FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 19, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) I wonder where this is headed. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showuser=3582 I smell future SoxTalker of the Year.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) Cool! My daughter and yours have the same name. Though mine is spelled "Kayleigh". Named after one of my favorite bands biggest hits. I know somebody is a fan of the band if I see the same spelling. I'm pretty sure there is no other name that uses so many different spellings. I know of 5 so far. greed, spelling of that dang name is all over the map. Everyone calls my poor kid see-lee and she spends like half her lief correcting them. She spends the other half of her life cursing her father for the name. Ceili's name is also inspired by a sonng, "Funky Ceili" by Black 47.

They made my great-great grandfather FlaSoxxSaemus change his name at Ellis Island. Seriously, my daughter's name is Ceili (pronounced 'kay-lee'), which is Irish Gaelic for 'dance.' My son's name is Cavan, which is Gaelic for 'handsome,' and is also the County my ancestors managed to get themselves booted from. So their names are borrowed Irish words, although neither of them are traditional names.

SNAKES ON A MOTHERf***ING PLANE, MOTHERf***ERS!! Move over Citizen Kane.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) Colleen Rowley is the agent's name. And, yes, she tried to get the FBI to investigate Moussaui more thoroughly, but the Bureau claimed they couldn't because of FISA limits. But they didn't even try to obtain a warrant for his laptop. I recall they were toying with sending him and his laptop to France where it could be seized and searched, but by then the 9/11 attacks had transpired.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) Yes, I agree with you second paragraph. It is unsubstantiated with what was written within that piece. Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps, just maybe, 4+ years at a constant 'yellow' threat level has been a result of the decision made by the 'Court of Review', as opposed to an occasional upward fluctuation. FISA, and therefore the right to petition the 'Court of Review' was enacted in 1978. I don't see how that in the least bit speculative. Now Jim, I ask you. Will you concede that Bush did not act illegally since he followed the laws and proper procedures spelled out by those laws which were passed in 1978? I apologize for the lull. I had an off-site meeting to go to. I will concede the actions are legal if an actual investiation and/or judicial inquiry was allowed to procede and reached that conclusiona and it passes muster with a critical mass of legal and Constitutional scholars as I am neither. It bugs me that it's taking a Byron York to connect the case law dots that seem to uphold the legality of the program while GWB, Albert Gonzales, Michael Heyden and others have been scrambling to clutch at any straws that would support the legality of the program. Much like tthe proverbial 'solution in search of a problem,' this is a program in perpetual search of legal justification. York may well have stumbled on the best legal justification yet (assuming no version of the program existed before 9/11), but it clearly was not a precident NSA or the White House had in mind from the outset or they would have said so.

