Friday, August 03, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Her impeachment speech ( link ) was delivered July 25 1974 - yet here is a paragraph pulled out.
"Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one."
"Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one."
Read it and weep
Barbara Jordan on impeachment. Also audio with that glorious voice.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.
Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."
Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.
"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men."¹ And that's what we're talking about. In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.
We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."² The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.
The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: "We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other."
"No one need be afraid" -- the North Carolina ratification convention -- "No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity." "Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "We divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused."³ I do not mean political parties in that sense.
The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term "high crime[s] and misdemeanors." Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."
Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.
This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We're told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.
The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know on the 23rd of June was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.
We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.
At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."
We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving. The words are: "If the President is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."
Justice Story: "Impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute complete direction on September 3rd when the President indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in Dr. Fielding's office, after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."
The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."4 Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."
James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.
Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
*I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.*
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.
Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."
Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.
"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men."¹ And that's what we're talking about. In other words, [the jurisdiction comes] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers -- and the judges the same person.
We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."² The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.
The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: "We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other."
"No one need be afraid" -- the North Carolina ratification convention -- "No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity." "Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "We divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused."³ I do not mean political parties in that sense.
The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term "high crime[s] and misdemeanors." Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."
Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.
This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We're told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.
The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know on the 23rd of June was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.
We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.
At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."
We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving. The words are: "If the President is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."
Justice Story: "Impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute complete direction on September 3rd when the President indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in Dr. Fielding's office, after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."
The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."4 Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."
James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder.
Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.
*I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.*
Monday, July 23, 2007
youtube debate?
Watched it - mostly. Mostly ok. Mostly the questions were like real questions - good and bad and lame. Biden got best line - "If that is that guys's baby, he's got a problem".
Cooper stayed out of the way mostly.
How do they pick what videos to show? Can't wait for more "production values" to seep into the format.
Man our Republic is a mess. We have the most democratic video medium in history in a presidential debate and it is mediated by what? A corpora-cratic news medium. The worst part is I don't know if that is progress or not. I sorta feel like it is 20 minutes later but I don't know for sure.
Iv'e been thinking about where we are in our political moment. Wondering mostly. As I see the wanton lawlessness of the Bush syndicate I think back on the earlier crises in my political awareness. OK yes, Nixon. But really before that. I am thinking of the days of Rampart Magazine. A wild-eyed national - imagine that! - leftie rag. They as I recall anyway called the lie on the Viet Nam War long before the establishment - now called the MainStreamMedia - caught on.
Maybe my pattern craving mind is too facile but I see our moment as about 5 years from a major correction. Meaning the W walks. The prick. The next president does something stupid - like takes advantage of what W has wrought - and gets nailed.
This isn't predicting a Republican victory in 2008. What it is predicting is that it doesn't matter. Power begets power - you got it you use until you can't. In 2008 the dems will get a veto proof Congress and a bunch of Chairmen who are now Chairmen who are not "movement" certainly not like the RICO wing of the GOP and will not owe anything to whoever occupies the white house and who will want some of that mojo back that the 106th-109th Congresses gave away to Bush like sex for crack.
So I figure 2011 - 2012 we will start to see the re-emergence of the Republic. Serious Congressional hearings, a president in disgrace - who might even be aware that he is... Will it require "the young people" to take to the streets? I dunno.
History is an accurate mirror but never a perfect one.
Cooper stayed out of the way mostly.
How do they pick what videos to show? Can't wait for more "production values" to seep into the format.
Man our Republic is a mess. We have the most democratic video medium in history in a presidential debate and it is mediated by what? A corpora-cratic news medium. The worst part is I don't know if that is progress or not. I sorta feel like it is 20 minutes later but I don't know for sure.
Iv'e been thinking about where we are in our political moment. Wondering mostly. As I see the wanton lawlessness of the Bush syndicate I think back on the earlier crises in my political awareness. OK yes, Nixon. But really before that. I am thinking of the days of Rampart Magazine. A wild-eyed national - imagine that! - leftie rag. They as I recall anyway called the lie on the Viet Nam War long before the establishment - now called the MainStreamMedia - caught on.
Maybe my pattern craving mind is too facile but I see our moment as about 5 years from a major correction. Meaning the W walks. The prick. The next president does something stupid - like takes advantage of what W has wrought - and gets nailed.
This isn't predicting a Republican victory in 2008. What it is predicting is that it doesn't matter. Power begets power - you got it you use until you can't. In 2008 the dems will get a veto proof Congress and a bunch of Chairmen who are now Chairmen who are not "movement" certainly not like the RICO wing of the GOP and will not owe anything to whoever occupies the white house and who will want some of that mojo back that the 106th-109th Congresses gave away to Bush like sex for crack.
So I figure 2011 - 2012 we will start to see the re-emergence of the Republic. Serious Congressional hearings, a president in disgrace - who might even be aware that he is... Will it require "the young people" to take to the streets? I dunno.
History is an accurate mirror but never a perfect one.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Everybody knows
I was asked by my local daily as a “man on the street” just last Sunday about Bush and Putin meeting in Kennebunk Maine, not far up the coast from where I live. In my snap response I called Bush "wrong headed" and Putin a "thug".
Once again I misunderestimated George Bush, for just over 24 hours later he did the most thuggish thing of his entire presidency: he commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence for obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to a grand jury.
President Bush has so little shame or fear that he will be held to account for what is itself a willful act of obstruction that he didn't even bother to make up a good story.
“Excessive” he called the sentence – not pretending to challenge the correctness of the verdict, even though the sentence meted out to Mr Libby was within the bounds of the law that he has supported.
“Excessive” he called it even though in a nearly identical case decided two weeks ago by the Supreme Court, a decision in the case of Victor Rita in nearly all aspects identical to Scooter Libby's (except Rita is not an administration insider) was held neither excessive nor warranting any remedy – Rita is doing the time.
In one short statement late on a Monday afternoon George Bush finally became a gangster. Mark the date: July 2, 2007. For the second time President Bush has deliberately derailed an investigation into the actions of his White House. The first was by denying his own Justice Department investigators the security clearance necessary to pursue allegations of illegal wiretaps.
Now he has willfully short-circuited a case decided in a federal court in public trial; a case that turns on national security issues that legally stops nothing short of treason. That is of deliberately outing an undercover CIA agent.
Left standing is the guilty verdict itself until of course President Bush issues a pardon – which he has deliberately not ruled out doing. Left standing is a 250,000 dollar fine which Libby will never have to pay thanks to an over 5 million dollar defense fund fed by Bush's minions.
In short left standing is the tattered shreds of a verdict that is not worth the paper that it was written on. And most importantly, left standing is Scooter Libby's silence in a matter that could show that the chief executive of the United States and his vice-president have committed treason.
"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." President George H.W. Bush.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Straight Talk Express Indeed
John McCain proves he is not merely a pathetically bad panderer. He is just stupid.
Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Monday, February 05, 2007
The zen of New York
From Overheard in New York - http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/
White guy with dreads: Think about this -- taking a shit is the one thing in which all people of all races, sexes and religions are truly equal.
Hippie girl: Not exactly. Some people shit on solid gold toilet bowls while others shit in a bucket.
Little boy at next table, standing on booth seat: I shit in my pants! Hahaha!
--Wo Hop, 15 Mott St
Overheard by: Big Larry
White guy with dreads: Think about this -- taking a shit is the one thing in which all people of all races, sexes and religions are truly equal.
Hippie girl: Not exactly. Some people shit on solid gold toilet bowls while others shit in a bucket.
Little boy at next table, standing on booth seat: I shit in my pants! Hahaha!
--Wo Hop, 15 Mott St
Overheard by: Big Larry
sometimes it really is that simple
The Rude One nails it - A shamelessly too easy pun but really what else can you say?
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/understanding-nie-and-global-warming.html
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/understanding-nie-and-global-warming.html
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The News Blog says it
Steve Gilliard seems to have sucked the marrow out of every military campaign since Napolean decided Russia would be a pushover and I think he sums up Bush's "plan" pretty well - it ain't one.
"But in the end, it doesn't matter if the surge happens. It won't change anything but who dies in Iraq." (http://www.thenewsblog.net/2007/01/its-time-to-buy-clues.html)
As some of the few remaining supporters of this disaster (usually these are Joe Lieberman) like to say - "Freedom isn't free". But in Iraq you can still die for nothing.
"But in the end, it doesn't matter if the surge happens. It won't change anything but who dies in Iraq." (http://www.thenewsblog.net/2007/01/its-time-to-buy-clues.html)
As some of the few remaining supporters of this disaster (usually these are Joe Lieberman) like to say - "Freedom isn't free". But in Iraq you can still die for nothing.
