From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
Skip to next paragraph
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
How can the Constitution give the president the power to break the law? Here's McCain six months ago:
Mr. McCain was asked whether he believed that the president had constitutional power to conduct surveillance on American soil for national security purposes without a warrant, regardless of federal statutes.
He replied: “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”
Following up, the interviewer asked whether Mr. McCain was saying a statute trumped a president’s powers as commander in chief when it came to a surveillance law. “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law,” Mr. McCain replied.
Which is it Senator McCain? Why the flip-flop? The Straight-Talk Express is off the rails. Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for McCain's campaign, says the senator's position has not changed.
I report; you decide.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Catholic Parrots
A lady goes to her priest one day and tells him, 'Father, I have a problem. I have two female parrots,
But they only know how to say one thing.'
'What do they say?' the priest inquired.
They say, 'Hi, we're hookers! Do you want to have some fun?'
'That's obscene!' the priest exclaimed. Then he thought for a moment. 'You know,' he said, 'I may have a solution to your problem. I have two male talking parrots, which I have taught to pray and read the Bible. Bring your two parrots over to my house, and we'll put them in the cage with Frank and Peter. My parrots can teach your parrots to praise and worship, And your parrots are sure to stop saying...that phrase...in no time.'
'Thank you,' the woman responded, 'this may very well be the solution.'
The next day, She brought her female parrots to the priest's house. As he ushered her in, she saw that his two male parrots were inside their cage holding rosary beads and praying. Impressed, She walked over and placed her parrots in with them. After a few minutes, the female parrots cried out in unison:
'Hi, we're hookers! Do you want to have some fun?'
There was stunned silence. Shocked, one male parrot looked over at the other male parrot and exclaimed, 'Put the beads away, Frank. Our prayers have been answered!'
Thursday, June 5, 2008
From Grandpère's Garden
Missing from the picture are bell peppers and corn. We forgot the bell peppers, and we had eaten all the ripe corn. He picks the tomatoes when they are just short of being fully ripened, because a mocking bird is after them. He tries leaving those she/he has already pecked a hole in on the plants, but she goes after tomatoes she has not touched. It's a battle between them.
Squirrels were taking whole ears of ripened corn off the stalks - and they knew the ripe ones. Grandpère set the squirrel trap (they do not harm the squirrels) and caught two and carried them into the woods near us to release them. No more problems with the corn. I wouldn't have thought the small squirrels could carry off a whole ear of corn.
We feed birds in our yard, but squirrels get their share of the bird food, and sometimes we are overrun with too many of the little critters. The fresh produce is delicious, out of this world. There's nothing like it.
Toilet Trouble On The Space Station
From Yahoo News:
HOUSTON - The international space station's toilet trouble appeared to be taken care of Wednesday after a Russian cosmonaut replaced a malfunctioning pump.
The space station's toilet broke two weeks ago. The problem — confined to the urine side of the commode — forced the orbiting outpost's crew of an American astronaut and two Russian cosmonauts to flush manually with extra water several times a day.
Better the urine side than the other side. The Discovery delivered a replacement pump which Oleg Kononenko installed and tested.
The toilet worked normally. It transports urine via air flow to the pump, which separates the gas and liquid.
"Let's start using it," Russian Mission Control told Kononenko, one of the two Russians living aboard the space station. "We'll keep our fingers crossed."
Kononenko was asked to give periodic reports on how the toilet was working.
Please report. We need to know. I'm sure that the inhabitants of the station are relieved.
HOUSTON - The international space station's toilet trouble appeared to be taken care of Wednesday after a Russian cosmonaut replaced a malfunctioning pump.
The space station's toilet broke two weeks ago. The problem — confined to the urine side of the commode — forced the orbiting outpost's crew of an American astronaut and two Russian cosmonauts to flush manually with extra water several times a day.
Better the urine side than the other side. The Discovery delivered a replacement pump which Oleg Kononenko installed and tested.
The toilet worked normally. It transports urine via air flow to the pump, which separates the gas and liquid.
"Let's start using it," Russian Mission Control told Kononenko, one of the two Russians living aboard the space station. "We'll keep our fingers crossed."
Kononenko was asked to give periodic reports on how the toilet was working.
Please report. We need to know. I'm sure that the inhabitants of the station are relieved.
