Welcome Heywood! and thanks for that feel-good post!
If we could all be just observers and not participants in the upcoming mess, the next twelve to eighteen months might be pure entertainment. There are a lot of subplots not yet being explored.
More of the way the military treats sexual assault:
Raped while on deployment
Quote:Female U.S. Soldier Alleges Rape in Kuwait
TACOMA, Wash. (AP) - A female soldier reported she was raped at a desert post in Kuwait where her unit was preparing for its mission in Iraq, a military official said Sunday.
Maj. Vic Harris, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Kuwait, confirmed that the female soldier was with the Stryker battalion at Camp Udairi, where the rape allegedly occurred Saturday.
``We can't give any specifics because the incident is under investigation,'' he said.
Detectives with the Army's Criminal Investigation Division cordoned off the area around a cargo container next to the shower trailer where the alleged assault occurred, the Tacoma News Tribune reported in Sunday's editions. The Stryker brigade, also known as the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, was trained at Fort Lewis, Wash.
``The soldier is being provided with medical care and emotional support,'' brigade spokesman Lt. Col. Joseph Piek said in a statement released Saturday in Kuwait.
Agents from Camp Arifjan, another Army post near Kuwait City, are handling the investigation. It wasn't immediately clear Sunday if the investigators had detained anyone in the case or had any suspects.
``This brigade's overall focus is getting ready for Iraq,'' Piek told The News Tribune. ``That does not diminish the seriousness of the alleged crime ... But it's not the kind of thing we need to be dealing with just a short time before we go north.''
Female soldiers said they were exercising caution in the camp after dark. There are about 310 women in the brigade of about 5,000 soldiers.
``It's sad. You can't trust your own people,'' said Staff Sgt. Theresa Spicer, a supply sergeant with the brigade headquarters.
Camp Udairi, 10 miles south of the Iraq border, also includes about 2,000 troops who are not part of the brigade and several hundred civilian contract employees.
11/30/03 14:06
What can one expect from an environment where women are referred to as "split tails?"
hobitbob wrote:
No, I advocate punishment of those who participated in an offensive act.
They weren't participants, unless you classify the whole convention as :an offensive act". Just what is "an offensive act"? Does it require a crime? Or is it sufficient to offend you? Do you advocate punishment in the absence of a crime? Do you believe Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich was "an offensive act"?
hobitbob wrote:Oh, please!
What an intellectually shallow response!
Well I'll concede your expertise in this aspect of intellectual activity, but I lived in Cherry Creek for a few years and know the Post well.
Ahhh ... Cheerless Creek, Swamp Lagoon ... them was the days. The froglegs at The Whistlin' Pig Drive-In were delightful. So were the carhops' legs.
Howard Dean is being interviewed on the Diane Rehm show this morning. I haven't heard him for a while and am very impressed by his ability to answer questions quickly and thoroughly. Above all, he doesn't couch his answers in Washington fuzz (as when a politician refers to the "Amurrican people" who always seem to agree with whatever he has to say). He's very straightforward, very well-informed, very able to articulate his points of view, masterly at distinguishing himself from the other candidates without rancor, all without resorting to jargon or newspeak. You can get the audio later, if you're interested, at wamu.org.
georgeob quote:
Clinton violated Federal law and written Executive Department policy by engaging in a sexual act with a subordinate in the workplace, and, at least in the eyes of one Federal Judge, committed perjury in a deposition involving another case. In addition there was the matter of reckless behavior and a serious lapse of judgement on the part of a senior official,
Unquote
You, of course, have proof of the Federal law, the Executive department policy and the fact that the Federal Judge actually called the misleading testimony "perjury."
I don't know about anyone else, but I find tremendous weakness -- intellectual and moral -- in these arguments which rely on slamming Clinton. If you can't find a way to justify your side's behaviors without doing this, you're in poor shape. I don't know if any others, sitting staring at their monitors, do this when coming across stuff like the Mark Rich comment above -- but I snort and giggle. It's all so... neener neener....!
Tartarin wrote:Howard Dean is being interviewed on the Diane Rehm show this morning. I haven't heard him for a while and am very impressed by his ability to answer questions quickly and thoroughly. Above all, he doesn't couch his answers in Washington fuzz (as when a politician refers to the "Amurrican people" who always seem to agree with whatever he has to say). He's very straightforward, very well-informed, very able to articulate his points of view, masterly at distinguishing himself from the other candidates without rancor, all without resorting to jargon or newspeak. You can get the audio later, if you're interested, at wamu.org.
I'll see if I can check it out later.
Frankly, I'm beginning to think that Dean would make for a good race against Bush. That's not to suggest that I think Dean would have a chance, but if your critique of his style is accurate, his voice might make for a more meaningful debate of the issues during the campaigns.