Don't hide anymore
Chick Hagel stock goes up. Sure he was maybe just a stomach rumble in the great fart that was the Rubber Stamp 109th but now he is pissed: at Bush and his colleagues the Great Enablers. This tirade directed at Lugar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3cwQYx9hDU&eurl=
"I want... 100% of us to look in the camera right there and tell our people back home what we think."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3cwQYx9hDU&eurl=
"I want... 100% of us to look in the camera right there and tell our people back home what we think."
Saturday, January 20, 2007
The Lieberman Death Tally
I guess we can call this the first day of the Lieberman War In Iraq.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/19/221444/921
It links back to an NPR interview but here is the money quote (also from KOS)
MS. BLOCK: Can you imagine a scenario where you would join in with a Republican filibuster to stop the resolution, if it comes to that?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I can because I think that it – this is this important.
So there you have it. Mark it Friday the 19th of January 2007.
According to this site: http://antiwar.com/casualties/list.php there were 2 deaths on the Lieberman War on that day.
Today the 20th there are 21 more reported. Already St. Joe has 23 deaths and that doesn't even count the 3000+ assists.
Oh yeah and, Thank you Connecticut for sending the Great One back to the Senate. A Grateful Nation casts its eyes upon you.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/19/221444/921
It links back to an NPR interview but here is the money quote (also from KOS)
MS. BLOCK: Can you imagine a scenario where you would join in with a Republican filibuster to stop the resolution, if it comes to that?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I can because I think that it – this is this important.
So there you have it. Mark it Friday the 19th of January 2007.
According to this site: http://antiwar.com/casualties/list.php there were 2 deaths on the Lieberman War on that day.
Today the 20th there are 21 more reported. Already St. Joe has 23 deaths and that doesn't even count the 3000+ assists.
Oh yeah and, Thank you Connecticut for sending the Great One back to the Senate. A Grateful Nation casts its eyes upon you.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
from the AP
• House Dems Close the First '100 Hours'
• House Dems to Support Iraq Resolution
• House Democrats Beat 100-Hour Clock
• House Rolls Back Oil Company Subsidies
Top 4 AP headlines at 7:30 p.m.
I guess they ain't used to a Congress that actually tries to do something other than fetch George Bush's paper.
• House Dems to Support Iraq Resolution
• House Democrats Beat 100-Hour Clock
• House Rolls Back Oil Company Subsidies
Top 4 AP headlines at 7:30 p.m.
I guess they ain't used to a Congress that actually tries to do something other than fetch George Bush's paper.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Blowing the 2 year warning
In 2 years (and 36 hours and 49 minutes) as I write this will be the Constitutional end of the Great American Bush Disaster. Oh, not that we'll be done with the legacy of George W Bush. We're gonna live with that shit for the rest of my life and in a generation they will still cursing the Bush legacy - a phrase that will be uttered with the same staccato spit that one uses when saying "Nixon Presidency" - back in those days president's didn't have legacies they just tried not to fuck things up too much.
But anyway, on Sat January 20 - this Saturday - it will be exactly 2 years to when Bush turns over the throne to another - that is of course if he doesn't in his deciding decide to stay.
But anyway, being the 2 year mark to that glorious day (plus 2 years) I think the occasion should be marked. Like maybe with that most emblematic of all Bush sounds - the fart. He does like him some fart jokes that jolly old sport of a president of ours .
No wait that probably won't work. Probably won't make much of impression on anyone other than the guy standing next to you even if you do it while shouting "Only 2 more stinking years of George Bush!" at the top of your lungs.
But you will want to mark the day when George Bush - the war criminal - loses whatever immunity he has as a sitting head of state and can be arrested in whatever country he visits. I realize the chances of the notoriously incurious George actually leaving the US once he leaves office is pretty slim. But to live is to dream - no?
But anyway, it might be interesting on that day to use the other Bush sanctioned noise machine, I mean of course the automobile. Well, the horn really, no one will notice the noise of your normal car unless you rip the muffler off. You have fixed that muffler haven't you?
