underzealous

Just because Harvard is lame, Betty Trachtenberg is trying to take Yale down the same path?

Ending a 130-year tradition, Yale will be shutting down tailgating at halftime at this year's Harvard-Yale game. Furthermore, students are not allowed to bring "drinking paraphenalia (i.e. play beer pong), and aren't allowed to have large parties the night before (defined as 20 or more people).

Yale used to be the fun school, but Betty T tries to hack away at such things every year...

Interesting quotes by Christopher Shays:

“He’s lost his office. He’s lost his staff. And he’s now basically a rank-and-file member who has a lot of friends and will still have influence,” said Connecticut Rep. Christopher Shays, a moderate Republican.

Shays acknowledged he has not been comfortable with DeLay as the No. 2 House GOP leader, citing “continual acts that border and go sometimes beyond the ethical edge. They may not be illegal, but he’s always pushing that ethical edge to the limit.”

As for DeLay calling this "politically motivated attacks," it's a pathetic copout and here's why:

1) Ronnie Earle has indicted more Democrats than Republicans by far (I believe the number is 11 Democrats and 4 Republicans or something in that range)
2) everything done in Congress is "politically motivated"

Ouch:

The indictment accused DeLay of a conspiracy to "knowingly make a political contribution" in violation of Texas law outlawing corporate contributions. It alleged that DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee accepted $155,000 from companies, including Sears Roebuck, and placed the money in an account.

The PAC then wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to receive in donations.

The indictment included a copy of the check.

"The defendants entered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code," says the four-page indictment. "The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election."

Interesting that he stepped aside despite Republican rule changes that do not require him to do so. Of course, if Democrats were able to actually get off their collective asses, this would be more meaningful.

TiVo may screw you with another "glitch."

Interesting little tidbit in this MSNBC article -- an implicit Bush vs. Santorum battle:

One indicator many Republicans are watching to gauge whether Bush is becoming a liability for the party is in Pennsylvania, where Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, is trailing state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. by double digits.

"My caucus would do anything for Senator Santorum," Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) said of his colleague. Chafee, who himself faces a tough reelection battle next year, predicted Republicans will increasingly be faced with the choice of propping up Bush or protecting their own. "I think they're going to collide," Chafee said of the two options.

The other interesting points: opinion says lowering Iraq spending is better than rising taxes or reduced government programs, GOP moderates are actually considering raising taxes, and people don't trust the federal government to spend funds on New Orleans properly.

People have a short memory though; the GOP need not worry about 2006 just yet.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic moment. President George W. Bush actually took responsibility for something:

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said during a joint news conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

So much for the Bart Simpson-style "I didn't do it" administration...

Don't despair, however. Administration staffers still treat Shrubya like a five-year old. You don't want to upset him and cut short his vacation, you know...

Or rather, the threshold for eliminating tax cuts:

In the aftermath of what likely will be the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history, six in 10 Americans want lawmakers to delay action on pending legislation that would cut federal taxes by an estimated $70 billion over the next five years. Those proposed cuts include eliminating the inheritance tax, a Bush priority that supporters now say faces an uncertain fate. Half of all Republicans joined with two-thirds of Democrat to support delaying proposed tax cuts.

That 6 in 10 should be much closer to all ten, given that none of these proposed tax breaks will help ordinary people. Certainly the estate tax never has hurt ordinary people because so few people have estates that big.

Query whether using the word "inheritance tax" is an intermediary for the media between "estate tax" and "death tax."

Two responses regarding this NYTimes article:

1) I knew there was a reason George Will is often tolerable:

Not all conservatives find the movie a rebuke to Darwin's theory. "If an Intelligent Designer designed nature," the columnist George F. Will asked recently, "why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins?"

2) They should feature gay penguins!

No surprise that Roberts would be nominated for chief justice. Edith Clement or Edith Jones for O'Connor's spot? Anyone giving Gonzalez an outside shot?

John Roberts gets nominated for chief justice, and someone else slides in as associate justice? Someone else gets nominated for chief justice, and Roberts slides in as associate justice? What's most unlikely is someone getting elevated from the current court, mostly because that's three confirmations. Would Bush make a woman chief justice?

Took him long enough, but since his poll numbers are truly in the shitter and everyone is militant over gasoline prices, President Bush decided it'd be prudent to take a photo-op in Louisiana. Typical politician move. Stolen from J.W. shamelessly, Bush strummed while New Orleans drowned. And Condeleeza Rice went shoe shopping in celebration of the hurricane, according to my mom -- hope she's struttin' pretty in her Manolos.