My Friend Trudy
Yesterday, my friend Trudy was featured in the "Adventures in Reading" series in the "Living" (as opposed to the dead?) section of the Times-Picayune:
TRUDY McFARLAND
Co-owner of The Pearl Restaurant and retired librarian
Yes, another librarian. As Lisa at My Manner of Life observes, we librarians are all hotties. Katrina and the federal flood drowned two of Trudy's houses in Lakeview in New Orleans, her own and a rental house across the street. She had a rough time of it afterwards, and somehow we lost touch. I had no phone number nor email address. I had her home address, but I never got around to writing. Shame on me. It never occurred to me to call her at the restaurant. How silly of me.
Trudy and I met in Santa Fe at a Jane Austen conference a good many years ago. (Note: there are quite a few crazies who attend these conferences, along with the nominally sane. We classed ourselves with the nominally sane and stayed together.) She and another Jane fan from New Orleans and I hung out during the conference, and they took me along on a ride in a rental car to Taos and to visit the Native Ameircan Pueblos nearby.
As I told Paul, the BB, who loves his desert home, I believe that, like a swamp plant, I would die if I had to move to the desert. My apologies to all those who love the desert, Santa Fe, and Taos. The magic didn't happen for me, nor for my two new friends from New Orleans. We were wilting in the desert.
As for the Pueblos, the buildings were amazing, but it was one of the most depressing places I have ever been. Perhaps the sadness of generations of Native Americans hovers over them. I know a little of how strong the sense of place is to Native Americans and of the sacredness of the burial places of their ancestors, so many of which have been destroyed by the European newcomers who preyed upon them. It seemed a little obscene to visit as tourist and gawk.
But I digress. Back to the Trudy in the newspaper:
Have you ever had a romantic encounter that was generated by a book? Once, on a first date, the man walked in and I had a beautiful dog and he said, "What's her name?" I said, "Glencora." And he reached down to pet her and he said, "Glencora, have you found your Burgo Fitzgerald yet?"
And I thought 'Hmmm,' a successful businessman who reads Trollope. I was extremely impressed. We dated for about a year.
I would have been impressed, too, but for that to have happened to me, I would have had to name a pet after a character in a Trollope novel. My pet names turn out to be pretty pedestrian. We had one cat named "Boy", I suppose simply because he was a male.
Is there a writer who has shaped your way of seeing the world? Jane Austen has. But I've been reading her through so many years of my life -- from age 12 or 13 -- that sometimes I have trouble separating her sensibilities from mine.
Yes, absolutely. I'd say the same.
Jane's characters move me. I understand them. I understand their lives, their motivations. And then on top of that, she makes me laugh. I have a weakness for people who make me laugh.
Again, in that we are soul sisters. If you have read this blog for any length of time, you know that I have a weakness for people who make me laugh.
And now, I am going to call my friend.
TRUDY McFARLAND
Co-owner of The Pearl Restaurant and retired librarian
Yes, another librarian. As Lisa at My Manner of Life observes, we librarians are all hotties. Katrina and the federal flood drowned two of Trudy's houses in Lakeview in New Orleans, her own and a rental house across the street. She had a rough time of it afterwards, and somehow we lost touch. I had no phone number nor email address. I had her home address, but I never got around to writing. Shame on me. It never occurred to me to call her at the restaurant. How silly of me.
Trudy and I met in Santa Fe at a Jane Austen conference a good many years ago. (Note: there are quite a few crazies who attend these conferences, along with the nominally sane. We classed ourselves with the nominally sane and stayed together.) She and another Jane fan from New Orleans and I hung out during the conference, and they took me along on a ride in a rental car to Taos and to visit the Native Ameircan Pueblos nearby.
As I told Paul, the BB, who loves his desert home, I believe that, like a swamp plant, I would die if I had to move to the desert. My apologies to all those who love the desert, Santa Fe, and Taos. The magic didn't happen for me, nor for my two new friends from New Orleans. We were wilting in the desert.
As for the Pueblos, the buildings were amazing, but it was one of the most depressing places I have ever been. Perhaps the sadness of generations of Native Americans hovers over them. I know a little of how strong the sense of place is to Native Americans and of the sacredness of the burial places of their ancestors, so many of which have been destroyed by the European newcomers who preyed upon them. It seemed a little obscene to visit as tourist and gawk.
