Amy - the only REAL question in all of this is: Who is feeding Andrew Sullivan and Daily Kos these talking points, all of which are fabrications?

I mean, how do they come up with this shit?

So far, we've had the following lies injected into the mainstream media (I'm sure I'm missing a few):

Palin not really the mother of her son.
Palin faked pregnancy.
Palin's DAUGHTER faking pregnancy.
Palin tried to fire ex brother in law for sister.
Palin tried to ban books.
Palin unfit mother.
Palin had an affair with hubby's former business partner.

I mean, the only one they haven't tried yet is "Palin was a homosexual erotic dancer" but I suppose that's coming.

These people are TERRIFIED of this tiny little woman from Alaska. Because she's everything they wish their messiah was.

Amen, Brian. And you know what? Let whoever ban whatever books they want. I have most of those books on the list, which means my daughters have access to them, which means I will not, ever, censor what they read. To do so is not only stupid, but mean. How else are they going to learn that not everybody thinks the same way they do?

Banned book lists are good places to start for looking for good things to read.

I am going to need to read A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle again, it was required reading in elementary school and I can't think of anything bad or subversive happening in it.

Flynne - I had a thought about the Palin asking the librarian about removing books thing, and someone else (can't find the link right now) who said essentially the same thing:

Were I the new mayor, I'd be looking for yes-men, and firing them.

The last thing I want in a librarian is one who is susceptible to public pressure to remove a book from the shelves.

Palin was also trimming a lot of fat from the budget, and the reason for her wanting to get rid of the librarian was related to that. Palin kept her on after the public outcry over her firing (she was apparently popular).

I notice that first, the people screaming loudest that Palin is a censor haven't gone to Alaska or even picked up a phone to talk to the librarian in question, and second, the media are repeating the lies without doing any followup of their own, even though they've been dispatched en masse to Alaska to find dirt.

It's a strange world... The Anchorage Daily News is the go-to paper for politicial news!

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

An unembellished, fact-based account of all this. It does not sound as though Palin went after any books in particular, but asked the librarian something along the lines of if she would support Palin in banning hypothetical books in the future. Slimy small-town stuff. I can't believe this is our potential future VP.

> The Anchorage Daily News is the
> go-to paper for politicial news!

Not really, we were warned in the hours after her selection that it was a crazy shit liberal paper that was going to start sniping early, and would never let up.

> Slimy small-town stuff

Small town, small time, and that's if it's even true. People grow out of stuff, especially in politics.

(Katie Bennett, huh? Are you a Chicago schoolteacher? That would explain a couple things.)

Oprah's getting cooked pretty hard on the internet the weekend. It's like Treacher said, you should never interrupt an enemy who's making a mistake. So what's with all these interruptions?

SHHHH!!! Crid, you're gonna blow our cover!

No, Crid. Us commie baby- killing liberals aren't all teaching school in Chicago. I can tell you I've probably done more to prevent abortion already than you've done in god knows how many hours ranting on the internet.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crid

This is you, right? It doesn't so much explain as describe...

This is my first hyperlink attempt. We'll see how that goes.

NOTE TO KATIE FROM AMY: Please don't hyperlink -- just paste in the link. You didn't close the end of your link so it did something to comments here. Fixed now. But you can just paste in a link -- just like I corrected your link to above -- and it will work fine.

Don't sweat this -- just please paste in the URL directly in the future.

And you know what? Let whoever ban whatever books they want. I have most of those books on the list, which means my daughters have access to them, which means I will not, ever, censor what they read. Flynne

It's great that you have most of those books, so do I, now. Growing up I didn't have any of them, but was able to read them and get a larger perspective on the world because I had access to a library that DIDN'T BAN BOOKS. Not every family can afford to buy every book, and by being so flippant about banning them in libraries we're continuing the "dumbing down" of children that everyone is always shouting about.

It's pretty obvious that Palin didn't actually ban any of these books, but the thought that she even asked makes me very uncomfortable. The "I was only looking for their loyalty" excuse is stupid - who needs to have a loyal librarian? It's not like she was going to be making law or enforcing/not enforcing it.

"Palin was a homosexual erotic dancer" but I suppose that's coming.

I hope they have pictures with THAT one.

I can't believe this is our potential future VP.

Posted by: Katie Bennett at September 7, 2008 9:15 AM

Yes, especially shocking when one considers the towering experience and impeccable record of Obama.
Q. Whats the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?
A. One is a well dressed, well turned out, sexy piece of shallow eye candy - the other one kills her own food.

I'm not voting for Obama OR McCain - but leftist apoplexy over Sarah Palin is absolutely delicious to watch. Choke.on.it.

Comments here have been fixed. (Was a missing end tag in a link in a comment.)

The link from "Katie" is indisputably the craftsmanship of a teenage boy... This is the vandal, I tell ya

(I see why Amy's flattered by it, though)

Then why can't these new people be more interesting?

I thought Crid had divined that I was The Vandal. Now I'm not? That sucks.

