Mohammad at KABOBfest reports on his friend Salah's first day at a new job.
Go read the rest to find out why Salah thinks he made a great choice of shirts.
Well, yes, that is Obama's style. He romances his supporters, and the merely curious, and uses his charm which is at root sexual, to sweep us off our feet.
Is this really because, as a group, older people have a harder time dealing with the unfamiliar? Perhaps. But I am sure the answer is more nuanced than just that we are bunch of stick-in-the-muds.
Compare these guys to what the United Nations said last year about the International Day of Support for Vicitms of Torture.
Representative Nadler summed up the unspeakable posture of the United States at the conclusion of the Yoo/Addington hearing.
If I were looking for a perfect illustration of the difference between what campaigns look like to the people that make them happen and to low-information voters, this would qualify.
In 2007, Mike Drummond of the Charlotte Observer described what he learned about Salihee's death.
He adds that this danger, the poorly marked checkpoint, is not uncommon.
There's no news in these stories worth sharing with a U.S. audience according to commercial news priorities. Have to get back to the important stories -- Heather Locklear's depression, Britney Spears' custody dispute and other vital matters.
These musing may seem premature before we vote the guy in, but I take it as a mark of a maturing activist sector to see us wondering this in late June, five months before the election.
This is a conclusion that Rutten can only arrive at by assuming that justifying torture is just a "policy" argument, not a question of law. He clams to be repudiating torture, but he sweeps under the rug the little matter of treaty obligations and the pre-Bush Universal Code of Military Justice, as well as numerous constitutional impediments to cruel treatment of persons without legal process. The memos of a Yoo and obfuscations of a Gonzales are all a "no fault" intellectual exercise, if a misguided one, in Rutten's world.
That is, Zimbabwe is now suffering through another violent election which Mugabe will win by whatever vicious means are necessary because of the developing practice of bringing particularly violent African kleptocrats before international criminal courts. The article goes on to cite the prosecution of Charles Taylor for his instigation of the Sierra Leone civil war (that's the one where in addition to rape, the combatants went in for cutting off the limbs of children) and the international court in Arusha, Tanzania, that can't seem to move against Rwandan perpetrators of genocide. In Uganda, critics of human rights law enforcement say that indictments are prolonging Joseph Kony's vicious insurgency. The Globe and Mail author, Stephanie Nolen, says that Africans have a different solution for their evil doers.
I'd have to listen to a lot more Africans before I felt entirely comfortable with the argument presented here. I don't want to be party to any idea that there is one standard of justice suitable to be applied to first world wrongdoers and another for the poor societies of Africa. But there is also a plausible argument here for peace first, then, perhaps much later and less rigorously, justice.
That's getting action from a politician when he needs you. Got to stay on top of these guys when they run for office.
This election will certainly reveal how many of this sort there still are -- and how much of the country has moved on. We may still condone systemic racism, but we sure don't, mostly, let it all hang out there like that.
Ready to vomit yet?
They wanted "actionable intelligence" and they weren't getting it.
Like the declining age of the electorate, apparently a small shift, but involving many voters.
Good news for Democrats; what does it mean in their internal church politics, I wonder?
I am drawn to the part about supporting and respecting the will of the majority. We don't trust each other to do that. We have reason to fear we'll be manipulated, our passions stirred, by politicians of every stamp. Granting respect to well-meaning folks with whom I disagree is hard; for example, I know I can't give respect to the result of the election of 2000. And I'm not over it. I cannot concede that the court-determined outcome was well-meaning or democratic.
Dick Cheney's hunting buddy, Justice Scalia, predictably waved the bloody shirt in dissent, predicting that Americans would get killed if these prisoners were allowed minimal legal rights.
Though I am not a lawyer, this does seem to be the nub of it. Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo claim unhindered power to do anything they please, anywhere in the world. They assert world empire. They do their best to keep the U.S. population in a panic that "excuses" any little excesses like (losing) wars of conquest. They've run, at least momentarily, into a judicial determination that if empire extends throughout the world, they must contend with (some, minor) legal process throughout the world.
So much for Bush's excellent adventure in democracy promotion. Fadam writes lots more about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees now in Syria. Their condition sounds a lot like what we heard in Damascus two years ago. Go read it all.
Yes -- that about catches it. Leno has overturned the established order of things -- the understanding in effect since term limits came into force in California -- that once installed in their comfortably gerrymandered seats, incumbents would get to serve out their limited time. But not Carole.
Burton won that campaign. But the stress of it probably did him in, along with too much booze, no exercise, and a life lived in a rage while seeking power in order to do justice.