But I digress. Back to the Trudy in the newspaper:
Have you ever had a romantic encounter that was generated by a book? Once, on a first date, the man walked in and I had a beautiful dog and he said, "What's her name?" I said, "Glencora." And he reached down to pet her and he said, "Glencora, have you found your Burgo Fitzgerald yet?"
And I thought 'Hmmm,' a successful businessman who reads Trollope. I was extremely impressed. We dated for about a year.
I would have been impressed, too, but for that to have happened to me, I would have had to name a pet after a character in a Trollope novel. My pet names turn out to be pretty pedestrian. We had one cat named "Boy", I suppose simply because he was a male.
Is there a writer who has shaped your way of seeing the world? Jane Austen has. But I've been reading her through so many years of my life -- from age 12 or 13 -- that sometimes I have trouble separating her sensibilities from mine.
Yes, absolutely. I'd say the same.
Jane's characters move me. I understand them. I understand their lives, their motivations. And then on top of that, she makes me laugh. I have a weakness for people who make me laugh.
Again, in that we are soul sisters. If you have read this blog for any length of time, you know that I have a weakness for people who make me laugh.
And now, I am going to call my friend.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
"Being There"
If you are not regularly reading Barkings of an Old Dog, you are missing very good to brilliant posts. I recommend especially his recent posts, Being There, a conversation between KJS and Rowan, the Gardner, and "Lambeth Calling", a song. It happens that my name is mentioned in one of them, but that has nothing to do with the recommendation.
Clumber is an amazingly clever old dog.
Who's Invited, Who's Not?
In the comments to my post on Bishop Jerry Lamb, interim bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in California, receiving his invitation to Lambeth, a couple of us wondered if -John-David Schofield, deposed bishop of the diocese, would retain his invitation to the meeting. The Living Church has been told that he has - as bishop of what territory, I can't say. He's now a bishop in the Archdiocese of the Southern Cone, but he is still in California, trying to hold on to assets that rightfully belong to the Episcopal Church.
Meanwhile, Bishop Gene Robinson, the duly elected and consecrated bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, has not been invited to Lambeth. He will, nevertheless, be present at Lambeth, although he will not be welcome at the meetings. Bishop Robinson is not invited because he is open and honest about being gay and partnered.
Meanwhile, Bishop Gene Robinson, the duly elected and consecrated bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, has not been invited to Lambeth. He will, nevertheless, be present at Lambeth, although he will not be welcome at the meetings. Bishop Robinson is not invited because he is open and honest about being gay and partnered.
Come Together!
Jdodsonvls attended a town meeting with Sen. Robert Wexler in Boca Raton, Florida. At the meeting was a group of mainly Hillary Clinton supporters, Jewish retirees and Hispanics, an older crowd. Wexler was an Obama supporter before the delegate count sealed the deal. When he voiced his support for Obama, at the meeting, there was polite applause, some cheers and some booing. When he was questioned as to why he went against the will of most of his constituents to support Obama, he replied that, although it's important to represent his constituents, he must include his own best judgment in making decisions. When he was asked why he supported Obama over Clinton, he said the following.
From Jdodsonvls's Diary at Daily Kos:
"I support Barack Obama because he showed better judgment on the Iraq War, because he has remained more forcefully against it. I support him because of his stand on ethics reform, and commitment to engaging our enemies. I support him because he speaks truth to power. He spoke in front of a largely Cuban-American organization in Miami. Everyone has told this organization the same thing for 40 years. 'We're going to continue the embargo against Cuba, no monetary remittances there, no anything.' Whether or not it works, that's all any politician dares to say. Obama suggested to them we engage with Raul Castro, and take steps towards ending the embargo. Obama told a crowd in Detroit that we should increase fuel efficiency standards, and he told members of Martin Luther King's church in Atlanta that we all share some of the blame for some of the race problems in America today."
I quote these words, not to divide, but as my small contribution to attempt to bring us together. Obama is the nominee. Clinton supporters are deeply disappointed, and some are bitter, because they feel that she was not treated fairly. I understand that. But let's keep our eyes on the prize, the presidency of the United States. Our very survival as a country that in any way resembles the ideals of our Founding Fathers is at stake here. We simply cannot have four years of another Republican in office. Only if you were pleased with the way our country has been governed for the last seven and a half years, can you think that the election is unimportant.
