Saturday, June 23, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Roy Torcaso, 96; Defeated Md. in 1961 Religious Freedom Case
By Adam Bernstein, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 21, 2007;
Roy R. Torcaso, 96, whose application to be a Maryland notary public led to a U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed his refusal to take a state oath requiring him to declare a belief in God, died June 9 at the Himalayan Elderly Care assisted living home in Silver Spring. He had complications of prostate cancer.
Mr. Torcaso, who said he was an atheist, was a bookkeeper by profession. He worked for a Bethesda construction company when his legal challenge started in 1959. He had been urged by his boss to become a notary public.
At the Montgomery County Circuit Court, he refused to swear to a state oath given to notaries public that made them profess the existence of God.
"The point at issue," he said at the time, "is not whether I believe in a Supreme Being, but whether the state has a right to inquire into my beliefs."
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Army Spec. Jeans Cruz helped capture Saddam Hussein. When he came home to the Bronx, important people called him a war hero and promised to help him start a new life. The mayor of New York, officials of his parents' home town in Puerto Rico, the borough president and other local dignitaries honored him with plaques and silk parade sashes. They handed him their business cards and urged him to phone.More.
But a "black shadow" had followed Cruz home from Iraq, he confided to an Army counselor. He was hounded by recurring images of how war really was for him: not the triumphant scene of Hussein in handcuffs, but visions of dead Iraqi children.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - Colombia is set to become the first Latin American country to give established gay couples full rights to health insurance, inheritance and social security under a bill passed by its Congress.There goes our erstwhile enthusiastic support for the Andean Regional Initiative (formerly, Plan Colombia.)
The plan approved Thursday is expected to take effect soon. It is backed by the country's conservative President Alvaro Uribe.
The measure would allow gay couples in long-term relationships to have the same health insurance and social security benefits as heterosexual couples. It also guarantees that assets accumulated during the relationship will be divided between the two, and in the case of death, inherited by the survivor.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Wrong, nobody was fooled, and he has the blood on his hands of many young Americans, whose lives he was eagerly willing to offer up, in support of Mr. Bush's policies -- a luxury if ever there was one for a British citizen. And he did oppose Medicare reform and compassionate conservatism during the first term, so that counts for something, surely.
He points to a chart of where and when conservatives bailed on Bush, and proudly counts himself in the class of 2004, way before so many others. How about those who foresaw much of this in, oh, say, 1999? It means he was stupider for many more years than he should have been, not that he was prescient in November, 2004. Cripes.
His mantra is if you don't like what he says, read some other blog. He's right there; because occasionally he has a kernal of wisdom and writes good books, I continue to read his often deranged, warped, misunderstanding of his adopted homeland and its people, to my own frustrated detriment.
He took on Mike Kinsley's assessment of marriage rights for gays in Massachusetts this week, because Kinsley implied that the "left" had won. Andrew asserts it's really a conservative (right) victory - notwithstanding Romney, McCain, Gingrich, Robertson, Falwell, Reagan, and yes, even Guiliani's cowardly stance on the issue (small exception made here for Guiliani and Romney, who after all, did support equality to their credit before it became expedient not to). But tonight's comment takes the cake. In his own words, I give you the
The lesson of Reagan and to a lesser extent Thatcher - the pre-eminent conviction politicians of my lifetime - is that even those who deeply disagreed with them eventually respected their ability to stand for something unpopular and to lead. When I look at the Democrats today, I see no such conviction. That's a problem. No one is worse than Clinton, of course.I'm not going to link to him but he's easy enough to find if you want to read the rest of the nonsense. This week is exceptionally bad. He has a Ph.D from Harvard in government -- that alone should alarm us all.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
As today's New York Times editorial suggests, there were some draconian measures in the bill that were unpalatable to all, but that these could be addressed in future sessions of Congress where the law could have been amended and tweaked. Instead we end up with nothing, and for disgraceful reasons.
There were many provisions in this bill that I objected to. However, in leadership 101, the first rule is that a bad decision is preferable to no decision. Perhaps our representatives and our president missed that day of school in 9th grade.
A Failure of Leadership
The immigration compromise collapsed on the floor of the Senate Thursday night. Many of its hard-line foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow. They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.
The tragedy is that the compromise bill was written to bring these restrictionists along, with punitive, detestable provisions that many supporters of comprehensive reform agreed to endorse for the sake of a “grand bargain.” The bill was badly flawed but fixable, as long as there was the possibility of leadership and courage in Congress.
But obstruction happened. Republican amendments, designed to shred the compromise, happened.
Jeff Sessions wanted to deprive legalized immigrants — yes, legal residents — of the earned income tax credit, a path out of poverty for millions.
John Cornyn wanted to strip confidentiality protections for immigrants who apply for legal status, making them too frightened to leave the shadows.
