Essentials  
 
     Site Home
List of Past Entries
Email Me
What Is This Site?
Wedding Website
 
  Flickr Photo Sets  
 
     [More...]
 
  Photo Gallery  
 
     Browse All
Our Wedding - April 29, 2006
NYC 2005
Puerto Vallarta 2005
Iowa City X-Mas 2004
John Edwards Rally
Michael Moore
Summerset State Park
Kerry Edwards Rally
Pella / Ellinwood
Howell Tree Farm 2004
NYC 2004
Worlds of Fun 2004
Balloons 2004
New Orleans / Pensacola 2004
Chicago 2004
New House
NYC 2003
Harkin Steakfry 2003
Adventureland 2003
Ballooning 2003
[More...]
 
  Daily Reads  
 
     Aint It Cool News
Bateman Cartoons
Cinescape
Dark Horizons
IGN
Slate
Spoiler Fix
Television Without Pity
The Onion
Working for Change
 
  Other Blogs  
 
     Benn's Journal
Brian Stevens
C:\Pirillo.exe
Carrie
Dave Barry
Gretchen
Grrl Bonnie
Jake's Jive
Jessica's Journal
JoshWest.com
Kacie's Chatter
Mackenzie
PhilBlog
RedHead Ramblings
RickSite
Special K
The Dream of 95
Tom's World
Wil Wheaton
 
  Liberal Fun  
 
     Bateman Cartoons
Cheney Segway
GWBush04.com
This Modern World
Working for Change
 
  General Oddity  
 
     All Your Base…
Bubb Rubb
HumanForSale
IKPuppet
Kikkoman
PPI
They Fight Crime!
Wrath
Zombie Infection
Zombo.com
 
  Work  
 
     CrossPaths.net
FBX Internet
Iowa Telecom
iSpot ACCESS
Topis Technologies
 
  Copyright  
 
     ©2005 Jason Cross
All Rights Reserved
 

Tuesday, December 28, 2004     
  
Filibuster Continued
[Talking Politics]  
    

A reader wrote:

I'd agree that ending this tradition is not in the people's interest- though I'm not convinved that the democrats method of permanently blocking all conservative nominee's is either.

Actually, the filibuster is a tactic not recent in use.  While it is true on the surface that some 31% of Bush's judicial candidates have been blocked (vs a still-high 24% under Clinton), nearly all Bush candidates have made it to hearings and/or votes, while nearly 60 Clinton noms were blocked from even getting that far (which don't count into that 24%).

So considering they blocked 1 out of every 4 Clinton noms - and Clinton was known for picking far more centrist judges than Bush - I don't see how the Repubs can claim it's a Democrat method.

The fact is that the filibuster was put in place to insure a level of power separation when both the congress and the president is controlled by a single party.  The Founding Fathers greatly disapproved of the idea of any one sect of the people running completely out of control over the entire country, so methods were put in place to make it more difficult to pass things via the Senate than having a simple majority.

   
Posted by Jason on 12/28/2004 at 6:38:23 AM #
Monday, December 27, 2004     
  
Will the GOP nuke the Constitution?
    

Scary.  The very purpose of the Senate is to protect the rights of the minority (as in number of people, not race), which is why every state has 2 senators regardless of size and why 60% votes are required.  Its purpose in this isn't new - it was specifically set up as such at the creation of our country and has always been one of the reasons why our method of democracy was improved over those before.  That it could be tossed out so casually...it should sicken anyone, no matter the political party.

Will the GOP nuke the Constitution?Proposed ban on judicial filibusters is an assault on democracy
By Arianna Huffington

Right now, somewhere in the White House, administration strategists are hatching plans to go to war. Battle plans are being drawn. Timing and tactics are being finalized. A nuclear option is even being openly discussed.

The designated target? Iran? Syria? North Korea?

No, much closer to home: the United States Senate.

Salivating at the chance to radically remake the Supreme Court, the president and his loyal lapdogs in the World's Most Exclusive Club are plotting to obliterate over 200 years of Senate tradition by eliminating the use of filibusters against judicial nominees.

The Robert's Rules of Disorder scheme would involve -- who else? -- Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as presiding Senate officer, ruling that judicial filibusters are unconstitutional and Majority Leader Bill Frist squashing the Democrats' inevitable objection to such an edict by tabling the motion. As long as we're "spreading democracy" abroad, no reason to leave out the home front, right?

This is the so-called "nuclear option," embraced with a wink and a nudge by Frist in November when he told the conservative Federalist Society: "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end."

Invoking this parliamentary dirty trick would eliminate unlimited debate on judicial nominations and lower the number of votes needed before a nominee can be confirmed from the 60 necessary to break a filibuster to a simple majority of 51, and would drive a stake through the heart of the Senate's longstanding commitment -- indeed one of its founding purposes -- to defending the rights of the minority.

This scorched-earth approach is entirely in keeping with what Time magazine lauds this week as President Bush's "ten-gallon-hat leadership" style -- a my-way-or-the-highway approach rooted in arrogance and laced with an intolerance of dissent that has already delivered him a rubber stamp Cabinet. Now he wants a rubber stamp Senate.

