I'm going to take issue with several things that David Coffee is talking about in his latest post.

Ok, I need to know, Where does president Bush get off claiming that he alone knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? He has never been in Combat, neither have any of his close advisers. But now he truly believes, with all the passion he's shown in press conferences, that his way and only his way, will make us safer. With a track record like Bush's? I'd rather trust American Law, International law, and Colon Powell.

If you actually listened to the press conference you would have realized that what the president is asking for is clarification of the law, which I completely agree with. We can debate about how we can interpret Article 3, but we HAVE to interpret it and put it into law. As it stands, it is possible down the line that American troops could possibly be subject to international interpretations of Article 3... which NO Americans are comfortable with, except for you liberals. Which is yet another reason to top on the heaping pile of reasons why (if you love polls anyway) despite the presidents approval rating and the troubles Republicans are having, Americans still trust the Republicans over the Democrats by a wide margin when it comes to protecting the country. Its absurd and unbelievable that someone would actually go along with having Americans be subject to European law. Have you actually read how the EU courts interpret Article 3? Its absolutely ridiculous and no American in his or her right mind would accept it. By the way, what kind of idiot actually believes that the president believes that only he knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? Do you actually believe that the president drafted this law by himself?

I won't even get into Article 6, which makes terrorists EXEMPT from protection through the Geneva Conventions. And I'm definitely not getting into the absurd idea that because members of cabinet haven't been in combat that they shouldn't have input into how these programs are run. Most if not all cabinet positions have historically been filled by civilians with no prior military experience. The entire suggestion is beyond idiotic because (according to liberals, anway) that basically makes all administrations before and after unqualified to lead the CIA and the armed forces, including good old Billy boy. What you are really saying, David, is that you hate GWB and the current cabinet. Skip past your discombobulated rhetoric and please just get to the heart of the matter. Should we be listening to people who are getting advice from intelligence and military professionals, or should we be listening to crunchy granola hippies who sit at their computers and bitch about the president all day in their blogs and editorials? The choice is obvious.

If our troops are tortured we will have no basis to demand their torturers be punished. We will be breaking the verry law that protects our soldiers.

This is possibly, with all due respect David, the dumbest thing I've read in a while that relates to the torture subject. IF our troops are tortured? IF?!?!?!?! David do you not realize that throughout history our soldiers have been tortured? And how the fuck are you going to expect that anyone that tortures American soldiers, PARTICULARLY TERRORISTS, are going to be punished? We can go beyond soldiers - ever heard of Nick Berg? These people cut heads off, tape it and post it on the internet. Are liberals really naive enough to believe that we should be demanding that the terrorists and those who harbor them to punish their terrorists for torturing Americans? The heart of the problem with liberal logic regarding this topic is that we should be treating terrorists like we would treat soldiers from a foreign country, which in Article 6 makes it very clear that they should NOT be. Regardless of the obvious and clear position on where terrorists stand in the Geneva Conventions, the idea that terrorist organizations have the same moral authority that we do is pure bullshit. This is another reason why, despite the problems the R's are having, the people will never give the keys to the military to the Democrats.

Offering our own interpretations of the laws of war. That sounds like a terrible thing for any country to do, offer their own interpretation of the laws of war. Especially during a time of war. Isn't that the whole point of laws in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of checks and balances? This is not a nation ruled by the passions of men, we are ruled by time tested Laws. That's the whole point of the constitution. And it's what makes a democracy last.

David, this is a case where I believe that you simply don't know enough about how international law is handled by individual countries. Its very, very common for countries to pass legislation in their own country to interpret international law within the framework of their own law. Clarification of the law is essential, which is why the EU has already done it with Article 3 and beyond. You can read about how Article 3 has been interpreted by other countries, and a reasonable discussion as to why countries do this here ->

That's torture, the United States does not stand for such things, these are evil and sinister acts. just because Bush happens to be president for 6 years doesn't mean he can soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that make America a proud nation.

