Again Justice Antonin Scalia gives reason for a judicial malpractice clause in our Constitution. In a recent interview, this is what Scalia had to say:
In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
I can’t help but laugh every time I hear some Republican say “passing this bill [health care reform] will cost the Democrats in November”. I keep wondering to myself if Coach K is calling up John Calipari and saying “if we meet in final four and you run a zone defense, it will cost you dearly”.
But today I got thinking more about this and translating it to when Republicans controlled everything, like they did for a majority of the last decade. Is that why the Republicans never tried to push through legislation they have campaigned on for decades? For example:
Republicans are “small government”, yet the government grew at record rates under their rule.
They have been against abortion for all these years, yet when have they actually tried to outlaw it?
Or how about taxes? We hear Republicans all the time crowing about across the board tax cuts, yet the only tax cuts they ever did was for the rich.
The Republican solution to health care for years has been tort reform, dating back to at least the last time the issue came up – during the Clinton years. Yet with the Republicans holding control of the entire government, they never once tried to do anything about it.
So this brings me to the big question – has the Republicans been erring on the side of caution when they have control? Sure the issues above make great campaign talking points, but are they afraid that any real action will lead to an electorate peril?
The Democrats are on the verge of passing legislation they have been advocating since the days of FDR. Now it is suddenly “politically dangerous”. They are working towards delivering on a major campaign promise from 2008, and that will cost them? If you really believe this, then you believe that our government is incapable of change, and that leaves us in a very bad position as a nation. A nation that can’t change is a nation that will be left behind.
I just got done reading this article on Slate, which argues that whitehouse.gov moving to Drupal is a “political disaster waiting to happen”. Let me take some time to address each of these lies.
Drupal knows best. It's not that Drupal thinks you're evil. It just thinks you're ignorant. In a basic setup, the software is suspicious of everything you try to do. Should you, say, go completely rogue and try to add some Javascript in the body of a page—a 14-year-old technology that controls interactive components like buttons—the platform will have none of it.
The message: "That's dangerous stuff, and you probably don't know what you're doing." Better to outlaw something altogether, Drupal figures, than simply ask you if you really want to use it. If Drupal ran the Food and Drug Administration, it would ban high-fructose corn syrup. This is just the sort of straitjacketed paternalism that half the country is convinced the Democrats are hell-bent on imposing on us all.
Javascript is dangerous stuff. Ever try putting it in on Wordpress? You can’t. That’s not the case with Drupal, and it exemplifies that the author of this article has no idea what he is talking about.
XSS, that acronym for “cross-site scripting” is a huge security risk, accounting for 80% of all vulnerabilities in 2007. For example, when you login to a Drupal site there are cookies stored on your computer. Those cookies are what lets Drupal know that you are that logged in user. By placing a simple line of javascript inside of content posted on a Drupal site that allowed it, I could easily have your session cookie sent to some server I run and then put that cookie into my browser and now I am logged in as you and you would never know I got it. This isn’t limited to Drupal, but to any system that allows logging in.
So does that mean I can’t use Javascript in Drupal? Absolutely not. Let’s look at the code to embed a CNN video:
<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/health/2009/03/13/dcl.gupta.safe.cigarettes.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>
Know what that is? It’s Javascript and you can see that exact video on this site by clicking here.
Wow that must be some kind of voodoo, but it isn’t. It didn’t even require any programming. It was a simple option inside of Drupal where I can change my “input format” to allow it. Not only that but I can limit what users can enter Javascript and not (try doing this on something like Wordpress – you need a plugin or to code it yourself). That’s the power of Drupal, and the piece of mind any website owner can have with it.
Let’s move on
That’s how a group of cancer experts are now classifying tanning beds:
International cancer experts have moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category, deeming them as deadly as arsenic and mustard gas. For years, scientists have described tanning beds and ultraviolet radiation as "probable carcinogens."
A new analysis of about 20 studies concludes the risk of skin cancer jumps by 75 percent when people start using tanning beds before age 30. Experts also found that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused worrying mutations in mice, proof the radiation is carcinogenic. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.
The new classification means tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation are definite causes of cancer, alongside tobacco, the hepatitis B virus and chimney sweeping, among others.
It amazes me how many people depend on tanning beds to “look good”. A couple of weeks I heard the life squad get dispatched to a twelve year old girl who was unconscious and had a bad rash after being in a tanning bed. Instantly I thought “why in the hell is a 12 year old girl in a tanning bed?” It’s the middle of summer and if she wants a tan do what I did – go outside. Hell you might even get some exercise while at it.
Here in Ohio there is legislation in the works to outlaw tanning beds for children under 18. This is a great step and considering the lethality of tanning beds is now equivalent to that of cigarettes, its only safe to assume the same limitations should apply to both. I just wonder how strong the tanning bed lobby is.
Of course we are talking about torture, and the bill Bush wants to veto is the intelligence bill that passed in the House yesterday, mostly across party lines:
The White House threatened to veto the measure this week in a lengthy statement, highlighting more than 11 areas of disagreement with the bill.
The administration particularly opposes restricting the CIA to interrogation methods approved by the military in 2006. That document prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.
Two things come to mind when reading this. First - isn't all this already illegal? I mean if we outlaw this stuff, what is to say they don't come up with something new that is just a little outside these definitions? No your honor, I didn't kill a man. Instead I expedited his journey to meet his maker, which isn't against the law verbatim. Perhaps Congress should tell Bush that he has to follow the laws we already have or face impeachment. Oh wait - Harry and Nancy wouldn't do that.
This in via
Reuters:
Five US soldiers charged with abuse:
militaryFive U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been charged with abusing detainees whom
it is claimed they had punched and kicked, the U.S. military said on Monday."The allegations stemmed from an incident on September 7 in which three
detainees were allegedly punched and kicked by the soldiers as they were
awaiting movement to a detention facility," the military said in a
statement.
Considering all the talk going right now about torture and Dick Cheney out
there doing all in his power to keep torture exemptions alive it is no surprise
that this happened. When you compare the stories from Abu Gharib and Guantanamo,
it shows that these techniques are some sort of uniformed policy.
Ironically this news came out a couple hours after George Bush declared the
United States does not torture:
President Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the
war on terror Monday and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw
torture."There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt
America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but
we will do so under the law."He declared, "We do not torture."
Story continues
here
If we do not torture then why are so many stories coming out about us
torturing our prisoners. Seems like the President has a different definition of
torture than the rest of the world. Nothing too shocking from such a dimwit.
