Tuesday, March 31, 2009

More evidence for stuff CC thought anyway and one surprise

-Keith Olbermann is a schmuck who is someday going to be more trouble to liberalism than he's worth. He named twitter "the worst person in the world" because there was a twitter account in his name that he hadn't made. He made vague suggestions that Fox News might be behind this conspiracy without, you know, asking his own network if they were running it as a PR thing, which they were. You think he will apologize to Fox News for the false allegation? Me neither.

-Old people in love are the cutest thing ever

-XKCD is at its most brilliant when it is at its most depressing.

-Weddings seriously bring out the weird in some people.

-U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan doth sucketh mightily. Ok, that's not entirely accurate, she's very good at what she does, she just fights expensively for things I abhor such as vigorously enforcing obscenity laws and going after pain doctors who over-prescribe. Also, she was in the middle of the US Attorney firing conspiracy.

On the upside, she went to University of Pittsburgh School of Law, which should give everyone out there at a third-tier law school hope that they, too, too still have a shot at becoming powerful enough to be a major force for injustice. (MEOW!)

-PETA folks are nuts.

-As crazy as Americans are when it comes to anything involving terrorism the Brits will always be crazier.

-Jim Webb is one of the few actual mavericks in politics today and it would be awesome if he were vice-president rather than Biden

And the surprise:

Some people in the Maryland State legislature are at least willing to look at the "police departments overusing SWAT teams" issue.

The relevant portion of the article:

"Delegates adopted a bill, on a 126 to 9 vote, that would require law enforcement agencies to report every six months on their use of SWAT teams, including what kinds of warrants the teams serve and whether any animals are killed during raids. The bill was prompted by the case of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, whose two black Labrador retrievers were shot and killed during a botched raid by a Prince George's County Sheriff's Office SWAT team in July.

Calvo has said he was surprised to learn that police departments use the heavily armed units far more routinely than they once did but that it is difficult to get reliable statistics about SWAT raids. The Senate has passed a similar measure. "




Correction/Clarification: Mary Beth Buchanan goes after pain doctors who are almost certainly innocent of over prescribing anything. Read all about it. I knew that I didn't approve of going after doctors criminally for being fooled by patients, I knew about how hard it is for the Chalicerelative's best friend to get her oxycodone prescription filled already. I didn't know that Buchanan was quite this bad.

16 comments:

PG said...

Mavericks are pretty much the last people a president wants as VP.

And while "potential terrorist" label is awful to put on a child, given that the UK has suffered MUCH more home-grown Islamic terrorism than the U.S. has, it's not really a fair comparison. If the NY subway system were bombed by four U.S.-born and -raised Muslim citizens, the GOP would be calling for internment camps. I think the big difference is that the U.S. Muslim community is both a smaller percentage of the population and a much wealthier, better educated and more integrated minority than they are in the UK.

Joel Monka said...

Why do you presume the GOP would be calling for internment camps? You think there are no Democratic demogogues? I seem to remember that it was a Democratic President- FDR- who put American citizens in internment camps, and another Democratic President- Woodrow Wilson- who made speaking against the government's handling of the war a criminal offense, and encouraged civillian vigilante gangs to rough up offenders.

You are quite correct about our Muslim community being smaller and better integrated than the British,but don't imagine that education and wealth prevent terrorism. Bin Laden was rich, and many terrorists- even suicides- have been doctors and engineers. The 9/11 perpetrators weren't beggers.

Robin Edgar said...

I am not sure that it is all that politically correct to say "she's very good at what she does" right after saying "U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan doth sucketh mightily." Of course it's not all that PC to say "U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan doth sucketh mightily" to begin with. . . Speaking of schuck's who are more trouble to liberalism than their worth worth, is it possible that you are possessed by the Peacebang demon today CC?

Wow! Woodrow Wilson sounds like some of the Unitarians I know who make speaking against the UUA's handling of the War of the U*U World a criminal offense, and encouraged civilian vigilantes aka "citizens' police officers" to toss offender's picket signs into the street.

PG said...

Why do you presume the GOP would be calling for internment camps?

Because Republicans after 9/11 wrote books defending the Japanese internment and discussing the possibility of reviving it for Muslims, and Democrats didn't? Because Republican congressmen defend the Japanese internment camps and analogize the situation to that with "Arabs," and Democratic ones don't?

