March 2011 archive

Mar 07 2011

Six In The Morning

America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels

Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi

By Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent  Monday, 7 March 2011

Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a “day of rage” from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington’s highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.

Washington’s request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 and later – to America’s chagrin – also funded and armed the Taliban.

Mar 07 2011

The Spelunker-in-Chief is Caving Again

Even before the ink was dry on the continuing resolution that will keep the US government open until March 18, President Obama was already caving to Republican demands:

The White House has released what amounts to an opening bid in budget negotiations for Fiscal Year 2011 with Republicans. They have offered an additional $6.5 billion in cuts below the baseline of the 2010 budget. This goes on top of the $4 billion in cuts that have already been signed into law….this briefing took place before the first meeting between the White House and Congress even began. So the compromises preceded the negotiation. And there are no compromises happening on the other side.

That was Friday. Then on Saturday in his weekly address to the country via You Tube, he not only confirmed this but stated he was willing to go further.

How much further is he willing to sell out the middle class, the poor and future generations? Well this weekend he sent our one of his “canaries” to test the “air”, Austin Goolsbee, who in appearance on Lawrence O’Donnell’s “Last Word” couldn’t answer a straight question about Social Security.

From Gaius Publius at AMERICAblog points out the worst of Goolsbee’s administration apologia:

The Goolsbee interview starts at 3:20; the Social Security discussion starts at 7:15. At 8:80, weasel words begin leaving Goolsbee’s mouth – and they just don’t stop

Kudos to O’Donnell (who’s a benefit hawk himself) for pressing this hard. Question: Are you open to small changes to Social Security benefits, changes that would not be called “slashing”?

Goolsbee: “We don’t have a specific plan” … we want an “open discussion” … the president won’t weaken Social Security “including especially ideas about privatization” … but he “will look at” things that “insure the solvency” of the program. Weasel. They still want at it.

And by “they” I mean Obama. The Bush tax cuts blow a hole, and Social Security benefits are the fix. Dems, Reps, doesn’t seem to matter.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), to his credit, very clearly and concisely stated on Meat the Press in January that Social Security did not contribute to the deficit or the current budget problems:

DAVID GREGORY: Social Security– how does it have to change? (an assumption by Gregory, TMC) What they put on the agenda is raising the retirement age, maybe means testing benefits. Is it time for Social Security to fundamentally change if you’re gonna deal with the debt problem?

HARRY REID: One of the things that always troubles me is when we start talking about the debt, the first thing people do is run to Social Security. Social Security is a program that works. And it’s going to be– it’s fully funded for the next forty years. Stop picking on Social Security. There’re a lotta places–

DAVID GREGORY: Senator are you really saying —

HARRY REID: –where you can go to save money.

DAVID GREGORY:– the arithmetic on Social Security works?

HARRY REID: I’m saying the arithmetic in Social Security works. I have no doubt it does.

DAVID GREGORY: It’s not in crisis?

HARRY REID: The ne– no, it’s not in crisis. This is– this is– this is something that’s perpetuated by people who don’t like government. Social Security is fine. Are there things we can do to improve Social Security? Of course.

Why is Obama even bothering to say he’s willing to “negotiate” when we all know the real word is “cave”?  

Mar 07 2011

DocuDharma Digest

Regular Features-

Featured Essays for March 6, 2011-

DocuDharma

Mar 07 2011

Pique the Geek 20110306: Fricking, Fracking, and Earthquakes

Hydraulic fracturing, also called hydrofracture or just fracking, is a commonly used method to increase the yield of fluid raw materials, usually petroleum or natural gas, from formations that are not “easy” extraction targets.  Easy targets are ones that the fluids dispersed in sands or very porous rock formation.  

Let us dispel a common myth right now:  oil and gas is almost NEVER found as big pools of those materials in large holes in the rock.  Almost without exception, and perhaps quite without exception, these materials are dispersed in some more or less porous rock or sand.    When you see pictures of underground reservoirs of gas or oil, you are really looking at the fluid as it is dispersed in the native matrix.

Sand and very “rotten” sandstone are easy matrices from which to extract the fluids.  Shale and hard sandstone are much more difficult matrices, and hydraulic fracturing is used to increase yields from such formations.

Mar 07 2011

from firefly-dreaming 6.3.1

Regular Daily Features:

The Mighty Mighty Bosstones are brassing it up in Late Night Karaoke, mishima DJs

Gha!  