Over the course of his first term, 204 of Bush's judicial nominees received Senate approval; just 10 were blocked. This is the highest number of lower-court confirmations any president has had in his first term since 1980 -- including President Reagan. But, apparently, the highest is not enough. This president wants total approval of his every wish.

One small problem: That's not the way the Founding Fathers designed things. They had these funny notions about three separate but equal branches of government, free and open debate, and the value of checks and balances to ward off the overreaching for power by those in the majority. They built an entire system of government to counteract the abuse that inevitably goes with overreaching.

Yet that is precisely what the plan to do away with judicial filibusters is: an out-and-out power grab by the president and his Congressional accomplices. An underhanded scheme to kneecap the Constitution and take away the only weapon vanquished Democrats are left with to defend against Bush's "ten-gallon-hat" juggernaut.

It would be impossible to overstate the importance of this battle. It is nothing less than a fight for the soul of our democracy -- for what kind of country we want to live in.

"George W. Bush," Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, told me, "has made it clear, both through his public comments and through the judges he has nominated to appellate courts, that he is committed to advancing an ideological agenda that would roll back many of the social and legal gains of the last century."

According to Neas, who has been at the forefront of judicial battles since the fight against Robert Bork in 1987, this is not just about Roe vs. Wade -- it's also about turning the clock back to a time when states' rights and property rights trumped the protection of individual liberties and the ability of Congress to act in the common good on issues as far-ranging as civil rights enforcement, environmental protection, and worker health and safety.

This is not overheated partisan rhetoric but a realistic appraisal of the rulings handed down by the federal judges Bush has already appointed -- and of the written opinions of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court Justices the president has cited as his models for future nominees to the High Court. "Courting Disaster 2004," a study by People for the American Way Foundation, found that adding just one or two Scalia/Thomas clones to the Supreme Court would put at risk more than 100 precedents and the legal protections they safeguard.

We're talking about the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action, worker protections, access to contraceptives and legal abortions, laws protecting our clean air and drinking water, and on and on.

Senate rules regarding filibusters are not something most Americans will find themselves discussing over a glass of eggnog during the holidays. But the impact these rules can have on our lives is staggering. And it must be made clear right now -- not when Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns and Cheney and Frist team up to push the nuclear button. By then it will be much too late, and all Harry Reid will be able to do is duck and cover. True leadership is being able to see not just the crisis staring you in the face -- but the one lurking just around the corner.

President Bush is pulling on his oversized Stetson and gearing up for battle. And here, unlike Iraq, he's making sure his political troops have all the armor they need. The Democrats need to pre-emptively launch an all-out campaign to educate the American people about what will be at stake during the coming assault on our democratic values.

If they succeed, they will have the public with them, even if it becomes necessary to resort to threats of Mutually Assured Legislative Destruction. Let's hope that's not what it will take to protect the Senate, the Constitution, and over 65 years of hard-won social victories from the GOP's looming nuclear winter.

   
Posted by Jason on 12/27/2004 at 10:53:17 AM #
Thursday, December 9, 2004     
  
Another Update on the 1954 PC
    

Ian alerted me of this via a roundabout source - it turns out the 1954 PC is a hoax!

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

Many a prognosticator who has tried to envision the future has been tripped up by a failure to correctly anticipate the direction of technological change. Those who would forecast the world of tomorrow have often made the mistaken of simply taking the technologies of their day and assuming that in the future those technologies would be bigger, faster, and more powerful - what escaped their vision was that science and society might come up with new and different ways of manufacturing and using those technologies.

One case in point is the computer. Predictions from several decades ago failed to foresee that computers would become much smaller and cheaper; that these changes would enable nearly every business and home to have its own computer to be used for a variety of applications, and that those machines would be linked together in a world-wide network. Instead, futurist scenarios frequently presented a world of very few, very expensive all-powerful computers the size of large buildings, used only for divining answers to complex problems beyond the ability of man to solve on his own.

Although the photograph displayed could represent what some people in the early 1950s contemplated a "home computer" might look like (based on the technology of the day), it isn't, as the accompanying text claims, a RAND Corporation illustration from 1954 of a prototype "home computer." The picture is actually an entry submitted to an image modification competition, taken from an original photo of a submarine maneuvering room console found on U.S. Navy web site, converted to grayscale, and modified to replace a modern display panel and TV screen with pictures of a decades-old teletype/printer and television.

   
Posted by Jason on 12/9/2004 at 3:38:20 PM #
Friday, December 3, 2004     
  
Happy Birthday Ian!
[Family and Friends]  
    

Today Ian turns 27.  He checks the site often, even when I don't update.

   
Posted by Jason on 12/3/2004 at 3:35:54 PM #
Wednesday, December 1, 2004     
  
1954's Computer of 2004 Revisited
    

Remember the post regarding 1954's Computer of 2004?