But anyway, perhaps it is worth a beep while you are out and about on Saturday. When you are in traffic driving along or passing a gaggle of pedestrians. you can use you own judgment what to make your horn do but might I suggest SOS? In morse code that would be ... --- ... or 3 shorts, 3 longs, 3 shorts. Why SOS? Because it will take a foreign country to bring this criminal to justice. God knows our own Congress will never truly do their Constitutional duty and bring this rogue administration to heel.
Or don't like SOS? You can try this ----- that's 5 longs. That's morse code for zero which exactly equals George W Bush.
Happy 2 and counting.
But anyway, on Sat January 20 - this Saturday - it will be exactly 2 years to when Bush turns over the throne to another - that is of course if he doesn't in his deciding decide to stay.
But anyway, being the 2 year mark to that glorious day (plus 2 years) I think the occasion should be marked. Like maybe with that most emblematic of all Bush sounds - the fart. He does like him some fart jokes that jolly old sport of a president of ours .
No wait that probably won't work. Probably won't make much of impression on anyone other than the guy standing next to you even if you do it while shouting "Only 2 more stinking years of George Bush!" at the top of your lungs.
But you will want to mark the day when George Bush - the war criminal - loses whatever immunity he has as a sitting head of state and can be arrested in whatever country he visits. I realize the chances of the notoriously incurious George actually leaving the US once he leaves office is pretty slim. But to live is to dream - no?
But anyway, it might be interesting on that day to use the other Bush sanctioned noise machine, I mean of course the automobile. Well, the horn really, no one will notice the noise of your normal car unless you rip the muffler off. You have fixed that muffler haven't you?
But anyway, perhaps it is worth a beep while you are out and about on Saturday. When you are in traffic driving along or passing a gaggle of pedestrians. you can use you own judgment what to make your horn do but might I suggest SOS? In morse code that would be ... --- ... or 3 shorts, 3 longs, 3 shorts. Why SOS? Because it will take a foreign country to bring this criminal to justice. God knows our own Congress will never truly do their Constitutional duty and bring this rogue administration to heel.
Or don't like SOS? You can try this ----- that's 5 longs. That's morse code for zero which exactly equals George W Bush.
Happy 2 and counting.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
semiotic first blush
Bush throws his Hail Mary and it MUST be important. How do I know? There was no American flag (except the old lapel pin). And he stood in front of real (apparently) books.
George Bush? In front of books? Is he serious? Oh yeah, he must be. There are books.
Finally and most important, George Bush did not say "Good night and God bless America."
That, or some variant has been, if my memory serves me, in every presidential speech since at least His Goodness Ronnie Reagan if not before. Absent that phrase there was NO mention of god in this speech. He did refer to the "author of freedom" but hell that could have been Thomas Jefferson for all we know*.
Once again, the staging is more important than the speech itself. Bush and his team want us to know that there really is no room for political code here. Is the absence of code, code?
Well. Let's look at the history. Everything the Bush Administration does is political. That is Karl Rove's job and legacy after all. There has not been one staged event from Mission Accomplished to Katrina where George Bush did not stage it without absolute attention to detail.
This is one more. The message this time? George Bush grows up.
Of course in both those cases as a MAJOR HISTORICAL WAR PRESIDENT and as a MAJOR HISTORICAL REPAIRER OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES George Bush has shown that the pictures he makes never measure up to the message and most importantly to the actions he achieves.
So we can expect that George Bush as a MAJOR BIG PERSON will fail.
Let us be clear what this speech was all about. George Bush the consummate jock is playing out the clock. On Jan 20th 2009 at 12:01 PM the Iraq war will be someone else's war to lose.
* I was most amused by George's ability to keep a straight face while he was talking about responsiveness of the Iraqi government and the need for freedom while of course His Highness has done everything in and out of his power to defeat same in his own country. Nice touch George.
George Bush? In front of books? Is he serious? Oh yeah, he must be. There are books.
Finally and most important, George Bush did not say "Good night and God bless America."
That, or some variant has been, if my memory serves me, in every presidential speech since at least His Goodness Ronnie Reagan if not before. Absent that phrase there was NO mention of god in this speech. He did refer to the "author of freedom" but hell that could have been Thomas Jefferson for all we know*.
Once again, the staging is more important than the speech itself. Bush and his team want us to know that there really is no room for political code here. Is the absence of code, code?
Well. Let's look at the history. Everything the Bush Administration does is political. That is Karl Rove's job and legacy after all. There has not been one staged event from Mission Accomplished to Katrina where George Bush did not stage it without absolute attention to detail.