We need to remember that "slam dunk" was only specifically used to refer to re: Secret Case, and there has yet to be any serious inquiry into the NSA issue, even if Byron York is correct in seeing preceident here. Your characterization of this 2002 meeting as being two sides laid out for judicial review remains unsubstantiated with what was in thet NR piece. I follow the legal argument presented, but I certainly would like to see it scritinized in specific regard to the NSA program. Even John Yoo has previously noted that constitutional violations of privacy should only be undertaken in the face of imminent terrorist threats. I don't know if 4+ years at constant threat level "yellow" - smackdab in the middle of the scale can be seen as a continued imminent terror threat. As such, doesn't there need to be a sliding range of NSA authority to coincide with threat levels that are not "red" or even "orange"? And as far as GWB or anybody following the laws on the books in establishing the program. If it was launched in some capacity before 9/11 (still speculative at this stage, yes), then those laws would not yet have been on the books.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:01 AM) Not surprising. There was that female agent in Minneapolis as well, who banged on a few too many doors about Moussaoui, and they tried to fire her for it. The FBI is one messed up department. Yeah, I'm blanking on the female agent's name, but I remember her saying her requests to search his laptop were repeatedly denied. Interestingly, given our renewed FISA discussion one thread over, I recall that agent laying a some of the blame on being hamstrunng by FISA.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:35 AM) JIm must be writing a book. Yeah . . . sorry.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) Oh. One more point. The SCOTUS decided not to hear any challanges to this law. That tells me that they consider this to be constitutional and not a worthy challenge. No, even York's piece doesn't go that far in its conclusion. Choosing not to intervene is in no way the same as the same as the Court's upholding a ruling. I don't know that the three justice Court of Review here is necessarily the heart of the problem, but at the same time I disagree with your description that there are two sides being argued in the setting York laid out. In that sense, yes, this does seem a bit of a "kangaroo court". The three justices (Silberman, Leavy, and Guy) are the "super secret appeals court". Solicitor General Theodore Olson (who opined that the FISA ruling was "inexplicable") is obviously arguing from the administration's position. Deputy. AG Thompson, Cheney lawyer David Addington, and John Yoo form Justice are likewise arguing from the administration's position. Are you concluding that the unidentified "few other department staffers" and "one official from the FBI" were there arguing in favor of the lower FISA court opinion?? Do you think an FBI agent who has been hamstrung by FISA restrictions is going to argue in favor of FISA oversight here? Clearly there was no representation of the lower FISA court here, so I disagree with your interpretation of this situation as being two sides of a debate laid out for judicial review. That is not to say I disagree that this can represent some more secure legal footing for the spying program. But, it sadly is another example of the Gonzales "evolving defense." Up until this National Review piece, the Administrations two-pronged evolving defense has relied on the AUMF and inherent constitutional wartime Executive power. In fact, a point was made back in December/Januarythat the Patriot Act was not where the authority derived - in hindsight that was probably said to try to get the Act reauthorized even as the NSA mess continued to blow up. But the central argument here is that Patriot is in fact the origin of this expanded executive power, and FISAs attempt to rein in the White House and NSA flew in the face of the relaxed provisions of Patriot. Some out there are no doubt more familiar with the original provisions of Patriot I. What is the wording of the provision that pulled the rug out from under FISA? If this was such a slam dunk defense of the program, why was it not presented as the legal basis instead of AUMF and the power of the unitary Executive? Moreover, if it does turn out that Michael Hayden of NSA actually initiated some form of the domestic spying program pre-9/11 with tacit support of the adminsitration (as has been alleged, but with frustratingly little mainstream media followup), neither Patriot I, nor the 9/18/2001 AUMF, nor wartime Executive power can be used as a defense. Sure, it's a hypothetical at this stage, but YAS, would you in that situation concede the illegal origins of the program? The NeoCon facets of the GWB administration, including Hayden, wanted the surveillance powers of NSA to be expanded long before they had 9/11 to justify it. If it turns out they took it upon themselves to expand their reach pre-9/11, you can bet they will do their best to obfuscate and cling to 9/11 as justification. And truly I don't see GWB as the one pulling the trigger on decisions like this, merely the titular executive that has to sign off on the programs. But if you surround yourself with vipers you are going to get bit.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:43 AM) Here's your answer, Jim. The solid legal basis for the administration’s surveillance program. Thanks. Let me read through this and I'll let you know if I become convinced as well.

It really seems like nothing Maussaoui could have said would have got the FBI off their asses to actually investigate him. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui I heard a radio news report today that Samit made at least 70(!!) requests to his superiors in the 4 weeks between Maussaoui's arrest and 9/11 to search his place and investigate concerns of Maussaoui's roommate that he was radical Islamic extremist bent on terrorism. That's more than 3 requests a day during 4 work weeks. All requests to conduct an investigation were denied. Untill after 9/11, that is.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 05:51 AM) What is hilariously funny about this while censure thing is that the President DID NOTHING ILLEGAL! A serious question, YAS. You were one of the people who were on record as being as incensed as anybody over the original allegations when they broke. You reasonably decided you would wait for some more facts before passing final judgement. You seem to have concluded that the spying was not illegal, so what specific facts emeregd to bring you to that conclusion? Are you satisfued that any power for the Executive to do this derives from the September 18 AUMF, even when there has been a strong bipartisan voice from Congress stating that no such authorization was implied? Or have you become fairly convinced that this is within the power of the Executive during wartime - even to the degree that existing FISA mechanisms be ignored (not fixed or legally challenged, simply ignored)? Are you comfortable with the Atty General's calm admission that the White House defense of the NSA program is an "evolving defense", rather than an established one they feel they have any secure legal footing with? These are sincere questions, not an attempt to start a fight. Your outrage at the alleged domestic spying has been sufficiently addressed to the point where you believe "NOTHING ILLEGAL" was done. What substantive evidence for the program's legality has made you so confident? DeWine, Snowe, et al, have done such a good job making sure the legally of the program was never really scrutinized yet you seem to still have been able to conclude no illegality on the part of the administration or NSA. What have you seen that I have not?

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) County Kerry is my dad's home county! Yup, the Cardinal said it is okay to eat meat, just try to sacrifice in some other way. Happy St Patrick's to all of ya! Like no vinegar on your cabbage – a mighty sacrifice indeed!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 04:21 PM) I'd like to ressurect Aldo Leopold. Anyone have a Ouija Board? Aldo!