Neither Obama nor Clinton was my first choice, nor my second choice, nor probably even my third choice. But Obama is the nominee. Make no mistake. I do not see him as the Second Coming, someone who will be our savior. We will have to save ourselves, even if we elect a Democrat for president and larger Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. We will need to be vigilant and goad the Democrats to do the right thing, because coming to power has strange effects on people, and they may not follow through in the ways we would like.
If you want years more of war, torture, violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the president and members of his administration, 45 million people with no health insurance, disdain for combating climate change, then you can conclude that it's not important to elect a Democrat. If you're not concerned about who is appointed to the Supreme Court, then you can conclude that it's not important who wins the election.
Where I live, I've heard ignorant spouting off about both Clinton and Obama before last night. This is McCain territory in the coming election, but I also hear not a few say they do not like McCain, and that they will sit out the election. Since, if they did vote, they would likely vote for McCain, I say, "Good!" There is little in the way of excitement or enthusiasm about McCain. The votes will be against Obama.
As I watched Obama's speech last night, I saw a crowd electric with excitement, the likes of which I have not seen in recent years. I believe that we will see engagement in the political process by many first-time voters, who will show up at the polling places on election day. They will be there because they have hope. The purpose of this post is to bring hope, not that we will be in the Promised Land if Democrats are elected, but hope for a change in direction from the criminal, immoral, and destructive path we walk now. You'd have difficulty finding someone more jaded about politics in this country than I, but here I am speaking out for unity and engagement. Do with the words what you will.
UPDATE: The text of Obama's speech last night is here.
From Jdodsonvls's Diary at Daily Kos:
"I support Barack Obama because he showed better judgment on the Iraq War, because he has remained more forcefully against it. I support him because of his stand on ethics reform, and commitment to engaging our enemies. I support him because he speaks truth to power. He spoke in front of a largely Cuban-American organization in Miami. Everyone has told this organization the same thing for 40 years. 'We're going to continue the embargo against Cuba, no monetary remittances there, no anything.' Whether or not it works, that's all any politician dares to say. Obama suggested to them we engage with Raul Castro, and take steps towards ending the embargo. Obama told a crowd in Detroit that we should increase fuel efficiency standards, and he told members of Martin Luther King's church in Atlanta that we all share some of the blame for some of the race problems in America today."
I quote these words, not to divide, but as my small contribution to attempt to bring us together. Obama is the nominee. Clinton supporters are deeply disappointed, and some are bitter, because they feel that she was not treated fairly. I understand that. But let's keep our eyes on the prize, the presidency of the United States. Our very survival as a country that in any way resembles the ideals of our Founding Fathers is at stake here. We simply cannot have four years of another Republican in office. Only if you were pleased with the way our country has been governed for the last seven and a half years, can you think that the election is unimportant.
Neither Obama nor Clinton was my first choice, nor my second choice, nor probably even my third choice. But Obama is the nominee. Make no mistake. I do not see him as the Second Coming, someone who will be our savior. We will have to save ourselves, even if we elect a Democrat for president and larger Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. We will need to be vigilant and goad the Democrats to do the right thing, because coming to power has strange effects on people, and they may not follow through in the ways we would like.
If you want years more of war, torture, violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the president and members of his administration, 45 million people with no health insurance, disdain for combating climate change, then you can conclude that it's not important to elect a Democrat. If you're not concerned about who is appointed to the Supreme Court, then you can conclude that it's not important who wins the election.
Where I live, I've heard ignorant spouting off about both Clinton and Obama before last night. This is McCain territory in the coming election, but I also hear not a few say they do not like McCain, and that they will sit out the election. Since, if they did vote, they would likely vote for McCain, I say, "Good!" There is little in the way of excitement or enthusiasm about McCain. The votes will be against Obama.
As I watched Obama's speech last night, I saw a crowd electric with excitement, the likes of which I have not seen in recent years. I believe that we will see engagement in the political process by many first-time voters, who will show up at the polling places on election day. They will be there because they have hope. The purpose of this post is to bring hope, not that we will be in the Promised Land if Democrats are elected, but hope for a change in direction from the criminal, immoral, and destructive path we walk now. You'd have difficulty finding someone more jaded about politics in this country than I, but here I am speaking out for unity and engagement. Do with the words what you will.
UPDATE: The text of Obama's speech last night is here.
Have You Heard?
The suspense is over, and MadPriest scooped the US press with the news. What a surprise! Even to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)