Jim DeMint just wanted to kill the bill, so he voted for a volatile amendment whose substance he disagreed with. “If it hurts the bill, I’m for it,” he said.
Leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars — the one that would put 12 million people on a path to legal status. It didn’t show up. Republicans who should have been holding their party and the deal together — President Bush, minority leader Mitch McConnell, Senator John Kyl — failed utterly.
The anti-immigrant hard-core — no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever — must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage. Like nativists of generations past, they think the country is being Latinized, and they fear it. The country is changing, but the way it always has, absorbing newcomers, shaping and being shaped by them, inexorably turning them, their children and grandchildren into Americans. Globalization has accelerated and complicated that upheaval, and decades of federal dithering have made things messy and chaotic.
Restoring order will be wrenchingly difficult, but it must be done. The country cannot leave an unlawful, chaotic system to fester, with legal immigration channels clogged, families split apart, crops rotting and state and local governments dreaming up ways to punish 12 million people whose identities are unknown to the authorities, and who aren’t leaving, no matter what Congress does. We cannot simply fortify a wall while continuing to extract cheap labor from cowering workers who risk death to get here. Inaction on immigration carries a brutally high price, but those on the phobic right are willing to mortgage their country’s future to pay it.....
Sunday, June 3, 2007
This article indicates that attention to this issue has begun, but that the numbers of casualties from Katrina provided to us by officialdom are woefully underestimated and sadly inaccurate. Unlike Vietnam and Iraq where the government, though belatedly and inadequately, has paid lip service to PTSD for combat veterans and in a few cases, their families, and has offered half-heartedly, limited relief to some of those victims, there is very little mention of this regarding the denizens of the Gulf coast. The topic is just now entering the conversation as regards the hundreds of thousands whose lives were forever shattered as a result of Katrina and to some degree, Rita.
The common thread with these national nightmares is that disastrous decisions by our government are largely responsible for the volume of pain that has been inflicted on the victims of these conflictive episodes, in terms of those directly damaged by the events as well as the indirect but also very serious pain inflicted on families, friends, and communities affected.
The United States will continue to suffer from our government’s neglect of those impacted by Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina and other recent large-scale national traumas for at least a generation, probably longer. We can do better.
Lest we forget…
(Note: The amazing photo above was taken in the historic Garden District in New Orleans in the days immediately following the rupturing of the levees in that city. Via YourDailyAwesome.)
Update: By all means, check out the link from Mark in the comments at the Wet Bank Guide.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Sullivan's reader argues that for many conservatives, it became a question of when the straw was lain that broke the proverbial camel's back. It's an interesting assessment, and I can only wonder how it is that so many of these people have such strong backs. Even if I had been a true believer, which thankfully I never was, my back would have been broken in, oh, I'd say early 2002:
I'll have some of whatever they're smoking.
The reader you posted stated that Noonan and others who are late to the party have no credibility to criticize Bush. Hogwash. Have you and this reader never heard of the expression "the straw that breaks the camel's back?" You maintain loyalty in politics even when you are in disagreement with a party or a President. If you are part of a political movement you realize that no politician is ideologically pure or completely without fault. However, you do expect that your loyalty will be rewarded with more than mere lip service to one's ideological beliefs and you expect more than comically bad incompetence.
A lot of intellectual conservatives are now asking themselves at which moment did they lose faith in Bush. For some, such as yourself, it was Abu Ghraib. For others, it was the chaos that unfolded in late 2003-04 and the intransigent refusal of Rumsfeld and Bush to respond to it.
For another group, it was the President's use of warrantless wiretaps and vast expansions of federal power. For many it was the realization that two of the three biggest domestic accomplishments for Bush (outside of the tax cuts) were Ted Kennedy sponsored pieces of legislation. For a huge number it was the culture of profligate spending.
For myself, the seminal moment at which I lost real faith in this President was in the aftermath of Katrina. He could no longer profess to hold the mantle of competence and indeed, he was the poster child of cronyism and ineffectiveness. He proved himself to be dilatory and disinterested, all in the face of the worst natural disaster in this country's history. Granted the local politicians screwed up royally (and are still doing so in NOLA), but he is the POTUS and is expected, at the least to focus our efforts to recover, and to lead. He held that mantle after 9/11, he pissed it down the drain after Katrina.
The last straws for conservatives are the White House's arrogant refusal to contenance any criticism of what it is doing in Iraq coupled with its arrogant and condescending ramroding of a disastrous immigration boondoggle, all the while telling the people "who have carried his water for years" that they are a bunch of bigots and ignoramuses.
Don't forget Andrew that the scales had to fall from your eyes as well. It has come at different times and in different ways for all of us, but it does not make Noonan's critique of Bush any less credible that it has come later than your own. It just means that you were more foresighted than she was.