It's been some time now on the new format, and although the most egregious problems have been ironed out, I'm still irritated with the new site. Fully half of my screen space (at 1600x1200) is just empty, and on the front page another 20% is taken up by an advertisement column.  Most diaries cause my right-side menu to shift all the way down to the bottom of the page, which is just weird and irritating.  

While skin support has been long-promised, including a wide version of the current skin, it hasn't materialized yet. It's not a big issue, but at this point I really would have preferred the old interface until a wide version of the new interface is available.

What errors have you found? Try to post errors and not just gripes.

The big complaint about the recent Kelo vs. New London eminent domain decision by the SCOTUS is that it seemed unlimited- that the only justification necessary to employ eminent domain, re: Kelo, was that it could conceivably benefit the city's tax base. Or rather, that the application of eminent domain be left entirely to the whim of local government.  On this basis, many liberals were and are exceedingly angry about the decision, including myself.  It seemed about as corp-friendly as a law could be.

However, this doesn't seem to be the case.  Whenever these legal issues come up, I check out the legal blogs- and now I find that was an exceedingly good idea. I'm basically paraphrasing this next bit from SCOTUSblog.

There wasn't just the majority opinion and the dissent in Kelo, there was a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy.  This concurring opinion does, in fact, place limits that can be argued in court on the application of eminent domain. Though it's not the majority opinion, it can be considered valid because Justice Kennedy's vote can be said to be 'controlling'.

[quote after the jump]

Caught a news article off MSNBC, who posted it from the wire:

"Student claims school's broadcasts disrespect country"

I write this diary in order to respond to a concept I saw again and again in BooMan23's diary, Christopher Hitchens thinks the OHIO VOTE WAS STOLEN".  Namely, that since the Republicans screwed with the Ohio vote, this magically translate to Bush having lost the nationwide popular vote as well.

First things first; when you are alleging election fraud in the oldest Democracy on the planet, the burden of proof is on you. You try going on national TV and start talking about how Bush actually lost the election, conspiracy..etc... you'll be laughed out of the studio. Stick with what you have firm support for. If you cannot pick apart Hannity's mocking and false response to this... don't even try.  A quick refutation with facts is all that will work. The amount of hay that the Right could make with one 'wacko' statement that is not verifiable is untold. SEE: "Memogate".

Moving on to factual stuff below the fold.

I've noticed something.  You're only supposed to rate 1s or 2s if something is a troll or marginal acceptable.  If its something that you think is boneheadedly wrong, though, you arn't supposed to rate at all.  3s and 4s are theoretically rated for cogent, interesting or funny comments, but most of the time a 4 rating boils down to "I agree enthusiastically."  Which leads to comments that you might think are boneheaded getting many fours, but of necessity you cannot rate them a one (because that is reserved for 'Troll') or a two (because CW is that being mistaken is not sufficient grounds for a 2).

It seems to me that ratings of 1 being troll-rates is completely unnecessary, for any actual troll is immediately barraged with zeros.

Whatever one thinks of the despicable attempt of the Bush Administration to deflect blame for the vile crimes at Abu Ghraib, Charles Graner is a piece of work.

Though you may not know his name, you will know his face. Graner is the mustached man who appears in many photographs with Lynnie England.

On Thursday, the defense rested. Today, closing arguments will be made and a jury of four officers and six senior enlisted men will begin deliberations.

A bit of a rant.

    I have come to the realization that the Chimp's Hour of Truth will soon be upon him.  The US Military is stretched to the breaking point, and they can't stay there forever.  The January elections will be a sham and (worse in the view of the Administration) will be widely seen as a sham in both Iraq and the media.  Even optimists will probably admit that the best headline that will come out of Iraq will be 'Violence Mars Elections'.

    On top of all that, Bush is pushing Social Security privatization, and hard, and the signs seem to be that he just doesn't have the support to get it done if the Democrats push back on it.  It is a long term item anyways, and as an issue it will soon fade into the background compared to the coming shitstorm.