It's all going to boil down on not whether Dean has a chance but if Bush has a chance of reelection. They have one year as a window to boast about a recovering economy, a positive direction with the war and occupation of Iraq, and a more concrete structuring of Social Security and Medicare. Right now, he's not doing great on those subjects and that's not discounting environmental and other measures that will not bode well with the majority of voters. If Nader or some other insurgent candidate likes Dean and decides not to run will obviously have some influence on the outcome.
There's certainly no Perot on the horizon!
Thanks for trying to get back to the subject -- all this Tailgate and Clinton "controversy" is flaying at windmills.
You put it in the correct context, LW. Dean is the challenger -- Bush has to defend himself. And he's got an uphill battle. The election will be yet another measure of the effectiveness of too much money and PR. It didn't work for him in 2000 -- maybe it won't work in 2004.
As Dys has posted in another thread, the Colorado Supreme Court has turned down the Republicans on redistricting. Here's a quick summary from the Washington Post -- relevant here for its effect on the attempt by Republicans to create a stronger base by strong-arming:
Quote:Colorado Supreme Court Throws Out Redistricting Plan
GOP-Led Legislature Redrew Congressional Map This Year
The Associated Press
Monday, December 1, 2003; 9:55 AM
DENVER -- In a decision that could have national implications, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out the state's new congressional districts Monday because the GOP-led Legislature redrew the maps in violation of the constitution.
The General Assembly is required to redraw the maps only after each census and before the ensuing general election -- not at any other time, the court said in a closely watched decision. A similar court battle is being waged in Texas.
Under the ruling, Colorado's seven congressional districts revert to boundaries drawn up by a Denver judge last year after lawmakers failed to agree.
The issue before the court was whether the redistricting map pushed through the Legislature by Republicans this year was illegal. Colorado's constitution calls for redistricting only once a decade and Democrats contended the task was completed by the judge.
Republicans said the map drawn by the judge was temporary and the law requires redistricting work to be done by the Legislature.
Republicans now hold five of the state's seven congressional seats. Democrats hope to pick up two of those seats if they win the court fight.
State GOP Chairman Ted Halaby had said the case could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court if there are conflicting decisions in Colorado and Texas, which also has a pending court challenge.
"This is the whole ball of wax," said Tom Downey, an attorney for Colorado Democrats who challenged the Republican-drawn maps
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25091-2003Dec1.html
Lightwizard wrote:It's all going to boil down on not whether Dean has a chance but if Bush has a chance of reelection.
I do NOT mean this as an insult, but I can't help thinking that to make this argument is to indicate that you are utterly out of touch with the reality of the political climate going into next year's election.
Of course, my making the above statement might suggest to you how out of touch
I am with that reality. :wink:
The Wasington Post, cited by Tart, wrote:The issue before the court was whether the redistricting map pushed through the Legislature by Republicans this year was illegal. Colorado's constitution calls for redistricting only once a decade and Democrats contended the task was completed by the judge.
Republicans said the map drawn by the judge was temporary and the law requires redistricting work to be done by the Legislature.
There's the fly in the Democrat ointment. The Supremes are tired of Democrat attempts to accomplish through judicial fiat that which clearly is required of the legislative process. In any dispute over gameplay revolving around rules, its the rulebook which rules.
Information question: Is the practice of fishy redistricting a predominantly Republican practice? I'm asking because as I currently understand it, it's a common if corrupt practice followed by all incumbents -- Democratic or Republican.
Timber said
Quote:"In any dispute over gameplay revolving around rules, its the rulebook which rules"
and it appears the Supremes said the rules were broken by the repubs
neener neerer
There's always flys in the ointment.
I don't know the details in Colorado. Did the Republicans want the legislature to decide before or after they had the votes to draw the map in their favor? Let me guess...............
Thomas -- I think redistricting has been a political football for years but not the political grenade the Republicans have turned it into. How many times have there been off-year redistrictings in past years? Anyone know the history of this? With any luck the mess the Reps have made in Colorado and Texas (there's a court action pending in Texas too, of course) may stimulate reform. One can only hope!
dyslexia wrote:Timber said
Quote:"In any dispute over gameplay revolving around rules, its the rulebook which rules"
and it appears the Supremes said the rules were broken by the repubs
In point of fact, they argued that the state didn't play by rules foisted upon them by federal judges. (Right?) So you have some judges arguing that the Republicans didn't adequately follow the instructions of other judges in creating the map. All of this could be avoided if judges stopped trying to create solutions. That is not their role. If the law or current method doesn't pass muster, they are welcome to strike it down, but they should not be in the business of coming up with a replacement or solution; that is the job of the legislature.
