ChasingBlueSky

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id//16668110/ Gonzales raps 'activist' judges Attorney general says federal jurists should defer to president's will The Associated Press Updated: 7:07 a.m. CT Jan 17, 2007 WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says federal judges are unqualified to make rulings affecting national security policy, ramping up his criticism of how they handle terrorism cases. In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday, Gonzales says judges generally should defer to the will of the president and Congress when deciding national security cases. He also raps jurists who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences.” The text of the speech, scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute, was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. It outlines, in part, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench. “We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.” Challenges to Bush policies Gonzales did not cite any specific activist jurists, or give examples of national security cases, in his prepared text. The Justice Department is appealing an August decision by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, who ruled the government’s warrantless surveillance program unconstitutional and ordered it stopped immediately. The Justice Department appealed her decision and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled that the administration can keep the program in place during the appeal. Attorneys representing terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay are challenging the legality of a law, signed by President Bush in October, that authorizes military trials. Those challenges raise the possibility that trials will be struck down by a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court. Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, has in the past warned about judges who inject their personal beliefs in cases. But his prepared remarks Wednesday mark his sharpest words over concerns about the federal judiciary — the third, and equal, branch of government. Judges who “apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences, they actually reduce the credibility and authority of the judiciary,” Gonzales says. “In so doing, they undermine the rule of law that strengthens our democracy.” Even so, Gonzales characterized efforts to retaliate against unpopular rulings as misguided, noting a failed South Dakota proposal to sue or jail judges for making unpopular court decisions. He also called for Congress to consider increasing the number of federal judges to handle heavy workloads, and to offer them higher salaries to lure and keep the best jurists on the bench. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

So to you, there has not been a single good president from Lincoln on? Not a single one that you thought did any good? See, that's not just jaded, that's oblivious to the bigger picture. I didn't say there wasn't a good president since then. I said it's a flawed environment that partially exists to give financial gains to a small exclusive group. There are too many helping that environment exist in the hopes they can become included. That doesn't meant that good choices and policy haven't happened. This happens on the local side as well. For example: The main county hospital here has been forced to endure 17% sweeping cutbacks over the last year while the bureaucracy that controls it hasn't been impacted....and their salary negatively impacts the budget. So, while the fat cats in Chicago are getting paid, those on state run health programs need to wait 10 hours just to get their meds refilled in an understaffed hospital that refuses to allow overtime....it was a 7 hour wait before the cutbacks. A heart surgery patient was forced to wait three days for the meds recently despite the increased chance of infection and death. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Now that's jaded. So you don't trust the CinC regardless of who they are or were and what their affiliation is? Wouldn't the blame fall more to the military industrial complex and their entire purchasing program? How many pieces of equipment in the military's large warehouses did the president personally choose and approve? Even if they were former military, how many presidents know about every piece of equipment that the pentagon is looking for purchase and what they currently have? Regardless of your arguements, the CinC is less to blame for this then the entire system. Does the president have the ability to change the system? Maybe. Does congress? Yes, most definately. How many different congresses have come and gone since the Civil War? Quite a few. Has it changed? Nope. Why? Politicians are politicians and money walks. There is a lot of money changing hands, jobs for a politician's state, etc. So do they have the power to change it? Yup. Will it be changed? If enough of a stink was raised and the right people were elected. Are the right people Republican or Democrates? Who knows, there's right people and the not right, that's regardless of party affiliation. Yes. Very jaded. I've learned the hard way not to turst in life, love and business. The more power a person has, the less I trust them. Now that my personality flaw/POV is out there... it's a blanket statement that points the finger at the CinC because shit can and does roll uphill in Washington. It's an environment where this sort of thing has been going on for generations. It continues with handshakes, smiles, lunches, ill-spent lobby money, political friendships, etc. It won't ever change because there is too much greed and profit to be had. It doesn't matter how many die along the way. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Because of the Lincoln administration? Wow. Now that's keeping a chip on your shoulder. Nice spin...looking to run for office someday Dave? No, because of the status quo. Because its accepted to allow Americans to die in battle/war so others can profit. Because I could never trust/believe what the Commander is Chief is selling to me on why we are going to war. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

