on the Alito nomination. Looks like Chafee and Snowe — the Republican wing of the Republican party — haven’t yet made up their minds. I’m sure with a little arm-twisting from the minions of the ghost of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoof, they’ll fall into line.

Meanwhile on the jellyfish Democratic side of the aisle, Byrd (discussed earlier), Johnson of South Dakota, and Nelson of Nebraska have left their slime trail on Alito’s “yes” card. Bayh, Cantwell and Murray of Washington, Conrad and Dorgan of North Dakota, Landrieu, Lautenberg and Menendez of New Jersey, Pryor and Rockefeller are playing their cards close to the vest.

As far as the filibuster goes, there’s rumors that golden boy Barack Obama is opposing the filibuster along with my supposedly-liberal Senator Barbara Mikulski. And why would they oppose a filibuster against a man that virtually all reasonable Democrats (Byrd excepted) agree stands against everything the party — and the Constitution — stand for? Well, according to the AP, Minority Leader Reid and DSCC coordinator Schumer believe a filibuster would leave an “impression of political weakness” and have a negative “potential” impact on candidates on the 2006 ballot in Republican-leaning states. And demonstrating typical Democratic hand-wringing and paralysis will convey strength? On what planet?

Meanwhile, the Republicans are laughing and rejoicing in their imminent complete takeover of the US government, and the trashing of the Constitution. Nice work, Dems.

Technorati Tags: alito, supreme_court, nomination, democrats, filibuster

Behold! The power of cheese!

“He’s dead, Jim!”

I received a snail-mail solicitation yesterday from Senator Robert Byrd’s re-election committee, Friends of Robert C. Byrd. As an elder statesman and one of those Democrats from a state which you’d expect to be red, I’d normally send him a couple of bucks. After all, he’s the guy who carries his copy of the Constitution in his pocket and can cite from it like some lawmakers [think they] can cite the Bible. His solicitation sounds good, and there’s this quote underneath a picture of him holding up his pocket Constitution:

I make only one promise – the same one I swore before my God and my country nearly half a century ago: To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Of course, Senator Byrd can be excused a slight lapse in memory due to his advanced age, but, if he is re-elected, he’ll be reminded that the oath he quotes here is actually from the oath of office taken by the President and mandated in Article II of the Constitution. The oath taken by Senators is:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Nonetheless, he is sworn to defend the Constitution. And as he says in his solicitation letter: “Nowhere in that oath did it say that I had to give my automatic or obedient approval to any nominee whom the President of the United States nominated for a place on the federal bench.” Strong words and absolutely true. That’s what Senator Byrd is known for. He continues on in his letter:

More recently, the Senate has been all but paralyzed by the belief that it should rubber stamp Presidential nominations, even lifetime appointments to the judiciary.

“Advice and consent” are the Constitution’s words. The White House seems to think that means “roll over and obey.” At the mere suggestion of resistance, the Republican Party has tried to shred the traditions of the Senate and suppress free debate.

He’s dead on. Except, that it is deeds, not words that show a man’s true character. For all his strong talk of resistance, of defending the Constitution, of being “the conscience of the Senate“, Senator Byrd is about to betray everything he is asking me for money to defend.

See, barring an ever more unlikely filibuster by the Senate Democrats, on Tuesday, January 31, 2006–just in time for the President’s State of the Union address that evening–the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Samuel J. Alito to the United States Supreme Court. Samuel Alito, with his radical right, out-of-the-mainstream views on everything from church/state separation, privacy rights, and reproductive rights, to environmental protections, gay rights and civil rights, will work hard to enact the complete radical conservative makeover of the United States into a nation our founding fathers would not recognize.

Perhaps most dangerously, Alito is a supporter of the “unitary” executive theory of government, which claims (here, greatly simplified) that the President is the Executive Branch of government, and therefore, as a co-equal branch, neither Congress nor the Judiciary can dictate how the Executive operates. This is not at all what the Founders had in mind. As James Madison writes in The Federalist Papers, No. 47:

No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

In light of that theory, Alito’s record and the potential danger to the future of our consitutional government at stake, you would be certain that such a lion of democracy, such a true believer in the truth of the US Consitution as Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, senior member of the US Senate, would be adamantly opposed to the nomination of Samuel Alito. You’d be wrong.

Sen. Robert Byrd broke with a majority of his fellow Democrats Thursday to say he will vote for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

Byrd said he believed Alito is an honorable man with a sharp legal mind who will follow the U.S. Constitution and keep presidential power in check. Other Democrats have said they don’t think Alito is independent enough to rule against the Bush administration.