UCLA Law is accepting some visiting Tulane and Loyola Law students as part of the efforts. It's sad to hear about friends' Slidell homes where all that's left are the things they carried. I hope you and yours are okay.

I've heard reports of a 75 cent spike at some stations in Connecticut to $3.35, although that's on the extreme side -- more normal might be 20 cents to $2.80. Why?

1) few if any refineries have been built in the last several years to increase capacity -- oil companies like it this way
2) President Bush and the Republican Congress have failed to raise CAFE standards -- oil and car companies like it this way
3) The rest of the world has only started demanding oil at higher levels -- this trend will continue

Why don't people get it? Short-term thinking trumps long-term. It's always pay now or pay later, and we as a society choose to pay later. That's also why Bush flip-flopped by opening up the SPR during a non-crisis situation.

Susan Wood was the director of the FDA's Office of Women's Health, and you should all toast to her tonight:

"I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled," wrote Wood, who also was assistant commissioner for women's health. "The recent decision announced by the Commissioner about emergency contraception, which continues to limit women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions, is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health."

It's good to see someone with integrity stand up when poor politics beats out good science and good medicine.

I've heard about this theory before, but current research debunks it.

Opening up the strategic petroleum reserve during a non-oil crisis situation, eh? I'm sure no Democrat has suggested that...

With the asinine energy policy of this administration and Republican Congress, it's not surprise that all the publications are calling doomsday.

Nine northeastern states plan to work on emissions regulations, since the Bush administration dropped the chalupa on the Kyoto Protocol:

Nine northeastern U.S. states are working on a plan to cap and then reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the first U.S. deal of its kind and one which would see the region breaking with President George W. Bush who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol

The move comes as California, Washington and Oregon are considering a similar pact -- a dynamic environmentalists say could pressure the federal government to adopt a national law. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse gas reduction plan adopted by more than 150 countries.

Under the plan being worked on, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 150 million tons a year -- roughly equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004.

Starting in 2015, the cap would be lowered, and emissions would be cut by 10 percent in 2020.

This is the kind of federalism I love to see, and the kind of federalism the Bush administration and Republicans hate to see. They're hypocritical, of course; federalism is okay ONLY if it meets their ends (e.g. chastising Massachusetts about gay marriage). Congress has tried to curb this sort of state-level environmental policy before, for example, when the law was changed so that states could only have either California emissions regulations or federal emissions regulations for automobiles. We'll see how this goes, but it looks promising.

Does anyone else feel like Google is trying to become The Evil Empire™ like you know who?

I heard about this yesterday but didn't get a chance to post: A moment for Robert A. Moog -- if you follow any sort of music since 1964, you've heard his influence.

Does anyone really think this is a good idea? Kudos to Northwest for functioning at the level that they are. I just don't understand how ANYONE gets the idea that trying to permanently cripple their extremely large employer is a good idea -- and the other Northwest unions recognize this:

AMFA's position weakened in the early moments of the strike Saturday when the leadership of the Air Line Pilots Association and the rank and file of the Professional Flight Attendants Association both voted against staging sympathy strikes. The International Association of Machinists, which represents other ground workers at Northwest such as gate agents and baggage handlers, and which used to represent mechanics, is also not staging a sympathy strike.

Union politics aside, sometimes economic issues are really at the forefront. If you think a few layoffs and furloughs are bad, how bad would it be when everyone loses their job and Northwest liquidates?

We all hate airline travel within the United States, and we all hate delays. I've never flown Northwest before, but I would now.

August 15:
Holy crap! Jeanine Pirro's 32 second silent attack on Hillary Clinton while she looked through her notes was priceless, as was Jon's comment on the moment of silence for the death of her campaign. Someone dropped the chalupa on that one...

August 16:
Stephen Colbert's segment on the new White House Chef confirmation hearings was amazing.

August 18:
Rob Corddry pretending to be at the Gaza pullout: "Shalom, Jon. Or as of a few hours ago, Salaam."

The comparison of NARAL saying John Roberts' brief from 1991 means that he supports abortion clinic bombers (in 1998, nonetheless) to a hypothetical person buying Thriller meaning that they support child molestation was brilliant. Like I've said before, I probably wouldn't like any Bush nominee, but at least make a legitimate argument or you undermine the cause.

