It's well-known that Saturday newspapers (and Friday night TV news) reach the fewest people, so the best time to release bad news is not-first-thing on a Friday. (Extra credit for after 4pm, which may be too late for many papers.)
What an incredible coincidence: every time — and there are lots of times — that the Pentagon has released Bush military service documents since the date he said they were already all released…it's been on a Friday!
There's a letter in today's New York Times that crystalizes how I feel about the outcome of the Hamdi case:
Yaser Hamdi, U.S. Citizen
Re “U.S. Releases Saudi-American It Had Captured in Afghanistan” (news article, Oct. 12):
You report that as a condition for releasing Yaser E. Hamdi, who was held without charges and in solitary confinement for about three years, the United States required that he “renounce his American citizenship.” The United States government has no authority to compel such a renunciation, and Mr. Hamdi's proclamation that he is no longer an American is legally meaningless.
Mr. Hamdi was born in Louisiana. The United States Constitution defines anyone who is born in the United States as a citizen. Neither the State Department, the Justice Department nor the president has the authority to alter the Constitution unilaterally.
In Vance v. Terrazas, the Supreme Court made it clear that the government cannot coerce someone to surrender citizenship.
By trying to do precisely that, the United States has continued to act lawlessly toward Mr. Hamdi.
David R. Dow
Houston, Oct. 13, 2004
The writer is a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
Isn't it somewhat, um, scary when the government can lock a citizen up in solitary for three years, deny access to lawyers or family, then say, “Hey, no need for a trial or anything messy like that: We'll let you out of solitary if you agree to permanent exile?”.
It sounds Soviet to me.
Orin Kerr, who should have his own blog, points us to these t-shirts for law students. Orrin says his favorite shirt is this one. I suppose I liked this one. I'll bet, though, they sell a lot of these.
Overall, though, I think I'll stick with thinkgeek and DespairWear™. But this was the best.
Seriously now. What relevance does the attitude of uber-partisans Dick and Lynn Cheney about Kerry's debate mention of their adult daughter have?
Can't she speak for herself? After all, she's working on her father's campaign. Or is the GOP ban on Mary Cheney camera-presence still in effect?
Today's Fablog essay transcribes Giblets's rant against Cheap And Tawdry Political Tricks, to wit John Kerry's blasphemous mention of Dick Cheney's daughter's sexual preference.
Ms. Cheney is, among other things, the former gay and lesbian corporate relations manager for Coors Beer and member of the Republican Unity Coalition, a 'a homosexual activist Republican group' according to the CWA — not exactly a closeted role in life.
I can reveal, however, I have proof that Giblets is not the author of most of this essay. Indeed, other than the penultimate paragraph, the satirical part, this “Giblets” essay is materially similar to a rant I heard someone named Mickey Kaus give on NPR this morning.
Unless “Mickey Kaus” is a pseduonym for Giblets we can only conclude that Giblets listens to NPR! While adding a paragraph or two to the end of this rant transforms the meaning — from something offensive and smarmy based on innuendo and the idea that there's something wrong with being gay into a much funnier, indeed subversive, essay — one has to ask whether this sort of substantially derivative work with just a bit tacked on can be defended as parody.
My brother's column today gets into the Bush bulge watch thing:
Salon is featuring a photo today that would appear to show Vanessa Kerry staring at Bush's bulge last night.
The bulge in question is what — again — looks like a rectangular object on Bush's back, under his suit. Here's the original photo.
Mike Allen wrote in The Washington Post last weekend that Bush's aides have “tried to laugh off the controversy.”
Dave Lindorff wrote in Salon yesterday that “speculation continues to run wild” about the bulge, and that the White House's half-hearted explanations don't seem to wash.
A new poll from the Economist finds that of those who had seen a picture of the bulge, 49 percent said they think it's caused by “a radio receiver so that his team could communicate with him during the debate;” 18 percent think it's a fold in the suit; 13 percent something else; 20 percent don't know.
Tim Grieve writes in Salon that Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman was repeatedly asked about the bulge yesterday, and finally said: “The president is an alien. You heard it here first. The president is an alien. That's your quote of the day. He has been getting information from Mars. The shock of the debate will be the president's alien past will be exposed, which is why that box is there.”
The problem with this story, as preposterous as it may sound to some, is that it risks perpetuating an image of Bush as a puppet. I think a lot of us are waiting for a definitive answer.
Someone should really ask Vernon Jordan who suggested the prohibition on photographing candidates from behind during the pre-debate negotiations and what reason if any was given. Because it's that condition, said to have been demanded by the Bush negotiators, that gives this story what legs it has. That and the consistent strangenss of the shape of the bulge. Oh yes, and the absence of a physical this year.
So, the three main things are the attempt to stop the photos, the consistent strangeness of the shape and Bush's decision to forgoe a physical before the election. Oh yes, and Bush's odd behavior during the debates.
So, the four main things that give this story its legs are the attempt to stop the photos, the consistent strangeness of the shape, the lack of a physical this Oh yes, and Bush's odd behavior during the debates. Oh yes, and also the fact that tin foil can be fun.
But no one expected the aliens to admit complicity in rigging the election for their puppet until the planet was almost unsuitable for human life due to global warming—which, combined with increased carbon dioxide and radioactivity will make it a perfect breeding grounds for
Ack. help. im beighalew2332o5 2432`72 fcds
Recent Bluessky Posts
Jotwell Blenderlaw