I seem to remember that it was a Democratic President- FDR- who put American citizens in internment camps

Do you remember a chorus of Republicans standing up against FDR, shouting no no no?

and another Democratic President- Woodrow Wilson- who made speaking against the government's handling of the war a criminal offense, and encouraged civillian vigilante gangs to rough up offenders.

And it was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who repeatedly suspended the writ of habeas corpus. And it was the Republican Bush Administration that sought to suspend habeas corpus after 9/11.

Are you sure you want to play the "which party has been better about protecting a range of Constitutional rights in time of crisis" game, or shall we stick to the issue of interning Muslims?

Joel Monka said...

"Are you sure you want to play the "which party has been better about protecting a range of Constitutional rights in time of crisis" game, or shall we stick to the issue of interning Muslims?"

As to the issue of interning Muslims, I note that even President Bush, for all the bad things he did, from the very first speech after 9/11 kept repeating that it was not Muslims or Islam who were the enemy. I just wanted to point out that neither party has a corner on either demogoguery or decency, and it's wrong to presume unworthy motives to anyone based on party.

Robin Edgar said...

"And it was a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who repeatedly suspended the writ of habeas corpus."

And everybody in the whole wide U*U World knows that Rather Too Honest Abe was a closet Universalist. . . :-)

Robin Edgar said...

I don't suppose you have ever heard the saying -

"Actions speak louder than words."

have you Joel?

Indeed some words speak louder than other words. . .

PG said...

Joel,

I never asserted that Democrats had a corner on decency, but I notice that you're not rebutting my points about Republican support -- including by a sitting Congressman -- for Japanese internment that the rest of the country pretty much grasps was a bad thing to do. Bush was widely criticized among Republicans for referring to Islam as a religion of peace. Somehow that doesn't happen with Democrats.

I haven't presumed unworthy motives to anyone based on party. The statement you criticized is my prediction that if the NY subway system were bombed by U.S.-born and -raised Muslim citizens, the GOP would call for interning Muslims. Where in that did I "presume unworthy motives to anyone based on party"? Heck, I didn't presume unworthy motives to the GOP -- I'm sure their motive would be a genuine fear of homegrown terrorism and a desire to keep us safe. But there has been a consistent acceptance among prominent Republicans of the idea that the Japanese internment was not a gross and unConstitutional violation of the internees' rights. If what was done before is morally acceptable, why would there be any moral barrier to doing it again if it seemed like it would make us any safer?

Joel Monka said...

Ok, if you insist on playing that game...

"Do you remember a chorus of Republicans standing up against FDR, shouting no no no?" No, because it was done by executive order, not congressional vote. However, there were some laws passed to assist it- like the Alien Registration Act, proposed by Congressman Howard W. Smith of Virginia, a Democrat. It was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

You claim "...a consistent acceptance among prominent Republicans...", but provide only a single name. On the other hand, the first president to publicly say that the internment was wrong was Gerald Ford in 1976! In 1988 Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which had been pushed through Congress by Representative Norman Mineta and Senator Alan K. Simpson (Republican) that formally apologized and paid reparations totaling $1.2 Billion. Then there was the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, appropriating an additional $400 million in order to ensure that all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, who also issued another formal apology from the U.S. government. Truman never apologized, nor Kennedy, nor Johnson... only Reagan and Bush, building on Ford's "that was wrong". There is not now, nor has there ever been "...a consistent acceptance among prominent Republicans...",

Comrade Kevin said...

As for Olbermann, I must admit now that I had major reservations when someone who previously was best known for his encyclopedic knowledge of sports trivia was lifted up as some kind of latter-day messiah of liberalism.

He is not the next Murrow. He is at times a self-aggrandizing fool with a microphone. He has no conception of humility or understatement and is no different then any other histrionic talking head.

kim said...

But histrionic talking heads is what the American Public wants! Just ask the media -- they'll tell you.
does that sound cynical?

PG said...

Joel,

Ok, if you insist on playing that game...

Dude, WTF? I asked if you wanted to play the game, you replied with a comment about interning Muslims, I replied with a comment about interning Muslims, and now we're back to the game? How did I insist on playing that game?

No, because it was done by executive order, not congressional vote.

FDR's Executive Order 9066 could extend only as far as FDR's authority as Commander in Chief to have the military begin moving people. The enabling legislation that made disobedience of such a military order a crime for civilians, punishable by prison and fine, was passed unanimously by Congress as Public Law 77-503. Republicans in Congress could have spoken up in protest of EO 9066 -- none did.