QUOTE(samclemens @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) man, you guys are so right! what bush really should have done is to reanimate rachel carson and appoint her. I'd happily settle for Bruce Babbit.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 09:16 AM) Have a fun, safe time everyone.....especially SSI-71 Cheers brother By the way, is the word Celtic pronounced Seltic and is in the pro basketball team, or Keltic as in the style of music? True or false? Budweiser outsells Guinness in Ireland. Slainte'!! Celtic with a K sound, definately. With the crap tastes of the young folk I wouldn't be surprised if Bud is outselling Guinness, at least in urban centers in Ireland. Same thing is happening to cask ale sales in England and if not for the Campaign for Real Ale consumer advocate group, cask conditioned ale would likely be extinct.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 08:57 AM) African Queen. That movie rocks. The cool points have been awarded accordingly. Honorable mention to YAS.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) I sold the biggest single cabin cruise of my career today. One couple, one cabin. Almost 20 grand. Did you ask if they would adopt you? What's your commission on a sale like that?

That is really cool. Losing all those live oaks that give the region so much of its character is so sad. This is a great way to have at least a little something positive come of it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 07:08 PM) Bush announced his replacement for Norton today: Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne. As usual, his environmental record is, shall we say, pro-business (Knight-Ridder piece hosted by Common Dreams) Interesting press release from the League of Conservation Voters. Yeah, I wasn't hoping for much. And of course, not much is exactly what we are getting. . . :banghead

G&T andf Balta, you are right about humans having the intellectual capacity to not be slaves to the every whim of their selfish genes. As Kate Hepburn says in one of my favorite films, "Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we are put in this world to rise above." (Cool points will be awarded if you know the film). My quick rundown of the comparison of the relative energetic cost of gametes and degree of parental care in males versus females across a range of species was intended to show some of the bases of behind differential approaches to monogamy between the sexes. As long as sperm is cheap and the male is not locked into a lot of parental care, the selfish genes will push for promiscuity and will not be particularly choosy. As for the degree of mammalian parental care males contribute after birth, you don't have to go very far to see humans are the exception and not the rule. Even within the great apes, infanticide is common if a dominant male believes the offspring his mate is caring for is not his. This is one of those cases where estrus is actually suppressed in nursing females, but if the dominant male bashes the bastard baby against a rock and kills it, the female stops nursing, soon comes into estrus and becomes receptive to that male (even though he killed her baby).

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) I don't remember where I heard it, but it seems to fit here... Women want one man to fill their every need. Men want every women to fill their one need. Ain't that the truth. Although, yes, man can and sometimes does rise above his base nature. There are some absolutely concrete biological bases for these intuitive differences between men and women. For both sexes, bear in mind that the genes are "selfish", and the goal of the genes (to anthropomorphize) is to get as many copies of themselves as possible into the vessels (individuals) of successive generations. For males (males of most mammals really), sperm is energetically cheap and plentiful, there no intrinsic energy investment in brooding and often little in parental care, and there is little ecological negative consequence for making incorrect mating decisions (human STDs notwithsttanding). Therefore, a biological impetus to mate as much as possible and as diversely as possible is a natuarl result. For females, on the other hand, eggs are energetically expensive (women only produce a dozen or so a year, as opposed to maybe 500,000,000 sperm in a single male ejaculate), and the commitment to gestation and post-birth parental cere is enormous (in many mammals estrus is suppressed as long as the female is already nursing an offspring). Since a female is only going to pass genes into a handful of offspring in her reprodctivve lifetime (as opposed to the biological capacity for males to sire hundreds of offspring at very little energetic cost), she will make her mate pairing decisions much more carefully. That sets the stage for mate selection by females based on elaborate courtship rituals or ritualized fighting between males. Ideally the winning suitor is demonstrating some manifestation of the "fitness" of his genes, ane female choice in pairing with that individual will, again ideally, result in the passing of those fit genes to the offspring and an increased likelyhood that the females own selfish genes will benefit by being passed by these fit offspring to the next generation.

I guess this is the exclaimation point on today's official reaffirmation on the Bush Doctrine of preemption, to kind of get Iran's attention. After all, Condi says they're "the central banker of terrorism." Makes one wonder what we've been doing the last three years, huh?

From Raw Story: Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives. Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution. Full article: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Congress...ident_0315.html Excerpts from Waxman