You realize that the same sort of thing has happened in every single war starting with the Civil War. I'm not saying I agree with it, but its not isolated to this war, this administration or this day and age. Its been an on going problem for a LONG time. And people wonder why some are willing to take a court marshall over going to Iraq. And people wonder why I would never trust the government enough to enlist. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

so, corporation contracts/money are more important than saving American troop lives today. That's got to give a nice warm fuzy feeling to our troops in Iraq right now and the possible 21K that may be going over there. In my opinion, the Pentagon is a failure in providing for the troops. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Found this in the paper today....maybe I'm too ignorant to the ways of war....but isn't Israel an ally that shares technology with us? Why wouldn't we use a tested system right now? Why let more troops die? I haven't looked up where these points originate from, but why in my gut do I feel this is connected to a contract to supply the DoD with weapons? News Item: American commanders in Iraq plead for a weapon to protect soldiers from rocket-propelled grenades. News Item: Israel offers a weapon system, already deployed by the Israeli army, that intercepts rocket-propelled grenades with a 98 percent effectiveness rate. News Item: Pentagon blocks testing of Israeli system, instead choosing a favored defense contractor to develop a similar system by 2011. News Item: Two more American soldiers are killed in Iraq by rocket-propelled grenades in the year's first week _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Me thinks you better set the DVR to record Stunt Junkies Sigh... I mean, its cool and all that skydiving and skydivers get more positive public exposure, but couldnt they do at least 1 original, never been done stunt? The motorcycle base jump wasn't original? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

While browsing the site from work, something on DZ.com forums sets off the security alarms on our network and blocks access for periods of time. It warns that is has detected the GDI & JPG buffer overflow vunerability. This doesn't happen on every page so I have to believe it is caused by the images some people use as avatars. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Looks like we will be getting a nice positive push to help keep the internet open http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10net.html Congress to Take Up Net’s Future By STEPHEN LABATON Published: January 10, 2007 WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — Senior lawmakers, emboldened by the recent restrictions on AT&T and the change in control of Congress, have begun drafting legislation that would prevent high-speed Internet companies from charging content providers for priority access. The first significant so-called net neutrality legislation of the new Congressional session was introduced Tuesday by Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of South Dakota, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, one of the few Republicans in Congress to support such a measure. “The success of the Internet has been its openness and the ability of anyone anywhere in this country to go on the Internet and reach the world,” Mr. Dorgan said. “If the big interests who control the pipes become gatekeepers who erect tolls, it will have a significant impact on the Internet as we know it.” In the House, Representative Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, said recently that he would introduce legislation soon and planned to hold hearings. Despite the flurry of activity, the proposals face significant political impediments and no one expects that they will be adopted quickly. But the fight promises to be a bonanza for lobbyists and a fund-raising tool for lawmakers. It pits Internet giants like Google, Yahoo, eBay and Amazon, which support the legislation, against telecommunication titans like Verizon, AT&T and large cable companies like Comcast. The debate may also affect the plans of the companies to develop new services and to consider certain mergers or acquisitions. Consumer groups have allied themselves with content providers. The groups maintain that without the legislation, some content providers would be discouraged from offering services while others would impose costs on providers that would either discourage them from offering new services or pass them on to consumers. They also feel that small companies would be unable to compete. But the telephone and cable companies say that efforts to limit their ability to charge for faster service would discourage the pipeline companies from making billions of dollars in investments to upgrade their networks, and would, as a practical matter, be even more harmful to consumers. Beyond the debate, the fight over net neutrality is, like most regulatory political battles, a fight over money and competing business models. Companies like Google, Yahoo and many content providers do not want to pay for the kinds of faster Internet service that will enable consumers to more quickly download videos and play games. In their thirst to continue to grow rapidly, content providers are looking to expand, but they consider any attempt by the telephone and cable companies to charge them for priority services as restricting their ability to move into new areas. On the other hand, the telephone and cable companies — the so-called Internet pipes — want to be able to charge for access, particularly as they begin competing with content providers by offering their video services and programming. The phone companies have also been studying a business model not unlike that of the cable TV industry: charging premiums to certain content providers for greater access to their pipes. They say that existing rules, as well as sound business judgment, would preclude them from trying to degrade or slow their broadband service and that what they oppose is regulation that would prevent them from charging for offering a faster service. They also point out that many content providers are already charging customers for priority services, so that what they are proposing is not unduly restrictive. While the debate has broken largely along partisan lines — with Democrats among the staunchest supporters and Republicans the biggest foes — there remains considerable Democratic opposition. Last June, a vote on an amendment by Mr. Markey similar to what he plans to introduce failed by 269 to 152, with 58 Democrats voting against the measure. Many of those Democrats have been allied with unions, which have sided with the phone companies because they believe that the lack of restrictions will encourage the companies to invest and expand their networks. In the Senate, where the party in the minority has considerably more power than in the House, the measure suffers from similar political problems. Last year the Republicans blocked the measure from reaching the Senate floor. But several developments have given some momentum to the supporters of the measures. The House is now under the control of the Democrats, and the new speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, has been a vigorous supporter of the legislation. Ms. Pelosi’s district in San Francisco is near Silicon Valley, the home of many companies that have sought the legislation. Moreover, the conditions that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on AT&T as a condition of its acquisition of SBC Communications represented an important political victory for proponents of the legislation. After one of the five members of the commission removed himself from the proceeding, the commission’s two Democrats forced the companies to agree to a two-year moratorium on offering any service that “privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet” transmitted over its broadband service. The conditions imposed no significant immediate costs on AT&T. The company does not yet have the equipment in place on its network to offer a priority service on a large scale. But the conditions imposed by the F.C.C. showed that, contrary to assertions of the phone companies, it was possible to draft language that would preclude the companies from discriminating against providers. The conditions also set a political benchmark of sorts, and gave the supporters of the legislation two years to try to gain more momentum just as all of the companies are trying to figure out their next major sources of revenue. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Interesting to see it takes the change of gov't, several years of war and 3,000 dead Americans before we finally see anything that looks like a plan for Iraq. Also interesting to see his bravado and cowboy-like attitude disapear. The man is full of shit and the only good news as of today is that we are one day closer to his dumbass leaving and someone else coming in. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