I'm a bit skeptical that you could sincerely be ignorant of these facts, given that they're noted in the Ford proclamation you cited: "February 19th is the anniversary of a sad day in American history. It was on that date in 1942, in the midst of the response to the hostilities that began on December 7, 1941, that Executive Order 9066 was issued, subsequently enforced by the criminal penalties of a statute enacted March 21, 1942."

As for the Alien Registration Act, again I can't tell if you're speaking from ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead. The Smith Act predates Pearl Harbor by 18 months and was directed at Communism (an ideology as much abhorred by the WWII Axis powers as by the U.S.). The Smith Act required all aliens -- i.e., non-citizens -- regardless of race to register with the government, which is a reasonable bureaucratic regulation in a country that doesn't have open borders.

The nasty part of the legislation was the criminalization of advocating the desirability of overthrowing the government (effectively criminalizing Communist advocacy), and the requirement that aliens file a record of their political beliefs. But this had no particularly deleterious effect on Japanese-Americans, who weren't known for their inclination to Communism. It was much more likely to target Jews, Italians and Eastern Europeans.

So the idea that the Smith Act was passed to assist in the internment of the Japanese is all kinds of bollocks.

On the other hand, the first president to publicly say that the internment was wrong was Gerald Ford in 1976!

Not exactly -- Harry Truman in 1946 publicly referred to the prejudice faced by Japanese-Americans. On Feb. 2, 1948, as part of a message to Congress regarding civil rights (in which he also said that he was taking steps to eliminate racial segregation and discrimination in the military), Truman called for Japanese Americans who had been interned to be compensated. He said, "During the last war more than one hundred thousand Japanese-Americans were evacuated from their homes in the Pacific states solely because of their racial origin. Many of these people suffered property and business losses as a result of this forced evacuation and through no fault of their own."

Moreover, President Carter (remember that guy between Ford and Reagan?) signed legislation in 1980 creating a commission to study the internment and make recommendations on what if anything should be done to repay those who were interned. Meanwhile, even today Republicans in Congress have opposed a study of others who were interned during WWII.

Robin Edgar said...

But histrionic talking heads is what the Unitarian Public wants! Just ask the UUA -- they'll tell U*Us.

Does that sound cynical?

LaReinaCobre said...

I cannot stand Keith Olbermann. Or Rachel Maddow, for that matter.

Anonymous said...

"going after pain doctors who over-prescribe"

Ah, please read up on the case before making such incorrect statements. Contrary to Ms. Buchanan's statements, the doctor in question prescribe the lowest dose medically available to treat the ailments in question. So the over-prescribe comment is pure projection and propaganda.

In addition to this fact, after trial the doctor successfully won civil lawsuits that the prosecution witnesses waited until after the trial to file. The civil proceedings provided the doctor and his legal team to access the entire medical records of the patients in question.

What was uncovered through these files were the following:
1. The claims of the patients at the criminal trial that they never suffered from the ailments the Doctor claimed to be treating with the medications were falsified. The medical records demonstrated that the patients had a history of chronic pain and anxiety disorders that were treated with the medications.
2. The records showed that even during the time of the trial, the witnesses were still being treated by other physicians with the same medications that the doctor used to treat the same ailments. Of course this information was not disclosed to the doctor's defense lawyers.
3. Confronted with the records, the patient witnesses not only recanted their testimonies, but also affirmed that the medications assisted them with their ailments. The witnesses confirmed the medications were working to treat their medical conditions.
4. In addition, the records showed that the patients continued/continue to be treated for the same ailments with the same medications via the same diagnosis that the pain doctor alleged he was treating.
5. The last disturbing point of the records that I will mention, since there are many, is the fact the records had discussions within them recorded between the patient and medical providers that they saw besides the pain doctor in which they (the patients) confirmed that they were provided plea agreements/deals solely on the basis of the testimony they were to provide for the government against the pain doctor and the witnesses confirmed that they were lying within their testimonies in the criminal case.

Unfortunately, Buchanan has refused to act and has instead put out more propaganda in an attempt to deflect. Only she can revoke these felons plea agreements and investigate them for perjury; however such a move would surely cause the errors of her office and her in this case to be front and center.

So alas, an innocent must be burned in order to protect Buchanan's career ambitions.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122263.html

Chalicechick said...

Anonymous, you're absolutely correct and I should have phrased it another way. I was just looking for a quick way to get the idea out and figured that "over-prescribe" was fairly neutral.

But you're right, people should read the full story. I will put a correction up on the post.

CC