Six Brilliant Articles! from Six Different Places!! on Six Different Topics!!!

                Six Days a Week!!!    at Six in the Morning!!!!

Essays Featured Sunday, March 6th:

Youffraita tells of the Hominy Frittata Experiment

Sunday Open Thoughts are Blinding from Alma  Ria

slksfca shares some history in For Women’s History Month: Emmeline B. Wells

This edition of Sunday Bread, brought by Bill Egnor, is wholesome, yummy-delicious Pain Noir (French Style Black Bread)

join the conversation! come firefly-dreaming with me….

Mar 07 2011

Prime Time

Well, a lot of premiers.  Amazing Race for one.  Animation Domination on Faux.  America’s Next Great Restaurant Series Premier (though if you’re stealing ideas from basic cable it’s a sign of weakness).  PBS has Ken Burns on Mark Twain (some of you wonder why I use ek hornbeck, that other one is already taken).

What you lookin’ at? You all a bunch of fuckin’ assholes. You know why? You don’t have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin’ fingers and say, “That’s the bad guy.” So… what that make you? Good? You’re not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don’t have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There’s a bad guy comin’ through! Better get outta his way!

I never guess: it is an appalling habit, destructive to the logical faculty. A private study is an ideal place for observing facets of a man’s character. That the study belongs to you exclusively is evident from the dust: not even the maid is permitted here, else she would scarcely have ventured to let matters come to this pass.

Later-

Your separation from various societies is indicated by these blank spaces surrounding your diploma, clearly used at one time to display additional certificates. Now, what can it be that forces a man to remove these testimonials to his success? Why, only that he has ceased to affiliate himself with these various societies and hospitals and so forth, and why do this, having once troubled to join them all? It is possible that he became disenchanted with one or two of them, but NOT likely that his disillusionment extended to all. Rather, I postulate it is THEY who became disenchanted with YOU, doctor, and asked you to resign, from all of them. Why, I’ve no idea. But some position you have taken, evidently a medical one, has discredited you in their eyes.

…

Have I omitted anything of importance?

My sense of honor.

Oh, it is implied by the fact that you have removed the plaques from the societies to which you no longer belong. In the privacy of your study, only you would know the difference.

The clue obviously lies in the word “cheddar.” Let’s see now. Seven letters. Rearranged, they come to, let me see: “Rachedd.” “Dechdar.” “Drechad.” “Chaderd” – hello, chaderd! Unless I’m very much mistaken, chaderd is the Egyptian word meaning “to eat fat.” Now we’re getting somewhere!

Zap2it TV Listings, Yahoo TV Listings

Mar 06 2011

Evening Edition

Evening Edition is an Open Thread

Now with 36 Top Stories.

From Yahoo News Top Stories

1 Clashes as Libya rebels deny counter-offensive report

by Samer al-Atrush, AFP

25 mins ago

LANUF, Libya (AFP) – An onslaught by Moamer Kadhafi’s army sparked UN calls for urgent access to the “injured and dying” on Sunday as a secret British mission to contact opposition forces ended in a diplomatic fiasco.

Rebel forces traded rocket and machine-gun fire with the army as they tried to advance westwards on the Kadhafi stronghold of Sirte, but were beaten back along a dusty desert highway after suffering heavy losses.

The rebels said they had been forced to pull back from the coastal hamlet of Bin Jawad, occupied on Saturday in an advance westward on Kadhafi’s home town, after clashes that doctors said left two dead and around 50 wounded.

Mar 06 2011

Rant of the Week: The Funnies

The last segment of this past Friday’s “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell had a collection of comments, cartoons and skits from comedians who put the top news stories into perspective.

The Week in Late Night Laughs

Top comment goes to Robin Williams for his take on Charlie Sheen’s antics:

When he did rehab at home, that’s like a self administered colostomy

Mar 06 2011

March Meta Madness

Starting on the 15th I’m going to be liveblogging the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball Tournaments.

Not to get whiny on you, but events like that suck a lot of energy and I’m already quite busy as you can see.

Ideally I’d like someone, or several someones, to step forward and take over some of the easier but more time consuming tasks.

Prime Time in particular takes way too long.  It’s not so much the links (though it typically has just as many as any Evening Edition), it’s finding the quotes.  After making the list I look at the movies (or shows in some cases) for ones I’m familiar with and know have some quotable moments.  After that it’s Google |imdb (film here) quote| which usually turns up the Internet Movie Database quote page and then slugging through them to find something funny or appropriate (not always the same thing).

