Somehow makes Katie Kouric more bearable. I love how terribly done the green screen effects are also. If you watch only one remix of news clips this week, let this be the one!
(via Jordan Harper)
Following this logic I’d have to conclude I have a pretty good if not good blog if I do say so myself though I always feel I’m not living up to my potential for “via” posting.
Here’s a taste:
“Good blogs are weird. Blogs make fart noises and occasionally vex readers with the degree to which the blogger’s obsession will inevitably diverge from the reader’s. If this isn’t happening every few weeks, the blogger is either bored, half-assing, or taking new medication.”
After two days of hermitage sitting in front of my computer (and probably smelling horribly) I finally reorganized my website! It’s been need of a major overhaul for years now. What sparked this “spring cleaning” was a desire to organize my online life. I found that after years of joining online social-networking and blogging sites it had been difficult for me (let alone anyone I knew) to keep track of all of them.
When I went to add my new contact page to the site it was kind of like wedging 10 clean socks into a dresser drawer that I hadn’t been organized in 5 years!
When I took a stock of what the site had in there it was a mess and I realized that I was going to have to start from the ground up. I began by dismantling the CSS and mapping out the site in pages.
What results is three brand new (or redone) sections of natecooper.net.
I managed to preserve all the existing content while streamlining the CSS and making consistent the interface. That’s nerd talk for everything looks pretty now from the ground up.
Oh yeah.. and not in the least I updated my icon for the site. I now have a representative logo/icon that I like to call the “nate dot”. I added him wherever I could and I hope that you’ll come to associate him with me.
Some recent news that I find interesting and surprised at the country we are living in:
I tend to fall into the category of people that say she is too centrist but anyone who isn’t ashamed to call out the president for incompetency publicly tends to come of as fairly intelligent. (See Keith Olberman)
Again yay but an amazingly shocking one.
New York Times story about a pool in the south.
The question most on my mind is what happens next? Clearly there can be no tribunals and neither Congress nor the Executive Branch can rob the internees of their right to Habeas Corpus but who holds these people accountable if they break the law? Furthermore what happens when prisoners start requesting trials? Will the Bush Administrations block them?
I find Bush’s comments extremely distressing:
“[Bush] stressed his determination not to release suspected terrorists merely because the administration’s tribunals had been rejected. ‘The ruling won’t cause killers to be put out on the streets,’ he said. ‘I’m not going to jeopardize the safety of the American people.'” (NY Times)
What happened with innocent until proven guilty? Clearly the Supreme Court’s decision affirms this maxim but then Bush rebukes the philosophy and uses scare tactics to put a fear of “jeopardizing safety” into the public’s mind. I’m sorry Mr. Bush but Habeas Corpus makes me feel safe not secret trials and breaches of checks and balances among the branches of government.
This is also disturbing:
“Members of Congress who favor military tribunals quickly joined in. Republican Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona, citing Breyer’s language, said in a statement: ‘Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute.'” (LA Times)
What Congress and the Executive Branch seem to be saying is “We’ve broken the law so we’ll re-write it.” I understand that with checks and balances theres going to be push and pull over power between the branches of government but this is like a ping pong match. Why can’t we follow international law and standards and things like the Geneva convention (as the court seems to allude to)? The Supreme Courts decision seems to be grounded in precedent of due process law while the Legislative and Executive Branches want to forge new ground.
They seem to be relying on precedent regarding war powers:
“Richard Stamp, a lawyer with the Washington Legal Foundation… [said] ‘For the court to step into the war-making arena, where it has no expertise, is inappropriate,’…” (NY Times)
But how is the court to know whether the accused is actually a terrorist threat — making him a national security risk and therefore an issue of “war politics” — without due process of law? By circumventing the right to a fair trial the Bush Administration is circumventing innocent until proven guilty and establishing their juristiction over matters of national security outright. Clearly if the person is proven a threat to national security the Executive Branch should have juristiction but to claim it outright without Habeas Corpus robs the internees of rights due to them as citizens.
It sets a dangerous precedent to give one branch of government authority to put a scarlet letter “T” on whomever it wants, secretly and without the rights afforded to them by the constitution and international law. Clearly terror threats are not to be taken lightly but hiding practices and breaking the law is not the way to deal with terrorists. Its a step towards fascism.