Rhetoric.

Every single one of the clowns in and out of media who blamed Karl Rove outrightly for the CIA leak case were wrong, as usual.

The worst part of this all is that Fitzgerald KNEW who leaked the identity for a very long time, and that Valerie Plame's identity was actually in a State Department memo at the time (so much for her "supposed" covert status behind that desk at Langley). Hey, but whats to stop the facts from a GREAT fairy tale and the ensuing hatchet job that unscrupulous liberals everywhere laughably attempted on Rove, on Cheney, on the President himself. I could have told you that this was going to be the case, but hey... when you are a liberal and you like what you hear regardless of its validity (Rathergate is another prime example) its really interesting to me how all of the sudden the ENDLESS QUEST FOR "TRUTH" is cast away and the demolition equipment gets brought instead. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

My favorite Democrat, Bill Clinton, apparently has a legacy so wafer thin that when a movie that *doesn't* make Clinton look like Rambo with a 14" gold plated dick gets released, all of his shameful and self-serving cabinet members (thanks for North Korea, assholes!) have to come out of the woodwork and attempt what is known in Washington circles as "damage control" and ask for the series to be withdrawn. You know, these same people who are actively proposing outright censorship of a TV series never seemed to mind when that series about Reagan came out. This is what happens when you don't actually try to achieve anything during your presidency but instead choose to base whether your terms were successful or not depending on whether or not the press likes you. In any case, I doubt ABC will lift a finger to appease these extremely narcissistic former public servants. Hey assholes, the feature ISN'T ABOUT YOU. Its not called "The Path To Clinton And Friends Fucking The Terrorism Thing Up in The 1990's" although admittedly this wouldn't be completely false.

UPDATE: Well well... the Democrats in '03 slammed CBS and were critical because they pulled the Reagan docudrama. I just love a fresh, hot cup of hypocrisy in the morning, particulary from this group of pathological losers and ne'er-do-wells.

This is too funny.

In order to avoid any LC-esque drama and to avoid unwittingly offending anybody (if I mean to offend someone its usually pretty obvious) I'm sending out a belated and/or pre-emptive (touchy phrasing there!) HAPPY BIRTHDAY shoutout to the peeps I used to know, the peeps I still hang with, the peeps I see once in a while and the peeps I've yet to meet. You're all great.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY EVERYBODY! And that includes (e:jason) too, since we never actually say "happy birthday" to each other. Ever. A little twin trivia there.

File this under "I saw this one coming" - The crocadile hunter died today.



He got stung by a stingray.

Lets face it - I admired his kind of naive boyish quality about wild animals, but his antics were reckless and sooner or later he was going to be killed as a result of them. The only question I have left in my mind is, why hadn't this happened sooner?

Seriously, anyone that ever watched this guy around a snake had to know that he was going to die early. If anything, I'm surprised that it was a relatively benign animal that ended up killing him.

2/3 of the year down, another 1/3 to go! Cheers.



When I get time I'm going to construct a journal entry about the recent movie that highlights a ficticious Bush assassination with the supposed intention of striking a debate about US foreign policy. Its shit like this that makes it impossible for me or any other rational person to vote Democrat simply so that we don't vote for the same people that liberals idiots like this Canadian colossal jewel of ignorance and stupidity do.

If you hate the BPD, you should check out this one. Kind of funny.

Gabriel is playing 2nd now.

Growing up every kid has a set of influences that guide him one way or another along the way. One of mine is a man that most people have never heard of, but if you claim to know anything about jazz and you do NOT know who he is, then you've now been officially certified as a know-nothing when it comes to jazz.

