MrRain422

I can get on board with that.

Clemens is certainly doing all the things that an innocent man would do, but at the same time all of the circumstancial evidence looks really bad for him. He's either innocent or really stupid. I'm leaning towards the latter.

How will the end of the writers strike affect "My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad"?

Does anyone really think that all of our problems are going to be fixed immediately? I'm just expecting significant strides in the right direction -- I know that it's a lot more complicated than just putting a new person in the chair at the Oval Office desk. However, I do feel that so long as he isn't a disaster, the fact that a black man can now become President of the United States will lead to positive change in itself. Over time the level of success that a black person could achieve in this country has gradually gotten higher and higher but never before has this been possible, and I thi

I think the question of whether or not the death penalty is moral is sort of irrelevent until we can even find a system for administering it that is at all fair. The current system is so stacked against minorities and the poor that it would be comical if we were talking about something other than death. I'm not opposed to the death penalty inherently (although I do find it to be a bit creepy) but to me the morality of it is immaterial so long as the system is so screwed up.

This is the key question that even defenders of this travesty have not been able to answer. I'd also like to see someone on that side of it explain how the telecoms that chose not to participate knew it was illegal while the other ones couldn't figure it out.

The law requires a certain process by which warrants are issued, and the Department of Justice officially certifies for the telecoms that the act is legal. This process was not followed -- they went ahead and did it without the warrants and without the official certification. So it was completely illegal, end of story.

Greenwald also pointed out yesterday that AT&T was involved in the writing of the FISA law in question (which requires the government to present the telecom with certification from the Attorney General that the spying they are asking for is legal) so its not like they can pretend like they were unaware.

The whole idea is truly insane in a nation with a constitutional government. There's no way a discussion like this would even be possible before the Bush years. Doesn't matter what pre-Bush era you're talking about, the idea of major corporations getting retroactive immunity for violating major federal laws would have been laughed off the congressional floor.

Except that the government didn't just ask them to, they also promised them huge government contracts if they did it. And you know what? Some companies turned them down! Because they knew it was illegal! Just because the government asks you to do something, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal. Why should we let them off the hook just because the criminals that they aided happened to be in the government? And how are we going to discourage this from happening again if we don't punish large crimes? Edit: Yeah, what he said.

But immunity would more than likely guarantee that it will happen again. Why shouldn't it, if there's a precedent for getting away with it?

This was the reason that I was going to vote for Dodd before he dropped out. It's nice that someone in the government stands for something.

No one, eh?

It's true, this time around. Did you see the percentage of McCain's voters on Super Tuesday who identified themselves as being against the war, but then chose McCain as the best candidate to represent their views? It's clear that there's a lot of misinformation out there.

How many of those people were going to vote Dem anyway?

He actually changed it to Savage. His real name, Weiner, is even more appropriate, however.

12

I set the over-under on Foulke's innings pitched this year at 30.

Oh fuck, I can't believe I missed this. Happy birthday x10000. We need to hang out soon. For real.

I know what you mean, and I don't think that it's heartless. I just think that you're wrong. If they are able to stabilize their governments and industrialize, why shouldn't they be able to support their population? At least as well as the rest of the industrialized world does. Also, in case you haven't noticed, people tend to have smaller families, so the population explosion would probably slow down some. Also, I think that fixing the problem for a generation or two is a perfectly fine thing to do. How many major problems can we fix forever? I doubt there's ever been a single one.

We could also be using our non-military resources much more effectively in Africa. The famine and disease throughout the continent could be greatly eleviated with way less money than we're spending on our military adventures around the world, and if we addressed those problems, we would be taking large steps to fix the political problems there as well.

The matter of whether or not we should have invaded is completely relevent to the current discussion. Without considering that question, how can we accurately evaluate our goals there? We have to be conscious of how our presence in Iraq played a role in creating the current situation if we are to fix it. The validity of our reasons for being there in the first place are completely relevent to that.

Because we are the glorious United States of America. Everything we do is inherently good, because we are the ones doing it. Well sure, there's that.

Just wanted to point out that Iraq was not a terrorist safe haven before we invaded. Of course this does not mean that leaving now will fix the current situation, but it has to make you question how well what we're doing is working and if it's even worth it. So why can't we just declare victory before we leave? If we say that we achieved our goal and leave, then I guess they can't say we just gave up, right? How do you know more will die if another dictator takes over? There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Iraqis are dying more rapidly since our invasion than under Saddam. Are

I like: A Place To Bury Strangers (Brooklyn NY) Greg Ashley (Oakland CA) The Black Angels (Austin TX) Blitzen Trapper (Portland OR) Billy Bragg (London UK) Joe Ely (Lubbock TX) Evangelicals (Austin TX) Tim Fite (Brooklyn NY) Half Japanese (Austin MI) The Hard Lessons (Detroit MI) Jandek (Houston TX) MGMT (Brooklyn NY) The Mint Chicks (Auckland NEW ZEALAND) Eugene Mirman (Brooklyn NY) Modey Lemon (Pittsburgh PA) Thurston Moore (Northampton MA) Vampire Weekend (New York NY)