In yet another cowardly and whiny move, the auto industry complained about new California emissions regulations that are likely to go into effect in Washington, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts as well in 2016. Rhode Island may join this group. Currently California emissions apply in four northeastern states.

The article also notes that Pennsylvania, Illinois, and North Carolina are considering such moves. It would make sense in North Carolina, given the extremely poor air quality in the Charlotte region.

Now if someone would only raise CAFE standards...

Okay, I take back everything I ever said about Bill O'Reilly possibly being more intelligent than most people on TV. He's a FUCKING IDIOT!

Bill O'Reilly: "Clearly more pictures of Abu Ghraib help the terrorists, as do Geneva Convention protections and civilian lawyers. So there's no question the ACLU and the judges that side with them are terror allies."

Jon's response: That of course a direct quote from Chapter 3 of The O'Reilly Factor for Kids With No More Than a Passing Acquaintance with the Rules of Logic.

This episode of Daily Show also had the video clips of Douchebag of Liberty Robert Novak bailing on CNN after using the word "bullshit."

I knew there was a reason I liked Bob Costas -- not selling out.

You've heard it here before: Raise CAFE standards. It's pay now, or pay later, folks.

$24.5 million for pain and suffering, along with $229 million for punitive damages. Ouch. Those compensatory damages sound a little off though, and I wonder if the punitives will be lowered on appeal. I don't know enough about the facts of the case to say.

Tierney does say some good stuff in this article -- I agree the fight needs to be taken elsewhere. Tierney highlights what he thinks is the problem with pro-choice people:

If that argument sounds reactionary, it's only because Naral and other groups have worked so long to make abortion a civil rights issue, presenting it as women's fight for freedom against an oppressive patriarchy. The tactic makes for displays of solidarity like the March for Women's Lives, an occasion for denouncing male anti-abortion politicians and waving signs with that perennial slogan "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
[...]
Treating the issue as a civil rights crusade may be good for mobilizing some women, but this strategy alienates the public because it ducks the central issue. If you believe that life begins at conception, then protecting women's rights means protecting the rights of females in the womb, too.

Do people find the pro-lifers' civil rights argument as "offensive" as Tierney suggests the pro-choicers' civil rights argument is? The civil rights argument came in one of the presidential debates last year where Bush was asked about Supreme Court decisions, and he mentioned one in particular: Dred Scott. And he said it because it is a code word for how conservatives might view the abortion issue. The analogy is that there might be certain decisions of law that we make that we later consider against human dignity. Conservatives want Roe v. Wade to be one of these decisions.

Blah blah, nothing to see here, except this:

Clearly, however, the benefits would not be widespread. A new study by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a $3.5 million exemption in 2000 would have forced a mere 94 family-owned businesses and 65 family farms to pay any estate tax -- which works out to 0.007 percent of adult deaths that year. Only 54 such enterprises would have had to liquidate assets to pay the taxes, the study added.

But seriously, we should really feel bad for these 159 people. Because they're the same 159 people who are so adamant about poor people being "lazy" while giving a free ride to their lazy heirs that will run their business into the ground. Right?

Furthermore, just learn how to do your estate planning correctly. It's not that hard.

Congress needs to get together on a real tax issue like the AMT, but they won't. Why? Because a rollback would cut taxes significantly for too broad a population.

The answer is "pretty frickin' dumb":

An Oklahoma man told federal investigators he forgot a pipe bomb he built for fun was in his luggage when tried to board an airplane, according to court documents released Thursday.
[...]
FBI agents and Oklahoma City police officers said the pipe bomb contained a metal cartridge filled with gunpowder attached to a detonator made from model rocket parts, according to an affidavit filed by the FBI.

Seriously, where do these people come from?

Link from my good man M.G., Boston's Public Garden has two swams that are a same-sex couple. Of course, as M.G. also pointed out, conservatives had to make their case:

"I think this proves that there's something in the environment in Massachusetts," Brian Camenker, director of the Article 8 Alliance, a Waltham-based organization fighting same-sex marriage, joked in a telephone interview. "Maybe it's the water that's causing all this lunacy."

Such has certainly been normal behavior among penguins -- I thought I posted on that, but I couldn't find it.

Okay okay okay, it's bad enough that they did the pay raise in secret. But this is ridiculous and bad for the party:

In a show of party discipline, the Democratic leader in the Republican-controlled House ousted from committee posts more than a dozen Democrats who voted against the bill. In their place, he put only those who voted for it, entitling them to extra leadership pay.

