Casual Observation

25 Comments

1. 

   corvus on June 27, 2009 at 9:31 pm

   Meet the old boss, same as the new boss.

   If I’d wanted to continue planning to emigrate, I’d have voted for what’s his name, too.

   Oh well, gotta run for language lessons. Have a nice evening.

   • 

     Hurria on June 27, 2009 at 11:07 pm

     Yep.

     Lucky me, I already speak more than one language – lots of choices of where to go when I leave.

     • 

       corvus on June 28, 2009 at 1:36 am

       I speak five — well, three, since two of them are dead languages (Latin and ancient Egyptian). I’m working on number six, which is Danish, the only language I don’t know out of the main languages of the three countries I would seriously considering emigrating to: Germany, Japan, and Denmark (in no particular order).

       One of these days, I’d like to develop a basic working knowledge of Arabic, not because I have any particular need to actually speak it but because the summaries I’ve read of its morphology and grammar sound really interesting.

       • 

         Hurria on June 28, 2009 at 4:44 am

         My German used to be strong, but it has deteriorated badly from disuse. My French is also not what it used to be.

         Spoken Arabic is not that hard, though there are some consonants that do not fall trippingly off the tongue of non-Arabic speakers. Formal Arabic, that is the language that is used in writing, and in speeches, radio and TV broadcasts, etc., is more challenging on many levels. And yes, Arabic morphology is very different – and far more logical in my opinion – from any European language, and the grammar is very complex and challenging even to native speakers, though the basics are not that hard if that is all you are looking for.

         My first choice of a Western country would be New Zealand, I think. They don’t do wars, which is a big attraction, and if I can believe people who live there, their whole approach to politics is different. Plus they sound like a very liberal, pluralistic, and accepting society, and the environment is clean and beautiful.

         I have heard that Ireland is well worth looking into for both political and social reasons, and I am sure it is a very beautiful place. Although Australia’s politics are very questionable, I might look into that too as a possible Western-world destination. However, I am in love with Syria, and every time I go there I am more in love and feel more at home, so at the moment that is my destination of choice. It is so easy to make friends there, including friends from all over the world, and socializing is so spontaneous and so simple. And it is a secular state with a quite pluralistic society.

2. 

   Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 12:32 am

   It’s okay when he stabs “the gays” in the back but when he dares reveal himself to you as not being about “change” so much as he is for self-aggrandizement, only then is it worthy of comment. I get it

   • 

     BooMan on June 28, 2009 at 12:38 am

     That is not a fair criticism of Steve and I don’t think it is a fair criticism of Obama, either.  

     Steve has never said anything that should lead you to believe that he isn’t committed to gay rights or that he is giving Obama any passes on keeping his campaign promises.

     And Obama must be judged on what he does in his first-term, not his first six months.  Yes, pressure must be maintained to get him to keep his promises, but he reserves the rights to game out the timing.  

     Obama can and should be criticized until he keeps his promises, but Steve should not be attacked gratuitously for whatever slow-footedness is displayed by Obama.  

     • 

       Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 12:51 am

       I don’t know what’s so gratuitous about being compared by Glorious Leader to pedophiles and practitioners of incest. I just always noted how this blog kept so quiet about that. Obama’s another fraud.

       • 

         BooMan on June 28, 2009 at 1:05 am

         I assumed you would make that argument.  I don’t think the government can make half-hearted legal arguments in defense of Congressional laws.  They must defend them or ask for their repeal.

         He isn’t ready to ask for their repeal yet, so it isn’t surprising that the DOJ made the most robust defense available to them.

         If he completes his first term without changing direction, then I will support your position 100%.  I will not, however, jump to condemn his administration merely for being slow-footed and putting other priorities first.

         • 

           corvus on June 28, 2009 at 1:44 am

           He isn’t ready to ask for their repeal yet, so it isn’t surprising that the DOJ made the most robust defense available to them.

