Comment history

Democratic whim

The concept of seizing property in return for compensation and simply banning the development of property are not connected.

August 9, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Like Lincoln?

ROFL. What revisionism.

These "Democrats" were a rump group known as "Copperheads" who not only opposed the war but in some cases talked of violence, conspired to commit violence, and plotted to free captured Confederate soldiers. At times, more hot-headed types acted in violence against Union supporters. Their representatives at times met with Confederate officials as well as accepting money from them. All this during a period of rebellion against governmental authority. In sum, perhaps less extreme in violence than the Weathermen, for example, but more widespread and openly treasonous.

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus - for as long as it took Congress to convene (no small matter in rural mid-19th century life) and take emergency action under the Constitutional provisions allowing such suspension during periods of invasion or insurrection. (There was no permanent, unconstitutional suspension as in our present dilemma.)

Clement Vallandigham [spelling LJW!] was arrested, tried and convicted of violating a military order against agitating in the traitors' favor in the military district bordering the Confederacy. His conviction was, in essence, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Lincoln actually commuted his sentence on condition he be expelled to the Confederacy.

More could be said, but the contention that these various treasonous actions were merely "speaking out against war" is silly. Perhaps this letter's author doesn't grasp the fact but there's quite a difference between debating war as policy in the abstract and debating it in the physical midst of actual battle. The United States at present is not faced with an existential threat as it was during Lincoln's tenure. As such, comparing Lincoln's 'smudging' of constitutional niceties is quite different from the present Administrations extreme - and permanent - extermination of civil liberties.

August 8, 2007 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pseudo news

I was sweating bullets until the good news came through - only 'nobodies' were injured. Whew!

August 7, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Roberts preparing for tough race

'"I'm pretty proud of my chairmanship" [of the Senate Intelligence Committee.'

Yes, so proud that he's given it up and moved back to the Agriculture Committee. Pat Roberts played every trick in the book to cover up intelligence failures over nearly the last decade, making certain that critical - damning - revelations did not come out until the '06 elections were complete. (After all, we wouldn't want the voters to 'grade' their government on its actual performance, would we?)

'He also said he supported the war in Iraq because he believed Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction, something he attributes to a "worldwide, egregious intelligence failure."'

Actually, those intelligence revelations showed that intelligence reports distributed to many in the government - INCLUDING Mr. Roberts - poked holes in the claims of WMD. Roberts states that he read those reports. Obviously, he disregarded them. What we have here then in not an intelligence failure but a JUDGMENT failure - the failure of Roberts' judgment.

Kansans should hold him accountable (however quaint a concept that seems these days). As another Kansan (Bob Dole) once quipped, "Where's the outrage?"

August 7, 2007 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Democrats focused on defeat

I agree, JohnBrown.

There are ways that in theory would allow the U.S. "to win" the war - but they all require the removal of the coup-plotters and W, which is something that will not happen. (After all, if literally every decision made to date has proved wrong then why maintain 'The Decider' to continue being wrong?) Every day that the next crop of GOP midgets refuse to put the current Administration in their targethairs the more certain their defeat in '08.

The only practical question is whether their Democrat alternatives are sufficiently farseeing to avoid the outspoken insistence of the Left to walk away from Iraq and allow the consequences, however severe, to occur (under some theory that it can just be blamed on W and so won't matter going forward).

Too much of decisionmaking - even within the military - is focused on domestic considerations and not what is the reality of U.S. security needs in the future. The U.S. will be "out" of Korea before its out of Iraq. The issue is what the nature of that involvement will or won't be. And one thing it cannot be is smack-dab in the middle of others' civil war, playing favorites, and allowing the consequences of the failure of the natives to make hard decisions fall upon ourselves rather than themselves. All the more reason to allow U.S. service personnel to begin their own "vacation" later this year.

August 5, 2007 at 2:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Future costs

"But the other "future" phases of development ... are located in and around a FEMA-designated floodplain surrounded by an aging levee system."

So, if the levee system protects X on the land its cheap but if it protects Y then its expensive? The price of maintaining levees changes based on what it protects?

Would this letter's author write another letter clarifying whether they advocate the cessation of maintenance of the levee? I suppose that's possible since the Left worships nature and the destruction of the levees would be 'more natural.' That's the only course of events that turns this letter into a rational whole.

Otherwise, Mr. Meyers' point stands: put your own money where your mouth is, or close your mouth.

August 5, 2007 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Vote on Wal-Mart

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

August 5, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. ( )

Democrats focused on defeat

"It's really sad to see ..............propaganda like this pass as opinionated news worthy of publishing."

I think the same thing every time I read Maureen Down in the New York Times. (Is it sexist to call her 'ditzy' or 'vapid.') Why does Editor David Shipley allow 'MoDo' to 'Fox-ificate' the NYT?

August 4, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The higher power of Addiction

"I will comment that if the above stated standard is applied to all current university activity, then most humanites, social "sciences", and arts would have no place in the university."

Hardly. What a diss to the "arts" half of the "arts and sciences." That's sort of like visiting The Tate collection modern art in London and terming it 'a random collection of crap' under a theory that (a) 'crap' exists and (b) some portion of the collection might indeed be 'crap.' While there's a lot of blather in academia that doesn't mean that the definition of academia is blather.

To the extent this article is accurate (sometimes a dubious assumption), and despite the agreeability of the theme of the book, it does indeed sound quite a lot like 'opinionating' rather than an academic exercise.

Which is almost certainly why the publisher isn't academic but rather Humanity Works! - along with Alamo Square Press' other imprints: Herbooks, Pagan, Loveyoudivine, Onlywomen Press, Lavender/Fire Island Press, etc. Somehow, I doubt this book is quite as academic as those of the University Press of Kansas ("Patrolling Baghdad: A Military Police Company and the War in Iraq," "Hunger for the Wild: America's Obsession with the Untamed West," or "Liberals' Moment: The McGovern Insurgency and the Identity Crisis of the Democratic Party").

So, no, I don't see any problems applying my description of THE standard of what's academic to this book. Minor is free to write whatever he wants but I see no basis, per this article, to think that the book is "academic" in nature. As such, I hope he wrote it in his own time (or that this article mischaracterizes the book).

(Would you give Rush Limbaugh an office on campus under your standardless standard?)

August 4, 2007 at 3:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rep. Boyda hails passage of ethics bill

situveux - at least she got around to being against it. I guess there's no pleasing some people.

August 4, 2007 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )