Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 11,414
Number of posts: 11,414
Every morning, with a feeling of dread, I log on - braced for some news of/ latest development from the Obama administration, or some federal agency reporting to Obama, that further destroys our Constitutional rights and/or pushes the limits of disappointment for progressive Democrats. This post about Obama's selection of Sunstein certainly qualifies as the "fresh hell" of the day.
For younger readers, Dorothy Parker was member of the Algonquin Round Table.
]The Algonquin Round Table was a group of journalists, editors, actors and press agents that met on a regular basis at the Algonquin Hotel in New York. The group began lunching together in June 1919 and continued on a regular basis for about eight years. There has never been another group quite like them in American popular culture or entertainment.
The group contributed to hit plays, bestselling books and popular newspaper columns. Their impact is still felt today. This site is a testament to that. Many know of the core group -- Dorothy Parker, Alexander Woollcott, Robert Benchley, and Edna Ferber -- however, there were about 24 members of the Round Table.
November 8th, 1998
The Algonquin Round Table
About the Algonquin
Posted by Divernan | Fri Aug 23, 2013, 10:37 AM (0 replies)
This column is a very erudite and, I think, powerful discussion of the intersection between today's activist Supreme court, Americans' civil liberties, the Bill of Rights and the fact that things can get a lot worse
"Because the Constitution, far from the plain and simple, absolute and immutable road map to democracy that the Pharisaic right wing seems to perceive, is a remarkably brief and, perforce, very general document whose meaning is what the Supreme Court says it is."
I include here just a few excerpts - hope you will read the entire column.
Re: The Fourth Amendment:
Now it is the government that has privacy – quite a great deal of it – and the citizens who have none at all. This not because the Constitution has changed or the courts have failed to read it. It is because judges have chosen to interpret its elegant but easy language in ways that turn it on its head. Just a few examples:
It continues with many examples - here is just one of them:
* The history of war powers is complex and fraught with differing interpretations from the beginning. Still, it is difficult to picture any of the Founders contemplating a president who would maintain a “kill list” in the absence of a declared war. This is part of what John Marshall, later to become chief justice, said in support of ratifying the Constitution: “Shall it be a maxim that a man shall be deprived of his life without the benefit of law? Shall such a deprivation of life be justified by answering that a man’s life was not taken secundem artem, because he was a bad man?”
And he wraps it up:
"The next presidential election is crucial because the next president will determine the kind of Supreme Court we have. Candidates who are on record as supporting the Patriot Act, the prison at Guantanamo Bay and the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of domestic electronic communications should be summarily dismissed from consideration. Unfortunately, the only likely candidate who has stepped forward so far and supported the common-sense constitutional view of these things is Rand Paul. Paul is a Libertarian, and that is a dangerous form of political lunacy. Paul’s view of the matter does, though, serve to illustrate a very important point: if ever there was a nonpartisan, purely American issue on which left and right could agree, this is surely it."
Posted by Divernan | Fri Aug 16, 2013, 07:41 PM (2 replies)
In addition to actual knowledge, the law also recognizes the concept of constructive knowlege.
That which exists, not in fact, but as a result of the operation of law. That which takes on a character as a consequence of the way it is treated by a rule or policy of law, as opposed to its actual character.
Then the question becomes whether Obama took reasonable care to exercise oversight and control, as required of a president.
Which then raises the question of how much "plausible deniability" has Obama put in play re NSA, CIA, etc.
Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.
In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay "clean" and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libellous innuendo.
Plausible deniability is also a legal concept. It refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true.
Posted by Divernan | Fri Aug 16, 2013, 02:26 PM (0 replies)
I was pleased to note in the OP article that President Carter's grandson is a state senator. Serving in a state legislature, as a statewide elected official (like state treasurer or attorney general) or in the cabinet of a state governor is an excellent and proven way to learn how the political system is designed, functions and impacts citizens in a myriad of ways in all aspects of their lives. And I'd add serving as chief of staff for a governor/congressperson would also provide the extensive knowledge/experience to jump into the political arena at the level of one's previous boss.
It offends me when individuals, particularly "legacy" kids of high level politicians - governors/presidents/vice-presidents/US congressmen start out their political careers running for their very first office at the federal congressional or state gubernatorial level. I don't care how many degrees one has accumulated, or how wealthy one is, or how politically connected one's parents are, or how big a corporation one has run.
Then throw in how some carpetbagging individuals move to a different state just in time to claim residency in order to run for high level office. The primary purpose of serving at a Congressional or gubernatorial level is to represent the interests of your HOME STATE constituents and the overall welfare of your home state. That means you should have extensive personal knowledge of and experience dealing with issues of prime concern to your state and its constituents. You should have a real, personal HISTORY in that state!
President Carter has never suffered from hubris, ego or greed. The fact that his grandson is starting a political career at the state legislative level is further evidence of the values Jimmy Carter has passed on to his family. His grandson sounds to be a very decent man, whose activities and pursuits reflect old-fashioned Democratic values. I hope he will eventually run for higher level office, whether in his home state or the U.S. Congress.