You can waste a lot of time doing that.

Back in the deep dark mists of 8 months ago when TheMomCat and I were setting up The Stars Hollow Gazette my concept was that we needed content in the overnight period that would remain kind of current and self updating, and provide something of depth and interest (if you click the damn links) for the reader.  I think it’s certainly served that purpose admirably.

Now, of course, I have the daily digests from DocuDharma and firefly dreaming to extend our broadcast day and it’s not quite as critical as it was.

On some levels it’s really instructive to do.  I’m not really a Nexflix type and what I like about cable is that sometimes it presents you with something fresh and interesting that you wouldn’t have thought that you’d like.  Reading the links as I harvested has informed me of things about old favorites I didn’t know.  Sometimes I wish I was able to devote even more time to it.

But it doesn’t have to be done the way I do it either.  Let’s say you were a big fan of (shudder) American Idol and you wanted to do a series of liveblogs.  Well, that’s an ok direction I guess.  So would the Magnifico less is more approach.  At the very least I’d expect you might consider more closely the networks you like and find reliable sources of mindless blogging background noise entertainment.

In any event now is the time to organize for the future and that future includes my customary June “vacation” where I take constant mudbaths at my spa and the Internet is mostly unavailable.  What I’d like to do is transition to a system of rotating responsibility like we used to have with Overnight News Digest and What’s for Dinner.

So, play in on the 15th, if you want alternative programming you’ll have to make your own fun or click the links.

Zap2it TV Listings, Yahoo TV Listings

Mar 06 2011

On This Day in History March 6

This is your morning Open Thread. Pour your favorite beverage and review the past and comment on the future.

Find the past “On This Day in History” here.

March 6 is the 65th day of the year (66th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. There are 300 days remaining until the end of the year.

On this day in 1857, the US Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens. The court also held that the U.S. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories and that, because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that slaves, as chattels or private property, could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Supreme Court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

Although the Supreme Court has never overruled the Dred Scott case, the Court stated in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 that at least one part of it had already been overruled by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868:

   The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.

The Decision

The Supreme Court ruling was handed down on March 6, 1857, just two days after Buchanan’s inauguration. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Court, with each of the concurring and dissenting Justices filing separate opinions. In total, six Justices agreed with the ruling; Samuel Nelson concurred with the ruling but not its reasoning, and Benjamin R. Curtis and John McLean dissented. The court misspelled Sanford’s name in the decision.

Opinion of the Court

The Court first had to decide whether it had jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the judicial Power shall extend… to Controversies… between Citizens of different States….” The Court held that Scott was not a “citizen of a state” within the meaning of the United States Constitution, as that term was understood at the time the Constitution was adopted, and therefore not able to bring suit in federal court. Furthermore, whether a person is a citizen of a state, for Article III purposes, was a question to be decided by the federal courts irrespective of any state’s definition of “citizen” under its own law.

Thus, whether Missouri recognized Scott as a citizen was irrelevant. Taney summed up,

   Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

This meant that

   no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States.

The only relevant question, therefore, was whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, Scott could have been considered a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III. According to the Court, the authors of the Constitution had viewed all blacks as

   beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.

The Court also presented a parade of horribles argument as to the feared results of granting Mr. Scott’s petition:

   It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Scott was not a citizen of Missouri, and the federal courts therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Despite the conclusion that the Court lacked jurisdiction, however, it went on to hold (in what Republicans would label its “obiter dictum”) that Scott was not a free man, even though he had resided for a time in Minnesota (then called the Wisconsin Territory). The Court held that the provisions of the Missouri Compromise declaring it to be free territory were beyond Congress’s power to enact. The Court rested its decision on the grounds that Congress’s power to acquire territories and create governments within those territories was limited. They held that the Fifth Amendment barred any law that would deprive a slaveholder of his property, such as his slaves, because he had brought them into a free territory. The Court went on to state – although the issue was not before the Court – that the territorial legislatures had no power to ban slavery. The ruling also asserted that neither slaves “nor their descendants, were embraced in any of the other provisions of the Constitution” that protected non-citizens.

This was only the second time in United States history that the Supreme Court had found an act of Congress to be unconstitutional. (The first time was 54 years earlier in Marbury v. Madison).

Load more