Link: http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/1994-06-23/news/feature.html

On 2nd February 1999, Kay Bailey Hutchison had this to say about the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton:

[S]omething needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history.
I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way.

Now let us see what she is saying today. From 23rd October 2005:

Ms. Hutchison said she hoped “that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”

Everybody repeat after me: Hypocritical, contradictory nonsense

Here's an interesting article about some of the past behaviour of our Texas senator...

On November 8th, Texas voters (not including my good self since I don't have the vote - yet) will be voting on a number of amendments to the Texas Constitution.
The summaries on the ballot paper tell you nothing about the real substance of the amendments. Those of you who read my other blog postings will already know about Proposition #2, which seeks to institutionalize discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. However, some of the other propositions also sound mighty weird.
This summary from a Texas House Representative may help you to understand more about the proposed amendments.

Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article322161.ece

After the publication of the US Senate Committee report, which effectively charges George Galloway with perjury, Galloway predictably has come out swinging, daring the committee to file charges against him.
It's always interesting to watch political players when they get locked into public grandstanding. If the US does decide to charge Galloway, then his next visit to Washington will be compelling viewing. If he does (to use an old expression) know where some of the bodies are buried, then any attempt to charge him with criminal activity could backfire on the current US administration. Galloway has shown that he is no pushover, and he is quite prepared to go to court to defend himself.

Link: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/25/14513/101

Lost in the charges and counter-charges being bandied about last year in the election campaign about the military service of George W Bush and John Kerry was any discussion of what both men might have learned from their military service.
Since, as far as I can tell, Bush never left US soil on military service, my instinct was that he had learned a limited amount.
This diary from DailyKos explains how, based on his actions in life and politics, it is probable that our current President learnt very little from his military service.

On September 26th, I posted the following:

4. Kicker Short Leash Competition
#1 - following his miss on Sunday, Doug Brien, fired by the Jets last year after missing in the playoffs, is on a very short leash at Chicago. Expect him to be given the order of the size 10 in short order if his kicking does not improve.
#2 - Jose Cortez of the Cowboys cannot be too high in Bill Parcells' estimation right now. He missed a short field goal on Sunday, and has never looked like a good long-range kicker. Watch for the Cowboys to audition kickers soon, or possibly bring back Billy Cundiff after week 6 if Cortez still looks shaky. They cannot bring Cundiff in until then because the Cowboys had to pay him an injury settlement when they cut him in pre-season because he had an injured hip flexor.

Well, both Doug Brien and Jose Cortez are now gone from the Bears and the Cowboys...Brien was cut a couple of weeks ago, and Cortez was cut today after missing a 29-yarder in Sunday's game against the Seahawks. A 29 yard field goal should be about as close to 100% as you can get for an NFL kicker if the ball is properly snapped and spotted. Nothing wrong with the snap or the spot, but poor Jose drilled it wide of the upright. So...he sadly joins the ranks of the unemployed kickers. The only surprise was the Cowboys signing a rookie to take his place instead of bringing back Billy Cundiff.
No doubt there will be many people blaming Cortez for the loss to the Seahawks, since if the Cowboys had the extra 3 points on the board, they would have been able to go to overtime instead of losing. This is a convenient scapegoating argument that overlooks the painful fact that the Cowboys would not have needed those 3 points if Drew Bledsoe hadn't thrown a horrible interception which not only gave them a crucial turnover, but also allowed the Seahawks into field goal range. That interception looked painfully obvious on the TV, with the intended receiver in double coverage, and one of the Seahawks defenders clearly reading Bledsoe's pass from the moment the ball left his hand.

In the spirit of constructiveness in politics (and we definitely need more of that these days), I propose a pragmatic sensible modification to Proposition #2.
I am a reasonable man who believes in the principles of fair play and consistency.
If Texas wants to abridge the rights of gay people, then they should also abridge their responsibilities. For a start, let them pay less taxes. If they are getting fewer rights, they ought to pay less money for those reduced rights.

I previously wrote (albeit indirectly) about the pile of nonsense that is Proposition #2, to be voted on in November. This proposition would permanently amend the Texas Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
Quite apart from the practical reality that this proposition is legislatively unnecessary, since Texas state law already forbids same-sex marriage, I am utterly opposed to this proposition if only because it seeks to insititutionalize discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Effectively it seeks to abridge the rights of homosexual people.

Here is a letter that I received today from a work colleague explaining why Texas voters need to vote against this proposition. This is the most eloquent, heartfelt communication I have seen thus far on this subject.