This is one more. The message this time? George Bush grows up.
Of course in both those cases as a MAJOR HISTORICAL WAR PRESIDENT and as a MAJOR HISTORICAL REPAIRER OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES George Bush has shown that the pictures he makes never measure up to the message and most importantly to the actions he achieves.
So we can expect that George Bush as a MAJOR BIG PERSON will fail.
Let us be clear what this speech was all about. George Bush the consummate jock is playing out the clock. On Jan 20th 2009 at 12:01 PM the Iraq war will be someone else's war to lose.
* I was most amused by George's ability to keep a straight face while he was talking about responsiveness of the Iraqi government and the need for freedom while of course His Highness has done everything in and out of his power to defeat same in his own country. Nice touch George.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Bush wants earmarks cut in half for fiscal 2008 - day 1
So the George said.
Yet the George Bush War In Iraq has been run almost completely off the books (i.e. as an earmark). According to the National Priorities running tally The Bush Earmark has spent $355 billion on the Iraq fiasco. Much of it off the books. In other words, if you were a budget wonk and took all the earmarks by the the 109th Congress - The Most Corrupt Congress in History (tm) I would guess you would have to build a lot of bridges to nowhere ($315 million) to match what George Bush has achieved.
George Bush is of course full of shit. If he wants to control spending, he has the power to begin - even within the Constitution. How's that for a change! When was the last time you got to think "George Bush" and "acting legally" in the same thought?
He can stop pissing American lives and money into the earmark called "Iraq".
Yet the George Bush War In Iraq has been run almost completely off the books (i.e. as an earmark). According to the National Priorities running tally The Bush Earmark has spent $355 billion on the Iraq fiasco. Much of it off the books. In other words, if you were a budget wonk and took all the earmarks by the the 109th Congress - The Most Corrupt Congress in History (tm) I would guess you would have to build a lot of bridges to nowhere ($315 million) to match what George Bush has achieved.
George Bush is of course full of shit. If he wants to control spending, he has the power to begin - even within the Constitution. How's that for a change! When was the last time you got to think "George Bush" and "acting legally" in the same thought?
He can stop pissing American lives and money into the earmark called "Iraq".
Friday, December 29, 2006
swing low...
According to the wires Saddam gonna hang at
dawn. It's a suitably melodramatic moment. I suppose why waste the day. I won't cut the evil bastard any slack here but the fact that he was tried in an Iraqi kangaroo revenge court and convicted in same under what can best be described as civil war conditions (is chaos too strong a term?) does not bode well for the aftermath of the execution.
The irony of course is that even under the conditions as they are in Iraq, Saddam was guaranteed more even jurisprudence than he would have been had Bush tribunalized him in Gitmo.
All that aside, Bush has never been one for the rule of law so to see him bollocks up this one isn't a surprise. Bush could of had Saddam tried under international law as the international criminal that he (Saddam not the other one) is.
Or he could have actually assisted the Iraqis in a Truth and Reconciliation process instead of his "The Iraq government is sovereign because they can do whatever I tell them to do" trial. But that time has long since past. Both for T&R and for Iraqis giving a jackshit what George Bush thinks.
A cynic might say (oh. not I for sure) that Bush didn't see to it that Saddam went to the Hague because he didn't want to enhance the prestige of a court at which he himself might one day be in the docket. But we shall leave that for cynics and for those that dream what might have been.
What we will have instead is Saddam hung at dawn. Likely it will be privately videotaped and somehow just somehow the execution will be leaked and next week we can look forward to seeing Saddam dangle all over the internets just like we saw Britney's nethers dangle a few weeks ago.
And in the next 24 hours we will get the Bush gloat and smirk as he calls a press conference to discuss the end of tyranny and the triumph of democracy in the middle east. Not withstanding the fact the neither justice nor democracy nor anybody's well-being was served by Bush and his thugs destroying Iraq in order to save it(s oil) and shredding the Constitution in the process if I may gratuitously add.
All the while he is planning to escalate the troop level in the war in Iraq another very useful 10% or 15% for no reason other than because he gotta do something to look all deciderful and stuff.
Well so long, Saddam. You no doubt will find some amenable company in Hell. Now and in the future.
dawn. It's a suitably melodramatic moment. I suppose why waste the day. I won't cut the evil bastard any slack here but the fact that he was tried in an Iraqi kangaroo revenge court and convicted in same under what can best be described as civil war conditions (is chaos too strong a term?) does not bode well for the aftermath of the execution.