Posted by Divernan | Fri Aug 16, 2013, 09:21 AM (0 replies)
Just heard from MoveOn.org that YELP has joined ALEC. With just over a thousand reviews, the average rating of ALEC is the lowest possible, i.e., one star.
So, Yelp joined ALEC (yes, *that* ALEC) and this is what happened.
Feel free to add your review, as well.
American Legislative Exchange Council
Here's a few of the latest reviews/posts:
If ALEC was a restaurant, ALEC would serve GOP pig slop pressed together in little cookie cutter shaped patties on a poisoned, corporate-money-seeded bun.
They would serve this to the average patron, while CEOs would dine in a special section on nothing but the best cuts of corporate friendly legislation, washed down with a nice big glass of Tears Of The Masses.
Also, their service would suck.
Posted by Divernan | Thu Aug 15, 2013, 12:13 PM (1 replies)
Number of photos in the January/February issue of Coastal Living that showed coastal wildlife (seabirds, crustaceans, turtles, or other fauna): 1
Number of photos in the same issue showing golf courses: 61
Amount of water it would take, per day, to support 4.7 billion people at the UN daily minimum:
2.5 billion gallons
Amount of water used, per day, to irrigate the world’s golf courses: 2.5 billion gallons
Number of golf courses in Japan before World War II: 23
Number in operation or soon to open in 2004: 3,030
Average amount of pesticides used per acre, per year, on golf courses: 18.0 pounds
Average amount of pesticides used, per acre, per year, in agriculture: 2.7 pounds
Amount of water used by 60,000 villagers in Thailand, on average, per day: 6,500 cubic meters
Amount of water used by one golf course in Thailand, on average, per day: 6,500 cubic meters
Current area of the wetlands of the Colorado River Delta, which now receives just 0.1 percent of the river water that once flowed through it: 150,000 acres
Area that could be covered to a depth of 2 feet with water drawn from the Colorado River by the city of Las Vegas, which uses much of that allotment to water its more than 60 golf courses:150,000 acres
Sources: Photos: Coastal Living, January/February 2004; Water usage: Chris Reuther, Know Your Environment, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1999; National Golf Foundation; State of the World 2004; Japan: “Japan Golfcourses and Deforestation,” TED Case #282, 2003; Pesticides: “EcoMall: A Greener Golf Course, 2004;” Thailand: U.K. Sports Turf Research Institute; Colorado River: Environmental Defense; Las Vegas: Associated Press.
Published in World Watch Magazine, March/April 2004, Volume 17, No. 2
Posted by Divernan | Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:26 AM (0 replies)
During the past decade, there has been an explosion in new golf courses. The
The "modern" game of golf originated in Scotland in the 1400's, Early Scottish golf courses were primarily laid out on links land, soil-covered sand dunes directly inland from beaches. This gave rise to the term "golf links", particularly applied to seaside courses and those built on naturally sandy soil inland.
Those original Scottish golfers would surely scoff at the pampered US golfers with their courses manicured, watered and chemically treated to look like some unnaturally green, Thomas Kinkade fairy tale.
On edit: And the Scots would also ridicule the ubiquitous use of golf carts. Today's golfers get minimum exercise - it's gotta be the least strenuous "sport" in the world.
Posted by Divernan | Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:13 AM (1 replies)
Posted by Divernan | Thu Aug 8, 2013, 08:36 AM (1 replies)
Hoping to overcome the stereotype of the obnoxious, ignorant American abroad? An unidentified U.S. tourist who snapped a finger off a 600-year-old statue in an Italian museum hasn’t helped the cause.
My comment? In the name of all that's holy, keep Anthony Weiner and his smart phone away from Michelangelo's David, Praxiteles' Hermes and the infant Dionysus, Donatello's Bronze David or Rodin's The Vanquished.
Posted by Divernan | Wed Aug 7, 2013, 03:10 PM (5 replies)
(I posted this as a reply on another thread and was asked to make it an OP)
She's 72 years old - my old classmate/childhood friend/neighbor. A lifelong philanthropist who funded and worked daily at her own community emergency services office, and was often at the scene of disasters volunteering with the Red Cross. Whenever any pastor or priest in her small town came across someone in desperate need, they sent that person to her office. She wasn't one of those society do-gooders who wear designer gowns and get their pictures in the society pages writing checks at posh fundraisers. She's always been a down-to-earth, heart on her sleeve, boots on the ground toiler in the vineyard of human suffering.
I worry every day about her safety, and the safety of those demonstrating.
Here's her letter : a written comment submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Administration as part of the public input process on the promulgation of emergency administrative rules:
To the Department of Administration, State of Wisconsin.
Posted by Divernan | Wed Aug 7, 2013, 11:52 AM (8 replies)