If you ever played trumpet you know who Maynard Ferguson is. Yesterday he passed away at the age of 78. This guy was an absolute legend in the music industry. He was known as one of the first to be a so-called "screech" trumpeter - the kind of guy who could do the impossible on the instrument and play high notes on the horn so stratospheric that hearing it would make the little hairs on your neck stand straight up. Jay and I grew up being musicians, and our father was a trumpeter as well... the most important thing our father ever did for us was intruce us to a wide range of legendary music practically from every genre imaginable. Part of our extensive musical education was one of his own personal heros - Maynard. As kids we'd get together with some of our musically inclined horn playing friends and we'd listen to a few albums and be absolutely amazed. How was playing like this even physically possible? Listening to his music inspired us to excel and push ourselves to be the best musicians we could be - even if we couldn't squeak out a double C.

Later on in his life he did some amazing things and continued to record - even up to last month when he and his band finished what will now be his last album. He went to India and set up a music school, and traveled there every year to teach and expose yet another generation to his amazing humility and musical genius. As a man, he gave a lot of himself and constantly pulled in college-age talent from the absolute top music schools in the nation to tour with him around the world. Besides the music, he had a very positive demeanor and had an amazing way of telling a story. Anybody would do well to learn from a person like that, and I have to thank my father for introducing me to a musician who inspired and influenced me as much as he did.

3 generations of American jazz musicians idolized this man and are profoundly sad today. In my own way this is my elegy to him. Goodbye Maynard - rest well and God bless you.

Greetings from Columbus, MS. Its 85 and humid at 10:31pm CST. The emotional weather is content with a few sprinkles of paranoia (speeding on the highway again) with a 60% chance of a stormy mood tomorrow afternoon (5 hour drive after work).

Its rare that I'm amused by the junk mail in my inbox. Who doesn't hate the random bullshit that some unsavory types want to send?

Lets see...

Someone with the e-mail address swshafer@maxwell.syr.edu sent me a Washington Post article. I don't know who you are, but thanks! I still remain the only (e:strip)per who has been linked from the Post's site.

Someone named "Wet Wendy" sent me something about wanting to "HookUp 4Sexx" (sic)

Apparently JetBlue is my "ticket to the Buffalo Bills" this season. Not that I wasn't sitting in the club section last Friday or anything.

Someone wants to send me a $100 soda gift card. WTF - If my teeth are ever going to rot out of my mouth I'd prefer it to be later rather than sooner.

Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair, loves to send out mass mails about once a week.

The Wet Wendy thing made me laugh anyway.

Since you referenced my post I figure I should post and possibly give you some answers.

Why are some Republicans supporting Lieberman? In order to understand this its important to know a little bit about the political climate in CT, although any national money coming from Republicans is a separate issue, which I'll highlight on. The R candidate in CT is not a viable candidate, and the Republicans in CT do not want him to run. He has been asked to resign his candidacy but he refuses. The truth is, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats aren't much different, which is why in the northeast Lieberman is an alluring candidate as an Independant in comparison to Schlesinger. On the topic of the national party in relation to Lieberman, the national R's would support Lieberman minimally if at all, as outside of the Iraq war he has a liberal voting record, which frankly many lefties are refusing to acknowledge because of their blind rage over what the government is doing with the war and Lieberman's support of it. The only pleasure any Republicans are taking out of this is that Lamont is seen as a candidate propped by liberal 527 organizations and any kind of a defeat of a candidate like that is good news in their eyes. Plus, its important to note that if Lieberman was NOT an independant candidate this time around he wouldn't be getting any support from Republicans whatsoever. The fact that Lieberman is technically an "independant" frees Republicans from any so-called "voters guilt" over voting for or supporting Lieberman.

As for your comments about the 2-party system - in general I agree that the 2-party system isn't the best one out there. Stifling choices is a detriment to democracy. However, having multiple parties to choose from ends up completely making a mess of government. Take a look at Europe - Germany in particular, because this just happened recently there. When a party in most European nations do not get 51% of the vote in general elections, coalition governments have to be worked out... which is a worse situation than what we have currently because nothing EVER gets done in governments that are constantly politically gridlocked. Without a clear and established majority, you have chaos in government at worst and status quo at best. This is why, although our system isn't perfect, its still better than what you see elsewhere.