Underinformed young voter that I am, I did not know Puerto Ricans could not vote in the Presidential election.  This decision was upheld on Oct 14., with a 3-member panel of the First Circuit Court ruling that "Under First Circuit precedent, a panel such as ourselves is bound in the present circumstances by a prior panel's ruling. Only the en banc court, i.e. all the judges of the First Circuit sitting together, can alter a prior panel precedent."

In retrospect, the basic reasoning is obvious.  The people don't elect the President; States do.  There is no intrinsic right to vote in the Presidential election as determined in the Constitution. That makes perfect legal sense. Personally, I think it's a load of horse hockey on the level of the 3/5ths compromise creating a legal basis for slavery.  The prime argument, however, is that Puerto Ricans pay no federal income tax on island sources.  This, of course, somehow denies them basic U.S. rights.  A man who pays virtually no income tax by accounting wizardy can still vote. Those entrapped in severe poverty can still vote. I mean, come on.

Conversely, there is a right to representation, and frankly the frontier expansion with its subsequent concerns with statehood and representation are far behind us.  Furthermore, Washington D.C. residents which also don't live in a state DO have a say in the Presidential election.  Why would US citizensliving in one none-state be able to vote but not ones living in another state?  Both have none-voting delagates to Congress, after all.  Furthermore, Puerto Rico residents are subject to military draft. In World War II, 62,000 served. In Korea, 43,000 served, 40,000 of whom were volunteers.

This one is termed "The One-Party Apocalyptic State".

Link.

This is how pseudo-fascism works: It's not real fascism. A real fascist would speak explicitly of rounding up liberals and sending them off to concentration camps. Pseudo-fascists don't; they offer instead a pale imitation that only hints at such action. And then they claim it's just a joke.

The real problem with this is that a lot of other movement conservatives say the same sort of thing -- and no one thinks for a moment they're joking.

From cnn.com:

Two large explosions shake central Baghdad near national theater, causing unknown number of casualties. Details soon.

& Thanks PLS:

Two car bombs went off near a Christian church. After the first car bomb went off the Iraqis responded to the scene, started trying to establish order when the second car bomb went off. They are talking alot about wether Christians are now going to be targets, and the new stratigie of setting of one bomb to bring out the sequirity forces and then blowing them up too.

Occasionally I visit the site "RenewAmerica.us", noted for its total nutcases. These often provide hilarious comedy relief. Many things they posit are so wrong as to literally hurt my head (or maybe its because I pounded it on the desk, but anyways.)

So imagine my surprise when I visit there and the first three columns (discounting founder Alan Keyes) were semi-reasonable! A column by Sean Turner discusses the phenomenon of "Activist Judges" reasonably, the usually-reliable David Hines notes the surreality of politics today,  and Matt Abbot publishes a reader's letter on lesser evil.  

Of course then I got to Jan Ireland.

Now that Bush-Cheney has circulated a proposal including deep cuts for U.S. Veterans, they deemed it important to post the following announcement to their campaign website: Rolling Thunder Endorses President George W. Bush.

Who is Rolling Thunder? A Veterans group that also endorsed Bush in 2000.

(FREE PRESS) -- REPUBLICANS today decried the broadcast of Shurgim H. Blau's program on Armed Forces Radio, the taxpayer-funded radio station. Russell Melvin, the director of Armed Forces Radio & Television Services, disagreed, stating that "Blau's program has been broadcast on AFR for over a decade" and that its "spectacular ratings warranted its inclusion".  Mr. Blau's program, reaching an audience of 8 million weekly, is aired for an hour each day on AFR.

Blau has been criticized by the conservative watchdog group America Matters.  Spokesman Reilly O'Bill stated that "Blau's hate mongering must stop. He regularly compares Republicans to Nazis and Stalin; incites violence against poor family farmers; and repeatedly accuses [Republican presidential candidate] McBane of the murder of the late Senator Paul Wellstone."