You just don't do that.

It's good to know that we're in such good company with national policies on maternity leave:

To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.

What's the 168th one?

The rest of the article generally says that the impediments come from two things: 1) no need to increase birthrates (but that's true a lot of places!?); 2) someone would have to pay for a fund or something of that sort (namely businesses, a la workmen's compensation) to pay for maternity leave.

Well #2 could be true, but California has another system:

California went a different route, and last year introduced family leave with around 50 percent pay for six weeks, paid from a fund that employees, not employers, pay into.

I don't know what the solution is, but the current policy's encouragement is for women to stay home. You would think businesses would recognize that that's not the most efficient solution either.

"Frist for President -- Different Moments, Different Policies," but the crowning glory was right before that when Jon said that people think of Bill Frist as a doctor in the same way they think of Bill Cosby as a doctor.

The new slogan for Karl Rove: "Loose Lips Deserve Pink Slips -- Karl Rove."

I still think my favorite is "Fire Mrs. Rove's Husband," but "Karl Rove - Voice of Treason" was what came to my mind when they started the contest.

Joe Biden (D-DE) was on the Daily Show this past Tuesday:

"And besides, as one staff member told me, said there's great benefits. Look at the great vacation time you get." ~Joseph Biden

Nice -- he got the nod from Jon as well.

I'm surprised I hadn't caught this issue before. Dan LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) has proposed legislation banning the dispensation of birth control and emergency contraceptives at University of Wisconsin campuses. It may not pass, but R. provided this recent link. The Wisconsin-Madison Badger Herald notes that the Wisconsin Attorney General has submitted an advisory opinion that the law is unconstitutional.

Don't you love when a state legislator who knows absolutely nothing about healthcare decides to pass a bill severely restricting it? The problem here is that this is a state university system, which would appear to implicate Eisenstadt v. Baird, and there's no rational relation to any policy initiative that wouldn't implicate protected privacy.

And what Dean says is right, as our good friend Tom Tancredo shows up again:

At a rally, Dean garnered the loudest applause when he said Republicans would make immigration a pivotal issue during upcoming elections, as they did gay marriage and affirmative action in previous elections.

"Do you know who the scapegoats are going to be? Immigrants," he said. "In Colorado, the chairman of the Republican Party endorsed Tom Tancredo for re-election. That is morally reprehensible. The governor of California, a supposed moderate Republican, invited the Minutemen to visit California. We do not need vigilante justice."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, has drawn the ire of Hispanic groups in calling for tougher immigration enforcement and a proposal to tax some of the money immigrants send home.

I still contend that Tancredo's immigration policies would draw the ire of business.

Markos Moulitsas from Daily Kos got quoted in Newsweek, in their mandatory article about blogs:

Moulitsas is opposed to the Iraq war but says that isn’t what drew him to Hackett. “It’s not about ideology, pro-war, antiwar, it makes no difference,” he insisted. “In the online world, we need Democrats to stand up, not be afraid of Republicans, not be afraid of the right-wing noise machine ... We don’t care about ideology. We care that you stand up for the party and don’t run scared.” He pointed out that bloggers backed Democrat Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota, who, he says, ran a Republican Lite campaign. “We’re pragmatic,” he says. If candidates aren’t 100 percent on the environment or they’re kind of iffy on choice, progressives should overlook these differences for what Moulitsas terms “the greater good,” which is restoring the Democrats to a governing majority.

Sing it, brother Kos. This is what the national Democratic party should be more about -- strict ideology is not the answer, even if a party plan can unify things (such a party plan I've suggested in the past should be flexible to account for more views instead of taking a hard line as in the past). Fundamentally, it's about representing people, and that's what Hackett, Herseth, and other people like Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana or Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina, do. Right now, much of the success is based on the screw-ups of the other side, but to win in 2006, you have to do better than that. Get back to coalition building, get back to showing what the party is about, and get active. And define yourself before the other guy does because you don't want to be forced into climbing out of a box you never should have been inside in the first place.

So apparently John Roberts had a role in overturning Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2. I'm not saying I'm supporting the guy because he certainly hasn't been thoroughly vetted, and like I've said, I'd probably disagree overall with any of Bush's nominees. In any case, this story fits in line with the theory that Roberts is a lawyer's lawyer. That's not always a bad thing.