           If I’m not mistaken, it’s considered unethical for an attorney, particularly a prosecutor, to make blatantly dishonest statements to the court. The DoJ may be obliged to defend an unjust law, but it is not obliged to make false comparisons to do so. Comparing consensual homosexual relations between adults to child rape is blatantly dishonest.

           I don’t know if Obama knew that was the argument they were going to make and signed off on it or not, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to conclude that the preponderance of the evidence so far suggests that equality and civil liberties, in this area and a number of others, are not especially high priorities for the Obama administration. Granted, that’s an improvement over the active hostility offered by Bush, but it’s a heck of a lot less than I think most of us expected.

           I will be delighted to be proven as wrong about this as I was about Mark Sanford, but I’m not holding my breath.

         • 

           BooMan on June 28, 2009 at 1:54 am

           It’s unethical to throw a case by refusing to use every available tool at your disposal.

         • 

           Hurria on June 28, 2009 at 4:19 am

           Including dishonest arguments? Not really.

         • 

           MNPundit on June 28, 2009 at 11:33 am

           It’s MORE unethical to blatantly lie in your argument.

           Well, like I’ve said, I’ll check back with you in 3 years and expect to see a different tune.

         • 

           Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 2:45 pm

           If Obama was so worried about defending The Law, he’d be prosecuting Der Torturers. But Obama isn’t interested in The Law at all. It’s all about him hotdogging for the tv. Coverboy-in-chief

         • 

           Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 2:33 pm

           I was moved by Obama’s campaign stating that he was “different” and about “change.” He’s no more honest nor better than GWB. He’s even become complicit in and EXPANDIND GWB’s crimes. Keep your faith.

         • 

           Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 2:37 pm

           I’m disgusted by this constant hyperawareness to political calculus when it comes to people’s lives. It might be merely an abstract distraction to ppl like you, but humanity isn’t a sideshow to me.

         • 

           BooMan on June 28, 2009 at 2:53 pm

           I agree that the Obama administration appears to have 1993-94itis.

           They are gun-shy about repeating mistakes that cost Clinton dearly and ruined his larger agenda.  I’d argue that NAFTA and Waco and the failure of health care reform and the assault-weapons ban we’re more damaging than the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell fiasco.  I’d also argue that the country has changed on gay rights and that it isn’t the hot-button issue it used to be.  

           But, until he is ready to change DODT and the DOMA, he will have to defend them in court, and use all elements of defense to do so.  I hope the sheer ugliness and insult he caused by delaying will make him eager to speed things up.  

           I am pretty sure, though, that he will not touch his promises to the gay community until he has passed energy and health care reform.  It appears that is the calculus they have made.  They see it as a way of avoiding what happened to Clinton.  I think they are just beginning to realize the price they will have to pay for that calculus.  But I also think they are confident that they will have the opportunity to rectify things before the 2010 elections (2012 at the latest).

           Yeah, it’s political and it is hurting people.  But lack of health care is hurting people, too.  They’ve made their decision and they must take the criticism that comes with that decision.

         • 

           Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 3:02 pm

           Boo, why do you refuse to directly acknowledge what the brief said? You call it “delaying” and “ugliness.” Euphemisms. Obama is great with oratory but he’s awful with actions. I’m sick of hearing him.

         • 

           BooMan on June 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm

           I’m not ignoring what the brief said.  I am telling you that the lawyers at the DOJ, who BTW did not run their legal reasoning thru Obama, were obligated to use all available statutory precedent that could support their position.  

           This is from Bill Clinton’s solicitor general Waxman.

           Vigorously defending congressional legislation serves the institutional interests and constitutional judgments of all three branches. It ensures that proper respect is given to Congress’s policy choices. It preserves for the courts their historic function of judicial review. And it reflects an important premise in our constitutional system – that when Congress passes a law and the President signs it, their actions reflect a shared judgment about the constitutionality of the statute. In the mine run of cases, it is fair to presume that the Congress that passed the legislation and the President who signed it were of the view that the law conformed to the Constitution as construed by the Supreme Court. In such cases, Solicitors General defer to Congress and the President’s articulation of the constitutional “interests of the United States,” as reflected in the enactment. They do not attempt to reach our own best view of a statute’s constitutionality; rather, they try to craft a defense of the law in a manner that can best explain the basis on which the political branches’ presumed constitutional judgment must have been predicated.