If by "iPhone Service", you mean Cingular, then yes. That really crumbles my cookie. GSM in the states isn't that good, and there is no "real" 3G like the CDMA carriers like Verizon or Sprint could offer. So, all the "iPod" features like video etc, aren't going to be conveniently available to that part of the target market that would eat it up... I use Cingular and get broadband via the UMTS network which blows away the EDGE network. I watch the ABC7 news on the train on the way to work, read the sun-times and then listen to XM radio or some MP3's off my 1 gig storage drive. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Go to macworld next year for iphone2minishufflevideopodvoip. Apple will most likely release 5 variations of this phone over the next 5 years. It will not be worth it to be an early adopter when you can get a dozen cell phones that already have 3G broadband (I get XM radio on my phone right now, yes streaming via Cingular) and have access to MP3 music without having to use iTunes DRM services. I'm just not impressed by the Apple iPhone. I'm more impressed by the external 3d video card for laptops thou. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Did you see the game on Saturday vs Dallas? I was very happy when I heard Philly won :p Da Bears will win and somehow Ditka will score the winning touchdown. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

What a terrible, messy football game.....but that made it exciting to watch. I'm glad Philly won so we could play the winner of this game! GO BEARS _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

There are very active, very violent nations out there right now. Some to their own people, the rest to other nations. Which is the greater threat to us? To the balance of peace? Does the body count not matter if our interests are not at stake? If you act on the premise of national defense, even pre-emptive, does that make you violent? Who gets to make this choice of who falls into which category? _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Very true. He is breaking a legal document and will suffer because of that. I doubt there are few that will argue that point. Is it ethical or fair to those that serve with him to ask him to continue against his will? Is it fair or ethical of him to change his mind? I believe the answers to that will be drawn down the civilian/military lines. I've never served, nor would I. My personality just wouldn't work in the military, that I know. But from talking to my brother, father and uncle that all served, I know that this is a subculture that has its own set of socially enforced rules. I doubt that many that fully served or are currently active would ever feel empathy for this guy. Just like I don't ever agree with dayblazers or those that send bounce tapes to the media. So after reading this article and the one I posted, I started to wonder what is the point of these articles? Is it to encourage more insubordination within the ranks? Is it to get more civilians to believe that life in the military isn't as cheerful as the DoD wants us to believe? I think I need to look up more of these articles and try to find why they are reported. I imagine we would see less of these if the administration changed its POV on the war. So my initial guess is that the media is using these men, these stories, to generate more of an anti-Iraq feeling across the country. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

But this "CEO" is being rewarded for failure. Maybe he will run for president. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

The biggest issue with E911 is if your power goes out you can't make a call. With POTS (plain old telephone system) it has it's own power over the copper wire and will work if your power goes down. I personally prefer my cell phone for 911 calls. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I use two Voip programs: Skype and Ventrilo. I've used Skype Outbound to call real phones of friends in the UK over the last year. I'm slowly trying to get a few others to pick it up so I don't need to refesh my account with them. Free is my favorite price. I picked up a leased Ventrilo Server some time ago for gaming. Costs me about $8/month for high quality Voip. The program itself is free and only needs a microphone to use it. The benefit to this? I can easily host up to 100 people at a time talking on it, and I can create virtual rooms on it to seperate conversations (even put passwords on them for private chats). This has become perfect since as my group of friends and family get older we are getting more spread out across the world. I haven't done a cost comparison to buying the server software and hosting it myself...hell, I don't even know if the server software costs anything. The best part is that with my new Logitech G15 Keyboard I can see who is talking on my LCD screen. The major differences between this and skype: Multiple rooms and easy access to party-like chats...plus you need to setup a push-to-talk button. edit: didn't see this was a bumped old post _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