Click Image to Enlarge

Well I got a rather enlightening email today regarding it:

Hi.  The computer is in the foreground.  The thing in the back is the control panels for a nuclear submarine.  The left panel (with the wheels) is the Steam Plant Control Panel.  The wheels are the throttles (large is forward, small is reverse).  The middle panel is the Reactor Plant Control Panel, and the right is the Electric Plant Control Panel.

I'm not sure why Rand (the AF research org at the time) would have that, though.  I'm willing to bet that they were showing the thing in the front, not what was in the back.

Thanks for the info, Marc!  That makes a lot more sense, if less funny.

   
Posted by Jason on 12/1/2004 at 3:16:17 PM #
  
Turkey Tourist
    

I almost forgot the annual Turkey photo!  That was a close one!

Happy Late Thanksgiving!

   
Posted by Jason on 12/1/2004 at 2:33:18 PM #
  
Ahoy!
    

Back in the 90's, there was this game called Pirates! Gold for the PC.  Ian and Brandon and I used to play it quite a bit, where you'd have a pirate ship and sail around the caribbean, attacking ships, wooing the governors' daughters and sacking Curacao, Cartagena and the like.

It's back.  And it's awesome (if you like the original).

They were smart about implementing the new version, keeping the core of the game much the same while enhancing the graphics, details (like ship upgrades and a bit of a plot revolving finding your family), and gameplay (such as the fact you see other ships on the screen while sailing now instead of getting random encounters).

Considering how the original Pirates! was ranked the number 3 PC game of all time by IGN, I'm glad they didn't completely rework a good formula.

   
Posted by Jason on 12/1/2004 at 2:09:55 PM #
  
Double-Take
    

So Google News picked up the following news story as it's top story last night via its automatic pickup, prompting quite the double-take:


Click to See the Full ScreenGrab

Turns out it was a satire piece...  Here's where it links to:  http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_14050.shtml

And it turns out that today Germany *is* charging Rumsfeld and Tenant with War Crimes over Abu Ghraib.

   
Posted by Jason on 12/1/2004 at 10:24:39 AM #
Tuesday, November 30, 2004     
  
Top Ten List of Public Safety Hazards
    

I know you miss my postings, but I'm neck-deep in projects right now, one of which is reworking my blog system for client use.  But here's something to tide you over...  Found it on Working for Change:

Top ten list of public safety hazards
Compiled by National Political Logic Commissioner Will Durst

In my unofficial, under-appreciated self-appointed capacity as National Political Logic Commissioner, I bear the grave responsibility of compiling the annual top 10 list of political actions posing safety hazards to the general public. This release coincides with the start of the traditionally busy post-election finger-pointing season, and sad to say, the news is not good.

This week's release of the 30th annual survey is highlighted by some of the greatest gaps in reason and rationality in the history of the study. One member of the nominating committee (me) called the rampant hypocrisy "breathtaking." Apparently logic no longer plays a role in our leadership process, going the same way facts and hard numbers did a few campaign cycles ago.

So, here they are. 2004'S most hazardous political actions compiled by the National Political Logic Commission, yours truly being head honcho. The entire Commission actually.

1. Ukranian Election Fraud. Discovered through major discrepancies between exit polling and actual voting. But in Ohio and Florida, discrepancies dismissed as anomalies. Later, suspect exit polls altered to reflect vote count totals. Poses risk of accusations of geographical bias.

2. Janet Jackson's Boob. One breast. Seen for a half second. From across a football field. Poses risk of innocent heads spinning right off their necks.

3. Bush Presidential Campaign. Denounces Kerry campaign for exploiting Mary Cheney's homosexuality for political purposes. Gagging risk.

4. Bush Presidential Campaign. Borderline deserter accuses decorated veteran of war crimes. Sanity hazard.

5. Dick Cheney. Instructs Senator Patrick Leahy in fine art of self-actuating yoga. Risk of moral high ground erosion.

6. John Kerry. Voted for war, then against it. Wind surfing in August? Reports of motivation and incentive handles falling off of base.

7. Halliburton. Government auditors recommend Army withhold $90 million payment to Dick Cheney's favorite 501(c)3 due to fact that not only did they lie and cheat and steal, they didn't even bother to be sneaky about it. Choking hazard.

8. Congressional Republicans. Change ethics rules so Tom Delay won't be forced to relinquish leadership when indicted for felony. Feeble explanations prove hard to swallow.

9. America's Clergy. Advocated Bush's re-election from pulpit due to his superior moral nature -- ignoring the suspect morality of killing upwards of 100,000 Iraqis under intentionally false pretenses. Potential eternal fire and burn hazard.

10. 66 ABC Officials. For not airing 3rd annual Veterans' Day showing of "Saving Private Ryan" due to stated fear of flaunting decency standards. Severe risk of genital shrinkage.

Political comic Will Durst often finds just reading the newspaper every morning holds the potential risk of gagging up his orange juice.

   
Posted by Jason on 11/30/2004 at 1:47:49 PM #


Previous Month December 2004

Next Month

S M T W T F S
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1

Fear the wrath of Sparky!