Dear Friends, Family, Neighbors & Colleagues,

I'm asking for your support - actually I'm pleading be honest. I cannot express in this email how tired, frustrated and hurt I am about the continued discrimination and bigotry toward my family, spreading in this country. Jeanie & I simply want to live the American Dream; raise a family, live in a nice home in a nice neighborhood, reap the rewards of our labors and provide the best life we can for our daughter. It seems that so many people want to deny that. How is that Christian? How is that liberty and justice for all? I want to go to bed at night, and not wake several times throughout the night, wondering what I have to do the next day to fight for my rights and protect my daughter and my family. Why do I have to live like this - it simply is unjust! You cannot imagine the pain in my heart!

As you may know - on November 8, Texas will vote on a constitutional amendment to add marriage discrimination in to the Constitution. It will listed on the ballot as HJR6. Do you know is that it is currently illegal in the state of Texas for same gendered couples to get legally married? so why then do we need to add discriminatory language in the constitution; language that could be used to deny my family future rights? For example, what is something happened to me, Cadence's legal parent? Would this discriminatory language be used to deny Jeanie parental rights - which would take Cadence from her Momma?? Would Jeanie lose our home - my retirement fund? What rights will my family be denied next?

In the next few months, you will hear your politicians and your churches tell you that you should support this amendment - what they will not tell you is that it is simply not necessary - again, it is already illegal for same gendered couples to legally marry in Texas. It is important you realize that this effort is discrimination - pure & simple - written and supported by small minded, self serving, bigoted politicians and right winged conservatives.

In closing, I want to ask a few simple things of you; my friends, my neighbors, my colleagues.
Think about this discrimination - pray about it. Talk to me about it if you have questions. Talk to your friends about it. Challenge politicians - your preachers - your neighbors. It is a big deal to me and my family - so please take it seriously. Jeanie & I are great parents and we contribute a great deal to Cadence's school, our neighborhood, our church, our community - do we deserve less than you? Should the country we were born in - pay taxes to and love, discriminate against us? The answer is quite simple - NO!

Same gender marriage is a religious issue - not a political or Constitutional issue. Your church, any church, has the right to deny us marriage, but the government in this country has no right to write discrimination into our coveted Constitution.

Please go to the polls on November 8 and VOTE NO on HJR6. If you do not live in Texas, but have friends or family that do, please discuss this issue with them and help them realize why they should go to the polls and NOTE NO. The rights and legal protection of my family and my daughter depend on your support.

You can go to www.nononsenseinnovember.org/ or www.savetexasmarriage.com to learn more about this proposed discriminatory amendment.

Thanks - Cheryl

I urge all like-minded Texans to vote against this pile of bigotted, irrelevant nonsense. It is an example of a mean-spirited attempt to insitutionalize discrimination, which insults human dignity, and which conflicts with documented principles on which modern America was founded.

Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/michael_silver/10/20/silver1020/index.html

The article is based around an interview with Vikings center Matt Birk, currently on injured reserve after hip surgery. (As an aside, you may remember that Birk volunteered to play the 2005 season, despite a torn labrum in his hip, which would be extremely painful and possibly career-threatening, if the Vikings would guarantee a significant proportion of his contract. The Vikings declined to do so, so Birk did what was right for him and underwent surgery).
You get a clear sense in this article of a dysfunctional franchise with the head coach living on borrowed time, and a number of out-of-control employees, who appear to be suffering from hubris and an exaggerated sense of their own importance. I'm pretty sure that Bill Parcells would have sorted this lot out a long time ago, and some of the current Vikings players would anywhere but playing in the Twin Cities...instead, we get to watch the unravelling of the team in public. This is going to stay ugly for a while, and I suspect that we will see big changes in the off-season.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/aris-confusion-of-the-da_b_9127.html

Here's a very good question from Ari Emmanuel over at Huffington Post.
You know when there is insufficient substance to the qualifications of a nominee when the nominee's defenders are forced to utter irrelevant nonsense like "she is a good Christian". What does being a "good Christian" have to do with whether or not she is qualified for the Supreme Court?
In my opinion, Harriet Miers is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. She has never been a judge, and her legal background and experience is also very narrow, largely being confined to corporate law. Along the way she also seems to have been involved in the, er "disappearance" of some of the current President's National Guard service records. Frankly, as somebody who believes that leaders need to walk the walk, I do not want anybody with a background in legal skulduggery on the Supreme Court either.
Bush should withdraw Harriet Miers' nomination and find a more qualified candidate. He won't do that of course, because of the loss-of-face consequences. If we're really unlucky, we may see a repeat of some of the ugliness that surrounded the John Bolton nomination process.

Link: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/something_stupi.html#more

...in which the utter vapidity of the ID philosophy is revealed by Michael Behe as he gives evidence.