Oh, sweet irony…

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Glenn brought to my attention that Joseph Wilson has announced he may sue Bush and Cheney because of damage done to the career of his wife, the CIA agent who was outed courtesy of Karl Rove.

Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated–at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit–that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?

PAD

321 comments on “Oh, sweet irony…”

  1. Why would “their creation was guided by God” and “humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.” be imcompatable?

    That’s one of the big problems. They aren’t. Many people (myself included) believe that the hand of God (or whatever you want to call the higher power) at the very least set things (including evolution) in motion with a fairly good idea of where they would end up. That belief isn’t science, though.

    Most of the fundies are small-minded pinheads that automatically believe that if they believe in God’s intervention and not in evolution, then the inverse MUST be true of the people on the “other side.” It’s just another classic example of the way “The Church” has always been very good at creating an “Us vs Them” mentality.

    I’d probably best cut myself off before I go into yet another diatribe about the evils of organized religion. (Very easy to do, hearing the annual evangelical/fundamentalist bullcrap against Halloween and, by extension, Paganism…)

    -Rex Hondo-

  3. After actually taking the time to google, it seems that there is significant legal precedence for the 2nd Amendment only truly applying to weapons with “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” In other words, the first few words of the amendment, which a lot of gun nuts conveniently forget are there.

    Well, your citation to US v Miller 307 US 174 (1939) is correct. Still, you’re conflating two issues in your comment, “So, police and soldiers, who could reasonably be assumed to form part of a civilian militia, should the need arise, could keep the aformentioned 12-shot peashooter that they just use to lay down cover fire until backup arrives. Bubba down the street, who threatens anybody who comes near his property line with a sawed off shotgun is a little more problematic.” The language in the opinion is “WEAPONS.” Your statement is about PEOPLE. Bubba down the street has a right (barring a felony conviction) to own the twelve-shot peashooter to lay down cover fire, because Bubba is a candidate to join the militia. The reason for this is that a militia is quite simply a body of armed citizens. The same opinion you quoted went on to say, “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” The logic of this opinion actually favors individual possession of assault rifles– those are the weapons most likely to be useful to a militia. The sawed off shotgun that was the basis for Miller, by contrast, was useless for military service– not least because, if I remember correctly, such weapons are barred by the Geneva Convention.

    As to the “first few words of the Amendment,” I don’t forget they’re there. I just think they’re a subordinate clause that don’t actually undermine the plain meaning of the rest of the Amendment. Honestly, I could stomach a good deal more gun control than could be justified under only the Miller opinion. If you apply the same sort of time, place, and manner analysis to the Second Amendment that are ordinarily applied in First Amendment analysis, I think you could justify the heavy weapons restrictions that we have now. Some degree of gun control is absolutely necessary. The assault weapons ban that lapsed recently was a bad statute, not a bad idea.

  4. Well that’s better. So CNN misrepresented the facts. Color me stunned.

    So if we just get 3% of the majority to see the light we’ll be in the majority. Worth doing.

  5. So CNN misrepresented the facts. Color me stunned.

    Color me equally so, for (I suspect) different reasons.

    So if we just get 3% of the majority to see the light we’ll be in the majority. Worth doing.

    Not 3 — at least 4. A 4% switch changes the numbers from 45-51 to 49-47, which is what I think you mean — but technically, to get a majority we need 50% + 1.

    A 3% switch at least gets us to parity, though.

    TWL
    being mathematically pedantic

  7. Well, I hope folks are following the Dover trial. It’s both funny and sad. Funny in that the creationist school board are so transparently mendacious and incompetent, and that their “star” witnesses (including Behe) are so accurate in blowing off their own toes. Sad in that it’s not going to make a dámņ bit of difference in creationism/ID’s popular support….

  8. Dave, I see what you’re saying, and I think I was a bit less than clear with what I was trying to say. The point I was trying to make with Bubba down the street, is that if the assault weapons are allowable within the context of the possibility of forming a civilian militia, then a person, like Bubba, who has shown himself to be actively hostile to the people around him, would be unlikely to answer the call to assist in defending those same people. If he has no intention of joining in said defense, then his weapons would fall outside the protection of the 2nd Amendment.

    -Rex Hondo-

  9. I can’t help but follow the trial since Dover is only 30-40 miles from here and it’s being held here in Harrisburg.

    The plaintiffs’ attorney nailed Behe when they pressed him to explain some kind of mechanism for ID and Behe had to admit that he didn’t have one. He was just inches away from admitting that ID is just code for “God did it.” If he had, the school board’s agenda to back door creationism into science class would have been fully exposed for what it is.

    As it stands, I can only hope that the judge is intelligent enough to see their motives for what they are.

  10. I don’t really watch CNN because they have been very sloppy about the way they phrase things in recent years. I only came across that article on the internet because Reuters picked it up.

    So, the fact that they were sloppy with reporting the poll result doesn’t really shock me either. But, the numbers are pretty disturbing for the future of science in this country.

  11. And if the current trend continues, the numbers are only going to get worse, sinc the reasonably intelligent people are being bred out. It’s the fundie nutbars who are having all the kids.

    In another couple of generations, we’re going to have a theocracy with no working knowledge of science and the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. THEN, we’ll see just how bad crusades can get…

    (Note: The above is a knee-jerk worst case scenario. I do hold out SOME hope for the future.)

    -Rex Hondo-

  12. And if the current trend continues, the numbers are only going to get worse, sinc the reasonably intelligent people are being bred out.

    Ah, people have been predicting that for years. Some of the brightest kids I’ve known have come from idiot parents and some of the worst have come from genuinely decent folks.

    But if you’re genuinely worried, do your civic duty and start having as much sex as possible. It’s a thankless job but somebody has to take one for the team. 🙂

    Oh, and happy Halloween, y’all.

  13. Bill, now that you mention it, my first is due in late March. We’re just terrified of the stereotypical child rebelliousness leading to us raising a little republican… 😛

    -Rex Hondo-

  14. Bill, now that you mention it, my first is due in late March. We’re just terrified of the stereotypical child rebelliousness leading to us raising a little republican… 😛

    Just do what I did: get parakeets instead of having children.

    But unlike dogs (or even cats to a degree), birds don’t really listen to a dámņ thing you say, they screech when they like, fly around and šhìŧ where they want… hrm… yeah, sounds alot like a 2 year old, really. 🙂

    Although, these days, my wife and I have to live in fear of not only West Nile (quite the bird-killer), but now bird flu. 🙁

  15. Yeah, but you can’t send parakeets off to college so they can support you in your old age… ;P

    -Rex Hondo-

  18. Hey Peter, congrats! You have been endored by cheap xanax… you’re finally legit!!!!

  19. I don’t think Bonsell has anything to worry about. After, the current talking points from the GOP is that perjury is a bûllšhìŧ charge anyway, right?

    Heck no. they impeached a president over it, remember?

  20. Heck no. they impeached a president over it, remember?

    Well, yes, most of us remember.

    The GOP? I think they’d rather forget since a) they failed, b) the tide may turn.

  21. Oh, I remember it, Bill. Unfornately, the same people who wanted Clinton publically castrated are now saying that the perjury charge against Scooter is bogus.

    Gee, politicians making inconsistant statements based on which one gives their party more advantage? Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Comments are closed.