About the "60%" poll that liberals have been talking about quite a bit recently - its important to be precise about the language of the poll to determine what was really said. Here is a breakdown of the results - What the poll determined was that 60% of the polled participants "oppose the Iraq war" and a majority support at least a limited withdrawal of some troops from Iraq by the end of the year. What this *doesn't* mean is that all Americans want all our troops out of Iraq right this minute, although 26% of those polled suggested that. If you look at the numbers, it can be said simultaneously that a majority want at minimum some troop withdrawal, if not all troops withdrawn (61%), and also that a majority want troop levels to change only minimally, if not at all (69%). If isn't the textbook example of a mixed message, than what is? Regardless, Lamont is a far left wacko because he supports policies that are generally unpopular with the American people - complete troop pullout, nationalized health care, anti Wal-Mart, pro-abortion - he is a walking, talking laundry list of issues that are supported by far-left radicals.

I completely and utterly reject the idea that Joe Lieiberman is a candidate that doesn't speak for the voters of CT, for a variety of obvious reasons. To suggest that he is doing this because of ego, or acting like a spolied brat, etc. is demagogery, pure and simple.

1) You cannot say that Lamont is a candidate that has broad Democratic approval in CT, since he really only won HALF of the votes in the Democratic primary... and that was even after our friends in the liberal grassroots stuffed the Democratic voter base by 20,000 votes since May. Joe Lieberman won roughly half of the votes in the primary in a margin similar to the Presidentiall election in '04. According to liberals, GWB does not have a mandate to govern the way he chooses because 48% of Americans disagree with him. If you libs want to say this, than you cannot say that Lamont has a mandate either because 48% of Democratic voters in CT disagreed. Liberals are treating Connecticut Democratic voters in '06 like they treated Republican voters nationally in '04. How much more insane can we possibly get?

2) The plurality of voters in CT are actually registered Independants. In the lastest poll, 53% of likely voters said that Lieberman deserves to be re-elected and half doubt Lamont's ability to do the job - So what does this mean? It means that Lieberman, and presumably his politics, are being supported broadly by Democrats, Independants and Republicans - more importantly, his Democratic losses are being more than offset by his support amongst Independants and Republicans. This is proof that a majority of Connecticut voters still support Joe Lieberman despite his party affiliation. It defies logic to suggest that with support like that he shouldn't run.

Its beyond question. Joe Lieberman has broad support in Connecticut amongst its voters. He is not an unpopular candidate in CT when he has half of the Democratic support and a large majority of the support of everyone else. Its foolish to state that Lamont's victory in the primary was a testament to democracy but Lieberman winning a general election degrades democracy. Primaries are important only to the extent that a politician is chosen to represent a single political party, and that if you don't pick the right candidate you will not win regardless of who is running your campaign. It doesn't necessarily say anything about who most of the voters in their particular jurisdiction support - this is extremely important and if more liberals understood that concept (and the point about the virtual split between Demos in CT between Lamont and Lieberman) then a lot of this complaining would cease.

Last point - enough with the complaints about "not being heard" or "being excluded" in government. Believe me, PLENTY of liberal representation in Congress is making your points for you nobody is more loud and outspoken then the liberal Democrats out there. Just because you are not getting what you want doesn't mean that you aren't being heard. Liberals will get their way when they win majorities and are able to set the leglislative agenda. If you cannot win a majority when you are running for office, or trying to introduce a bill, then you simply are not going to have it your way. Interestingly enough, previous to 1994 when Democrats ran the show in Congress for 50 years I never heard of Democrats complaining about the lack of political parity. My advice to Democrats is similar to yours - get out there, speak out, get your votes together and win. Convince other people that you are right. Get more seats in Congress, win the Presidency, then you will be able to get what you want.