Hey, Californians. Dianne Feinstein knows better than you (original). I serve as the senior senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office — and with no other factors — I would have to vote against this resolution. ...
[SCOTUSBlog](http://web.archive.org/web/20070630192455/http://web.archive.org/web/20070630192455/http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/ (original) “SCOTUSBlog”) (original) is one of those places that those of us who like to claim we’re keeping up with politics ought to visit frequently. SCOTUS? Supreme Court of the United States. We sysadmins have no monopoly on acronyms. The Supreme Court is the final check on those unjust laws we so frequently protest, and it shouldn’t take an Eldred v. Ashcroft to get us to pay attention. (I remonstrate with myself, here, as much as with any imaginary typical reader.) Link discovered on the mad tea party.
The House has passed a bill which will give small webcasters some breathing room (original). Small webcasters (i.e., the ones that aren’t making significant revenue) will pay 7% of their expenses in royalty fees yearly. This is very reasonable compared to the proposed .07 cents per song per listener. It’s still higher than a traditional radio station pays, and there’s some question about how much of the resulting revenues will filter down to the artists. It’s important to remember that while this is better than the original proposal, it is not fair. It’s also important to remember that we ought to donate to our favorite stations, since they clearly need the cash.
I’ve got to stop doing this; it’s raising my blood pressure. But where does the Pentagon get off complaining about Iraq sneakily hiding arms before the UN inspectors arrive? I’m sure Iraq is hiding arms, yes; it’s a fairly obvious conclusion. Now. Who’s been holding back UN inspectors? Where’s the delay coming from? Hint: it’s not bloody well the inspectors dragging their feet.
“If New Jersey had better beaches it would almost be Florida.” Senator Robert Torricelli (D) decided to end his reelection bid on September 29th, because he was in a horrendous hole of his own making; namely, his ethical lapses came to light and he slipped behind in the polls. Certainly you can’t make people run for office. On the other hand, it’s clearly not legal to replace Torricelli with an alternate Democratic candidate; New Jersey law says if someone ends his bid within 51 days of the election, his party can’t put someone else in his slot. (Or her slot.) So in theory the Republican candidate is going to be elected no matter what. ...
Background, just in case: three Democratic congressmen recently spoke out against the President’s policy vis a vis Iraq in an interview with CNN. At the time, they were in Baghdad. Quite a few people have equated this with treason. Today, two of them (McDermott and Bonior) defended their actions. I don’t want to rehash the definition of treason. What interests me is that today was the first time I’ve seen anyone mention that McDermott and Bonior are Vietnam-era veterans. They didn’t serve in Vietnam, but I’m pretty sure “peacenik” is not a word you should casually apply to someone who was in active military service at the time. Certainly they weren’t fighting to end the war. ...
Hey, wait a second. When Bush spoke to the UN, he said “The Security Council resolutions will be enforced.” That implies that there are Security Council resolutions in effect, right? So what’s all this about “ We feel the inspectors should not go in until there is a resolution that gives them the authority and instructions of the Security Council”? I mean, if we want new resolutions, that’s good; I’m pretty confident that Saddam would be willing to hide stuff inside his palaces, so I can understand wanting access. But that’s no reason to thwart (the State Department’s word) inspections under the current rules, is it? Let’s be clear on this: that’s a direct threat from the United States State Department to obstruct the work of the authorized and appointed UN weapons inspection teams. ...
Here’s the text of the resolution Bush is sending to Congress regarding Iraq. It looks pretty fair at first glance, although I think bringing up the 1993 assassination attempt on Bush smacks of revenge. I care that Iraq tried to kill Bush Sr., but I do not care more about that than I care about any single attempt to kill a US soldier. I also have not yet seen proof that Iraq is being harbored by al Qaida. However, this is in essence the bill that Congress needs to pass before we invade Iraq. I’m glad he’s acknowledging that Congress gets to decide.
Remember that 33 pounds of weapons-grade uranium? Well, turns out it was really only five ounces (original). The 33 pound figure counted the weight of the container. Except it wasn’t really uranium at all. And of course, we don’t actually have any evidence it was going to Iraq anyhow.
There is much talk over here in the States of Tony Blair; of how well he gets along with Bush (original), and of course of his recent speech presenting the case against Iraq. No stauncher ally than the Brits. Yeah. Well, or at least, none stauncher than Tony Blair. Andrew Sullivan’s article on the friendship between the two men says more than he realizes, I think. “Blair’s second intuition was that with George W. Bush, the most important element is always personal rapport and trust. He sensed almost intuitively that an intimate bond with Bush would give the British prime minister more influence than any other world leader in the post 9/11 world.” Yes, indeed. How much is that influence worth? Is it worth the trust of Blair’s own Labour Party? ...