The irony of course is that even under the conditions as they are in Iraq, Saddam was guaranteed more even jurisprudence than he would have been had Bush tribunalized him in Gitmo.
All that aside, Bush has never been one for the rule of law so to see him bollocks up this one isn't a surprise. Bush could of had Saddam tried under international law as the international criminal that he (Saddam not the other one) is.
Or he could have actually assisted the Iraqis in a Truth and Reconciliation process instead of his "The Iraq government is sovereign because they can do whatever I tell them to do" trial. But that time has long since past. Both for T&R and for Iraqis giving a jackshit what George Bush thinks.
A cynic might say (oh. not I for sure) that Bush didn't see to it that Saddam went to the Hague because he didn't want to enhance the prestige of a court at which he himself might one day be in the docket. But we shall leave that for cynics and for those that dream what might have been.
What we will have instead is Saddam hung at dawn. Likely it will be privately videotaped and somehow just somehow the execution will be leaked and next week we can look forward to seeing Saddam dangle all over the internets just like we saw Britney's nethers dangle a few weeks ago.
And in the next 24 hours we will get the Bush gloat and smirk as he calls a press conference to discuss the end of tyranny and the triumph of democracy in the middle east. Not withstanding the fact the neither justice nor democracy nor anybody's well-being was served by Bush and his thugs destroying Iraq in order to save it(s oil) and shredding the Constitution in the process if I may gratuitously add.
All the while he is planning to escalate the troop level in the war in Iraq another very useful 10% or 15% for no reason other than because he gotta do something to look all deciderful and stuff.
Well so long, Saddam. You no doubt will find some amenable company in Hell. Now and in the future.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
George Bush - homunculus
George Bush continues being the homunculus of the American Presidency. He has cast himself in no particular order as Truman, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK (remember Mars), Poppy and now both LBJ and Nixon. As if in a political manifestation of Moore's Law, these last he is conflating with breathtaking speed. It was only November 7 that he had his LBJ moment. The American voters no matter how you read it told Old George to go fuck himself and to take his fucking war with him.
Of course W's Nixononian tendencies have been there for all to see with De Facto Re Cheney making the rules and the Fristulan Congress being let's say compliant while George stomps all over the Constitution as he heralds it in support of his imperium.
But now as I said, no sooner has he had his LBJ moment that he is going into his Nixonian "peace with honor" phase which George calls "victory" and "A new way forward" (He's got me so turned around for once I don't know whether to give him props for honesty in that he ain't getting out and unlike Nixon he doesn't care who knows). Nonetheless his slogans would make nifty banners. I bet in years to come those in-house tee-shirts and coffee mugs will fetch an even bigger bundle on E-Bay than the usual run of the mill presidential detritus - I mean memorabilia.
But to my point. Despite the fact that George has dabbled with his inner Nixon with the aid of Cheney and Yoo, he has now gone full Milhouse with his plan to escalate the war in Vi*** - no I mean Iraq. Shit that ghost has presence.
But here we are - after a complete repudiation by the American voters, a continuing repudiation by the polls, a repudiation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff until the White House did the Republican thing and held the voting open until they could knuckle the opposition, even after all that - George is going to send even more American soldiers to endanger themselves for no apparent reason - at least no reason that I and the majority of the American people and even George W Bush can articulate.
And he is doing it right on time. It is Christmas - that magical time of year when illegal wars are escalated through illegal means that will in future times constitute sound arguments for accusing the inhabitant of Office of the Executive of War Crimes.
Of course W's Nixononian tendencies have been there for all to see with De Facto Re Cheney making the rules and the Fristulan Congress being let's say compliant while George stomps all over the Constitution as he heralds it in support of his imperium.
But now as I said, no sooner has he had his LBJ moment that he is going into his Nixonian "peace with honor" phase which George calls "victory" and "A new way forward" (He's got me so turned around for once I don't know whether to give him props for honesty in that he ain't getting out and unlike Nixon he doesn't care who knows). Nonetheless his slogans would make nifty banners. I bet in years to come those in-house tee-shirts and coffee mugs will fetch an even bigger bundle on E-Bay than the usual run of the mill presidential detritus - I mean memorabilia.
