Not that it will ever be relevent but...

How do you feel about objectivism if it were to mean that you believed the left was objectively right, instead of ayn rand's view that the right was objectively right? Do you believe that open mindedness and liberalism go hand in hand? If so, what does that make me?

So I was coming out of the dentist the other day after getting my teeth cleaned when suddenly i noticed that some jackass has peeled a bumper sticker off my car that said "Enough is enough. Vote democratic" What do I do about this?

Just an article I thought you guys might enjoy.

Again, I have no doubt that there were crimes committed. But that by itself doesn't turn the Congress into a criminal court, or its investigation into a criminal investigation.

That's something that can only be done in court, and conducted by prosecutors. Congress isn't a court, and it doesn't prosecute anything (except inherent contempt).

I don't need any further proof of criminality. Neither do you. The point is that if you and I become convinced that crimes were committed, and you and I investigate them, that doesn't make our work a "criminal investigation" for the purposes of a federal court.

(more below the fold, well worth clicking.)

The blogs have done some incredible things, so why are even the senators we're proud of scared to do the right thing?

X-posted at mydd.

It seems that the Bush administration has promised to fight any subpoena of White House advisors all the way to the Supreme Court. The inherent problem with this is that by the time it gets before the courts, it will be too late: Bush will have left office or his term will be so close to over that accountability will only come in the form of criminal charges in the normal sense. I am infuriated at this attempt to utterly obstruct justice and throw it upon the courts, which they hope they have biased in their favor. How unfair is that? Are we just going to sit here and take that kind of abuse of power used merely to firewall themselves from Justice? So I started to make some phone calls and at one point got reach of a staffer at the House Judiciary Committee to ask him about what I had heard about using the sergeat-at-arms to enforce the law if the DOJ refused. What I was told was that the committee was considering this option. This leads me to believe that they’ve beaten all of us to the punch on this idea. I'm pretty optimistic that this is the route that will be taken.

regarding using the house sergeant-at-arms

with bush willing to utterly subvert the seperations of power and obstruct justice without any realistic definition, the time has come. It might have no realistic chance of passing, but the long term damage done to the republican establishment will ultimately prove worth it.

"But this is America!" Is a common argument I often have waged against me in the course of a debate. Whenever I try to make a statement for instance about why our economy needs regulation in interest of the consumers. I've found people often act like you're alienating their rights or that you're a communist if you aren't a pro-business zealot. I began to think that some questioning of the moral fabric of this deserved some looking into.