           … Let me provide an example some people chuckle to recall. In 1996, Congress passed a law known as the Communications Decency Act. The law was enacted without hearings or committee consideration. It imposed criminal penalties on anyone who made available to minors on the Internet material that was “indecent” or “patently offensive.” The Act was challenged before two three-judge district courts. All six judges found the law facially unconstitutional in every respect. The Justice Department’s Civil Division recommended appeal to the Supreme Court, and my predecessor as Solicitor General agreed. Having argued the case, I can confirm that there is nothing quite like standing in front of the Supreme Court to defend the constitutionality of a law that not a single judge has ever found to be constitutional in any respect. The United States did lose (although we garnered two votes for two-thirds of the statute). But our adversarial system of constitutional adjudication was served. The United States’ briefs served the valuable purpose of articulating for the Supreme Court the strongest possible rationale in support of constitutionality – a much stronger case than anything that had been articulated by or to Congress. Those arguments in turn prompted the parties challenging the statute to hone and improve their own positions. And when the Court concluded that the statute should be invalidated, it did so with assurance that it had considered the very best arguments that could be made in its defense.

         • 

           Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm

           He’s picking and choosing. Hark! He’s proven to be a true Christian at least. He defends the laws he likes DADT/DOMA and is ignoring the ones he doesn’t (torture treaties). He’s a bigot and hypocrite.

         • 

           BooMan on June 28, 2009 at 7:53 pm

           If you insist on not understanding, there is no help for it.  The decision to defend DOMA was not made because he likes the law he promised to attempt to repeal.  It was made because the Justice Department must defend the constitutionality of all laws that are on the books.  A failure to do so would enable Republicans to do the same for any laws they happen to dislike.  

           If there is a valid critique, it is that they cited cases that were of questionable validity.  But the truth is that they cited cases that demonstrated other instances where the government has exercised restrictions on legal marriage.  They merely made the strongest available defense of the constitutionality of DOMA, which is their duty.

           The only alternative would have been to immediately put repealing DOMA at the top of the agenda.  As I have stated, they are paying a price for not doing that.  It doesn’t mean he like DOMA, however.  

         • 

           Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 10:24 pm

           I’m not being obstinate; I understand Obama’s “pragmatism.” But that isn’t leadership.  Clintonism is now Obamaism. Politics first; screw the constituents and “hope.”

           I do get it. I won’t excuse it.

   • 

     Steven D on June 28, 2009 at 8:11 am

     Well I’d ask you to consider the numerous posts I have made in defense of Gay rights, gay marriage, etc. before leaping to any conclusions about me.

     You may prefer a better search than this one on Google but it’s a starting point.  If you are going to make general condemnations regarding my character I’d suggest you do your homework first.

3. 

   AliceDem on June 28, 2009 at 2:30 am

   If we’d wanted indefinite detentions to continue indefinitely we would have voted for Sarah Palin’s running mate, what’s his name.

   ZOMG
   didn’t know we were allowed to say this in the pond.

   • 

     Steven D on June 28, 2009 at 8:14 am

     Why would you think that?  BooMan has his opinions but I don’t believe he has ever censored opinions that differ from his.  Certainly he and I have disagreed a number of times about various issues on the front page.  I don’t run my stuff past him before I post and neither does Terrence.  I’m sure there are times he wished I had, but that isn’t his policy and never has been.

   • 

     Delonjo on June 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm

     It looks like Palin’s running mate was elected. Obama’s massive con job was an extreme success. He really makes Bill Clinton look like Gomer Pyle. It’s not only about gay right. He is Reoublican-lite.