But to my point. Despite the fact that George has dabbled with his inner Nixon with the aid of Cheney and Yoo, he has now gone full Milhouse with his plan to escalate the war in Vi*** - no I mean Iraq. Shit that ghost has presence.
But here we are - after a complete repudiation by the American voters, a continuing repudiation by the polls, a repudiation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff until the White House did the Republican thing and held the voting open until they could knuckle the opposition, even after all that - George is going to send even more American soldiers to endanger themselves for no apparent reason - at least no reason that I and the majority of the American people and even George W Bush can articulate.
And he is doing it right on time. It is Christmas - that magical time of year when illegal wars are escalated through illegal means that will in future times constitute sound arguments for accusing the inhabitant of Office of the Executive of War Crimes.
Monday, December 18, 2006
A modest proposal
Y'know how George Bush likes to think of himself as the CEO president? I mean, he has called himself the decider - that essence of CEO-ness. He is the one to make the decidings that affect everyday life. Because that is what CEO's do.
It's become pretty clear that the American people don't think much of George Bush or of his deciderings.
Via Political Wire
comes this
"Monday's poll results suggest the widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq war may be dragging down public approval of Bush's handling of anti-terrorism efforts as well. Support for his management of that issue plunged to 42 percent, down from 50 percent in a poll taken Oct. 13-15, while the percentage of those who disapproved rose from 47 percent to 55 percent -- the first time more than 50 percent have registered disapproval on that topic."
What to do? Well everyone knows that the witch hunt that was the Starr Inquisition has destroyed the integrity of the impeachment process. Impeachment being a supremely political act is always dicey. Once turned into the rabid and idiotic farce that the Republican Congress made of it under the Clinton Administration, it has become political anathema.
That is only marginally so bad. impeachment of a president - even for just and legal reasons - is too powerful a remedy to be taken for any but the most heinous conditions. This isn't to say that I don't think that George W Bush should have his political ass impeached and hung on its very own Wall of American Shame. I'd mix the concrete myself.
But clearly that will only happen is we can reach near acclamation in our desire to be rid of George Bush. And how likely is acclamation if there are still 30 or so percent of dead-enders who can't bring themselves to admit that George Bush is a royal fuck up (and who has fucked them up pretty good along the way). Not to mention that guy out there who thinks he's doing a good job.
Now as I said - Lonesome George is a CEO president. And when CEO's fuck up - as George Bush has done mightily, there is one thing that CEO's understand. The Buyout.
Happens all the time. CEO gets caught spying on its board of directors say, or CEO takes too much advantage of home decorating opportunities or worst of all runs the company's stock into the sewer what comes next?
The Buyout! Call it the Golden Parachute, The Golden Handshake. Whatever, invariably it involves gold. And equally invariably it gets the bastard's ballast out of the corner office and more importantly off the stock price. America's stock price isn't doing too good in the world just now - if you know what I mean. And given the holy mess that Lonesome George has created in his mad pursuit of what we might laughingly call his Iraq policy if it wasn't so tragic, it ain't gonna improve much over the next eight business cycles.
We have reached that point in the sad, sorry stain on our nation that is the Bush Presidency. Let us all buck up and be true to our Capitalist principles.
I say forget ISG - he already pissed all over that one. Forget hearings, forget impeachment. No, forget all that. Instead, buy out George Bush's Contract. Throw in Cheney's for good measure - pure chump change. It can't possibly cost more that a few days in Iraq - worse case. And it has to be a lot better than enduring these fools for one more market.
It's become pretty clear that the American people don't think much of George Bush or of his deciderings.
Via Political Wire
comes this
"Monday's poll results suggest the widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq war may be dragging down public approval of Bush's handling of anti-terrorism efforts as well. Support for his management of that issue plunged to 42 percent, down from 50 percent in a poll taken Oct. 13-15, while the percentage of those who disapproved rose from 47 percent to 55 percent -- the first time more than 50 percent have registered disapproval on that topic."
What to do? Well everyone knows that the witch hunt that was the Starr Inquisition has destroyed the integrity of the impeachment process. Impeachment being a supremely political act is always dicey. Once turned into the rabid and idiotic farce that the Republican Congress made of it under the Clinton Administration, it has become political anathema.
That is only marginally so bad. impeachment of a president - even for just and legal reasons - is too powerful a remedy to be taken for any but the most heinous conditions. This isn't to say that I don't think that George W Bush should have his political ass impeached and hung on its very own Wall of American Shame. I'd mix the concrete myself.