I was half expecting to see a smiley face on your newborn's body! Congrats HH and Mrs HH! _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Found this analogy interesting in light of everything going on with Iraq at the moment (Gates coming in, hitting 3,000 US deaths, Bush looking at making changes). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/timothy-naftali/bush-and-lbj_3366.html The Vietnam analogy, like all historical analogies, has its limits as a source of insight on the Iraq war. There are significant differences between the struggles, not least of which is that with the passage of 30 years military technology and advanced military medicine have reduced significantly the US death toll and therefore the war's political toll. But it still holds value as a window on the limits of presidential leadership. Then as now it was almost impossible for a president to admit any error of judgment in wartime, especially when this could call the entire enterprise into question. The cost to personal reputation, to party and to national morale was potentially staggering. What do you say to the wives, mothers and fathers of the men and women who lost their lives due to a policy failure? On February 1, 1966, while publicly defending the war, Lyndon Johnson privately told Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy that the war in Vietnam was a mistake, but that he was stuck. He taped this conversation and it should forever be an antidote to the fallacy that staying the course is always wise in international affairs. Staying the course makes sense, after all, when the course makes sense: President Johnson: Well I know we oughtn't to be there, but I can't get out. I just can't be the architect of surrender.... I'm willing to do damn near anything. If I told you what I was willing to do, I wouldn't have any program. [Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett] Dirksen wouldn't give me a dollar to operate the war. I just can't operate in a glass bowl with all these things. But I'm willing to do nearly anything a human can do, if I can do it with any honor at all. [You can listen to this conversation in its entirety on whitehousetapes.org, the website of the Miller Center of Public Affairs's Presidential Recordings Program] At the time the President of the United States was admitting that he had sent young men to war for the wrong reason, the comparatively small number of 2,460 had died in Vietnam. This was before a young John McCain and most of the other POWs were taken hostage; indeed before the vast majority of the horrors we now associate with Vietnam had taken place. It is staggering to reflect on the fact that another 55,733 would have to die before the US military could extricate itself from a war that its Commander-in-Chief already knew was a mistake. Put differently, when LBJ was privately admitting error, 95% of the young men who would ultimately die in Vietnam were still alive and well. Since 1973 no US president has secretly taped his conversations, so we may never know what George W. Bush actually believes about the wisdom of the current war in Iraq. Tonight we only heard defiance and determination. But certainly some Republicans and many Democrats consider it a mistake. Johnson complained in 1966 that he needed political cover to pull out of Vietnam. What he would have done had the politics been otherwise is by now a parlor game. But the role that political cover could play in ending the war in Iraq should not be. The current generation of senators and representatives might do worse than listen to the February 1966 conversation and ask themselves whether their predecessors share some of the blame for the additional lives that were lost. The more thoughtful among them might be inspired by this tough question. What would happen if both parties offered Bush the political cover to execute a dignified exit? This administration might stubbornly refuse the offer but future generations will look kindly upon those of both parties who tried to help the Bush administration get out of the Iraqi civil war sooner rather than later. These days the desire for political revenge in Washington is understandably great, but the need for statesmanship is infinitely greater _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

But Gates and the Generals think it is the correct path. Who are you and I to argue? Also, you must admit that some (not you that I know of) bitched saying that Bush should have listend to the Generals before, but are now bitching that he might listen to them now. That is playing both sides. I haven't played both sides. The experts have been talking to him for years, he is only now just listening. I'm more upset thinking that an article like this most likely wouldn't be necessary if he started acting on their advice years ago. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

Shit. The "average man on the street" can't even tell you who the vice president is. Ever watch the Leno man on the street segment? It's freaking scary. Yea...that is entertainment. A TV show that goes out of the way to edit the footage so the typical man on the street looks like an idiot just so they can get a laugh. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....

So do you encourage people to lie if asked? Never. My clients mean more to me in the long run because they pay the bills. If I screw them I lose out on a lot of money. I do reference checks for everyone I recruit so I always know the basic truths. Besides, in my world you don't get to the experience level I am looking to hire by telling lies. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again.....