Joke circulating via e-mail:
Q: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
Joke circulating via e-mail:
Q: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
Anupam Chander (who is both a blogger and Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, School of Law) and JD student Ryan Walters have designed a little web site they call the Supreme Court Survivor game. Their objective is “to highlight the importance of the 2004 presidential election to the preservation of civil liberties in this country.”
Anupam, a charming person whom I met at a conference not so long ago, wrote me a nice note asking me to publicize it, so here it is.
There's no doubt that the next President will shape the court for a long time: there are liberal, conservative and fence-sitting Justices who are likely to retire. But, cute as it is, I have to wonder whether this game is entirely in good taste, and if as a pure tactical matter it's the best tool to raise consciousness about this critical issue. It seems to me that there's some danger it might backfire given the Chief Justice's coincidental illness.
Meanwhile, if there's an easter egg in there, I can't find it.
Update: When you tire of that one, and still want a political online game, you can play Enjoy the Draft's Spring Break Fallujah: The Game. I am still stuck on the first level, myself.
Sharp-eyed Eric Muller notices something strange:
A Full and Appropriately Speedy Recovery
I wish Chief Justice Rehnquist a full and speedy recovery.
On the subject of “speedy,” though, I find it curious that the Court is already telling us that he'll be back at work next Monday, about 8 days after his tracheotomy. Not only is it hard to imagine how anyone could know how the Chief will actually be feeling by next Monday, but the ordinary recovery period for a case without special risk factors or complications is two weeks. And there are reasons to suspect that the Chief's is not an entirely ordinary case. Plus he's 80 years old.
Odd, that.
4-4 on 11-02-04?
Not if this Chief can help it. Then-Justice Rehnquist, it may be recalled, was the author of an opinion, Laird, Secretary of Defense v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824, 837 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., mem.), explaining his non-recusal despite his personal involvement in some of the matters at issue, on the grounds that Justices should be less willing to recuse themselves on the grounds of conflict of interest if the case is really important — precisely the sort of cases where others might ordinarily think recusal was most called for….
At least his doctors may be pleased that their patient has a powerful incentive to get better quickly.
Somehow I got on a GOP mailing list. Here's today's wisdom from Chairman Gillespie:
There are only 8 days left until the election and, if you can, we recommend voting early.
Click here to find your early voting location. Because on Election Day we will need your help getting more people involved and getting voters to the polls. The Democrats have already begun to implement their plans to use lawyers and baseless allegations to skew the results in their favor.
We believe no legitimate voter should be disenfranchised, either by being denied a vote or by having an honest vote cancelled out by a fraudulent vote.
But a little intimidation never hurt anyone?
Democrats appear to be setting the stage to use the new provisional balloting rules to convert registration fraud into vote fraud, with the possibility of Kerry supporters voting in multiple jurisdictions or under multiple names.
In one contested election where provisional ballots have been cast, somewhere between 7-to-23 percent of them were valid. Democrats seem intent on making the case that every provisional ballot cast must be counted, and are deploying a horde of 10,000 lawyers to compel the counting of votes that were not legally cast.
Note that this says nothing about when or where that election was, nor what party cast the provisional ballots! It undoubtedly has nothing to do with Kerry.
They have made their strategy clear: If they lose they will sue, and haul the electoral process into courtrooms across the country so activist liberal judges can undermine the will of the people.
The American people should be confident that legitimate voters casting legitimate votes determine the outcome of this election.
Compare the above FUD-like allegations of fraud to reality.
Remember the AWOL Project's focus on the mysterious separation code “PTI 961” in Lt. Bush's records? Well, Paul Lukasiak writes to say that PTI 961 has been decoded … but all it means is “Loss to USAFR – Discharged due to change in residence.” Or, as Emily Litella used to say, “Never Mind”.
The New York Times has more details about this stunning piece of incompetence in the keystone kops war on terror.
The explosives could also be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, which was why international nuclear inspectors had kept a watch on the material, and even sealed and locked some of it. But the other components of an atom bomb – the design and the radioactive fuel – are more difficult to obtain. “This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk,” one senior Bush administration official said.
“not necessarily” — that means “might or might not be depending on whether they have plutonium” — I feel so much better now given what one hears about the plutonium bazaar in the southern parts of the former Soviet Union….
The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country.
This translates as “they screwed up bigtime”.
… One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives HMX and RDX were stored was listed as a “medium priority” site on the Central Intelligence Agency's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion. In the chaos that followed the invasion, many of those sites, even some considered a higher priority, were never secured.
“Should we have gone there? Definitely,” said one senior administration official. “But there are a lot of things we should have done, and didn't.”
And what were the “high priority” sites, pray tell?
The remaining stockpile was no secret. Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the I.A.E.A., frequently talked about it publicly as he investigated, in late 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was secretly renewing its pursuit of nuclear arms. He ordered his weapons inspectors to conduct an inventory, and publicly reported their findings to the Security Council on Jan. 9, 2003.
So there really is no excuse here.