At 88 years old, Byrd may not live long enough to see the consequences of his support of Alito and the subsequent dismantling of the Constitution he claims to love, but those of us with a lot more life ahead of us will be living in that world. Senator Byrd’s career started off ignominiously, but with his principled stand against all aspects of the Iraq war, he seemed to redeem himself in many eyes. With his decision to “roll over and obey”, he has re-acquired all his shame. If he is defeated in the fall elections, it probably won’t make any difference anyway, since his beloved Senate will soon be rendered superfluous in the newly made dictatorship he will have helped cement in place. Nice legacy, Bob. And, when it comes to soliciting me: save your stamps.

Technorati Tags: byrd, senate, alito, supreme_court, unitary_executive

An FDA panel voted 11-3 to approve the sale of orlistat—sold under the prescription name Xenical since 1999—for over-the-counter purchase. The panelists had some reservations about whether GlaxoSmithKline had studied the long-term use of the drug, but approved it anyway. There were also concerns that normal-weight or underweight teenagers might abuse the drug, and that the drug, which will be marketed under the name “Alli” (pronounced “ally”) doesn’t really have any effect on behavior, so most users have gained back the 4-5 pounds they lose within 2 years after they stop taking the drug. The FDA generally follows the recommendations of its expert panels, so it is likely the drug will be on sale soon.

Of course, when the drug in question is a “morning after” pill which can safely prevent a woman from becoming pregnant after unprotected sex, then the FDA rejects its experts’ decisions and requires more study on the premise that minors can’t be prevented from using the drug.

It’s so nice to see consistency and well-reasoned standards in scientific debates.

Technorati Tags: fda, orlistat, xenical, gsk, plan_b, hypocrisy

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
– US Constitution, Amendment 4

QUESTION: [Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder] And so what many people believe — and I’d like you to respond to this — is that what you’ve actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: [Former national director of the National Security Agency] Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear — and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it’s the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you’ve raised to me — and I’m not a lawyer, and don’t want to become one — what you’ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is “reasonable.” And we believe — I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.
– Editor & Publisher January 23, 2006, “Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment”

I can’t wait until the Alito/Roberts court tells us that this interpretation is the “originalist” reading of the Constitution, thereby rendering over 200 years of jurisprudence inoperative.

Toby is the King of the Kitchen…

and Sander thinks he’s a cat…

Defective Yeti has a hilarious history of the Bush Administration as a transcript of a text-based adventure game:

> EAT PRETZEL.I don't think the pretzel would agree with you.

> INVADE IRAQYou are not able to do that, yet.

> INVADE IRAQYou are not able to do that, yet.

> GO RIGHTFar-RightYou are on the far right of the political spectrum.Jesse Helms is here.John Ashcroft is here.

> GO RIGHTRadical RightYou are on the extreme right of the political spectrum.Dick Cheney is here.Pat Robertson is here.

> INVADE IRAQYou are not able to do that, yet.

> TAKE VACATIONTaken.

> INVADE IRAQYou are not able to do that, yet.

This is a perfect post: just the right amounts of humor, biting political commentary and a wistful nod to simpler times. Thanks for a really good laugh!

Technorati Tags: politics, humor, blogs, bush, zork

We were just at the new Museum of Modern Art during a post-New Year’s visit to NYC, and—as is mandatory—my wife forced us to spend what seemed like most of our visit in the Museum Shop. Because the MoMA focuses on design as much as it does art, their shop is much more interesting than the usual museum shop. Unlike most other museum stores, Instead of containing nothing but books with images from the collection, postcards with images from the collection, t-shirts with images from the collection, mousepads with images from the collection, neckties with images from the collection… the MoMA shop has for sale many of the actual items in its design collection. There’s serving bowls, clocks, lamps, electronics, games, furniture… and of course books, postcards, posters, etc. But… the prices! Maybe museums are used to paying those prices, but I’m just a poor corporate drone! (Okay, okay, I’m exaggerating just a little: most of my glassware was stolen from bars, so I’m not really sure if US$26 is a lot of money for a pair of tumblers.)

Anyway, in the spirit of DIY which seems to be all the rage on the web these days (honestly, do you think BoingBoing or Engadget can go more than a day or two without linking to Make?) I came across Thwart Design‘s Design Without Reach site with instructions for making your very own MoMA-worthy reproductions. I mean, can you tell the difference between the US$265 Nelson clock from the MoMA store and this replica made from Tootsie Pop lollipops* and the bottom of a salt container? Didn’t think so! Museum-worthy design, here I come!

*Tootsie Pop clocks not recommended for humid climates.

Technorati Tags: moma, museum, reproductions, nelsonclock, thwartdesign