But clearly that will only happen is we can reach near acclamation in our desire to be rid of George Bush. And how likely is acclamation if there are still 30 or so percent of dead-enders who can't bring themselves to admit that George Bush is a royal fuck up (and who has fucked them up pretty good along the way). Not to mention that guy out there who thinks he's doing a good job.
Now as I said - Lonesome George is a CEO president. And when CEO's fuck up - as George Bush has done mightily, there is one thing that CEO's understand. The Buyout.
Happens all the time. CEO gets caught spying on its board of directors say, or CEO takes too much advantage of home decorating opportunities or worst of all runs the company's stock into the sewer what comes next?
The Buyout! Call it the Golden Parachute, The Golden Handshake. Whatever, invariably it involves gold. And equally invariably it gets the bastard's ballast out of the corner office and more importantly off the stock price. America's stock price isn't doing too good in the world just now - if you know what I mean. And given the holy mess that Lonesome George has created in his mad pursuit of what we might laughingly call his Iraq policy if it wasn't so tragic, it ain't gonna improve much over the next eight business cycles.
We have reached that point in the sad, sorry stain on our nation that is the Bush Presidency. Let us all buck up and be true to our Capitalist principles.
I say forget ISG - he already pissed all over that one. Forget hearings, forget impeachment. No, forget all that. Instead, buy out George Bush's Contract. Throw in Cheney's for good measure - pure chump change. It can't possibly cost more that a few days in Iraq - worse case. And it has to be a lot better than enduring these fools for one more market.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
jeff greenfield hearts Iran?
Here's what he said:
"But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable."
Is Jeff Greenfield a walking time bomb right there on CNN?
you decide
exhibit a: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/newt1.2130.ahmadinejad.ap.jpg
exhibit b:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/US/Northeast/08/15/otsc.greenfield/story.greenfield.jpg
control:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:NPks_Yj_x4NUeM:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp4-25-05d.jpg
"But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of "GQ" to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable."
Is Jeff Greenfield a walking time bomb right there on CNN?
you decide
exhibit a: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/newt1.2130.ahmadinejad.ap.jpg
exhibit b:
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/US/Northeast/08/15/otsc.greenfield/story.greenfield.jpg
control:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:NPks_Yj_x4NUeM:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp4-25-05d.jpg
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
No bones about it
Wondering about Neanderthals and DNA as in this story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2455248,00.html
"DNA extracted from a Neanderthal bone has been analysed in detail for the first time and the genetic code of humanity’s closest cousin will be mapped completely within two years, scientists announced yesterday."
Now the article says that Neanderthals are humanity's "closest cousin." What DNA-wise does that mean. Is a Neanderthal embryo as "valued" as a human embryo in the US? The reason I bring this up is that if we can clone all kinds of non-human animals, is there a moral reason to forbid using Neanderthal DNA to make. well, a Neanderthal.
There is some evidence that Neanderthals and humans might have been able to interbreed - making the different species argument problematic. On the other hand - like wooly mammoths - there aren't any Neanderthals around anymore.
If we could create a mammoth, would we? I think someone somewhere would do it. And other than the initial shock has worn off - it would after all be a little like having a UFO land in the town square - I think no one would have a durable moral argument against it.
So back to the Neanderthal. Would we if could? Should we? Why? Why not?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2455248,00.html
"DNA extracted from a Neanderthal bone has been analysed in detail for the first time and the genetic code of humanity’s closest cousin will be mapped completely within two years, scientists announced yesterday."
Now the article says that Neanderthals are humanity's "closest cousin." What DNA-wise does that mean. Is a Neanderthal embryo as "valued" as a human embryo in the US? The reason I bring this up is that if we can clone all kinds of non-human animals, is there a moral reason to forbid using Neanderthal DNA to make. well, a Neanderthal.
There is some evidence that Neanderthals and humans might have been able to interbreed - making the different species argument problematic. On the other hand - like wooly mammoths - there aren't any Neanderthals around anymore.
If we could create a mammoth, would we? I think someone somewhere would do it. And other than the initial shock has worn off - it would after all be a little like having a UFO land in the town square - I think no one would have a durable moral argument against it.
So back to the Neanderthal. Would we if could? Should we? Why? Why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)