I Heard the Rumor: Tell me where you got the story, or I'll laugh at you

Governor Sarah Palin was not wrong to ask the librarian about library policy and see if the librarian would support her decisions.

Libraries are usually funded by government as a service. Using public funds makes libraries political. Someone chooses which books to buy, and there is always an expression of judgement and oversight in how to use the money. It is a "line drawing" game. Some books are bad and others are good, depending on your beliefs and where you draw the line. If you spend on bad books, there is less money to spend on good books.

(Continued at EasyOpinions - I Heard the Rumor)

So, basically, this whole book banning thing is fake but accurate?

She asked about removing books from the library, got told no, and that's that.

So to speculate about books that she would have banned had they been written and that she could have done so--calling Dan Rather!

(And did the story mention that the librarian was the police chief's girlfriend?)

"Emma" makes this "point":

"I don't really doubt that Palin wanted to ban books, but why make up a list that's so easily proven false?"

So, even though Emma herself produces the evidence showing the accusation to be demonstrably false, she can't resist smearing Palin by claiming that even if Palin didn't do it this time, she must have WANTED to do it - probably by virtue of no other reason than being a Republican.

Well, "Emma", as a Republican with works by Joseph Stalin, Vladmir Lenin, and Fidel Castro on my shelves, I can say that you are going to have to do better than tautology and circular reasoning.

Ad hominem attacks like this (Sarah Palin is a Republican therefore she must be a book-burner) say far more about the speaker than about the subject. Emma's quip, for example, tells us nothing about Sarah Palin, but it tells us a lot about Emma - that she is a small-minded bigot who cannot conceive of the possibility that persons of intellect, character and integrity might honestly disagree about policies while both wanting the best for the country. No, Emma assumes that anyone who dissents from the received wisdom of the left must do so out because they are evil.

Reflexive demonization of those with differing views is the refuge of those too ignorant or weak to contend for their own ideas in the metaphorical public square. Such people cannot compete in the arena of ideas, so instead they resort to personal smears - kind of like Tonya Harding sending her goon Jeff Gilooly around with a cudgel to bust Nancy Kerrigan's knee cap.

We would all do well to remember Thomas Jefferson's advice: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle”.

I wish I was as technologically savvy as a teenage boy... no, just boring, garden variety screw up. Any website vandalization I commit is purely unintentional. Sorry bout that Amy...

You know, at this point, I think the media could uncover some genuine Palin scandal - she stole tax money, she sold military secrets, she convinced Britney Spears to perform at the MTV VMAs last year - and it would go "poof" in the night. There are so many of these Palin "scandals" that have turned out to have so little connection to the truth that it's become overwhelming. I can see why Amy would want to check this out, but it seems to me that people just seem compelled to make up things about Palin that use the equivalent of secret memos "from the 1960s" that turn out to have been done on Microsoft Word. This isn't quite as hideous as the Trig Palin maternity rumor, but still, once you check it out at all it barely passes the smell test.

I still think Obama has the edge in this election, ultimately, but if his campaign can't direct the narrative away from Sarah Palin I may have to change my mind. She's become a star. Not a celebrity. Paris Hilton is a celebrity. Angelina Jolie and Michael Jordan are stars. Obama's a star too, but he's in danger of looking old and busted, with Palin as the new hotness. He'd better hope that Mickey Kaus's Feiler Faster Thesis means that Palin seems like old news herself come election day. That's not going to happen unless these wild rumors can be controlled by someone.

Maybe Kos really is being funded by Karl Rove? I've long had my suspicions...

> I still think Obama has the edge
> in this election, ultimately

What's his edge, do you think? I think Republicans are a lot less likely to say gaffe-y things about Obama & Biden than Democrats are about McCain and Palin.

Bots! Pod people! Stepford bloggers! Apparitions in PERL! You can't fool me!

What's his edge, do you think?

Well, the Republicans are unpopular and a majority of Americans polled seem to believe we're heading down the wrong track.

That having been said, Palin's choice certainly seems to be shaking things up, or so the polls indicate. Assuming that the swings toward McCain aren't coming only from voters in already red states, something interesting could be going on.

The NYTimes is running a front-page story tomorrow...on Trig Palin. On his allegedly faked maternity? No. On his supposed neglect by his mother? No. It's basically an expanded version of the piece that People wrote about the Palin family with a few new details thrown in. Even stuff such as Palin choosing to fly with leaking amniotic fluid is painted in a sympathetic light. Now, much like Bristol's pregnancy, I don't consider all this to be front-page news, but it appears to me that the NYT is attempting to backtrack a bit from the hysteria in which it was participating - the same hysteria that caused someone to peddle this, "Sarah Palin: Censor" trope around.

Man, this is hilarious. I'm thinking that the rest of the campaign might not be an unrelieved slog after all.

Exactly. The next two months are going to be interesting... Whooda thunkit?

"I don't really doubt that Palin wanted to ban books, but why make up a list that's so easily proven false?"

Solve that one, and we'll know why all those conspiracy sites thrive ;-)

Palin is being used as a distracter. While we debate this, that and the other about her, the real issues go unnoticed. We should be talking about the economy, health care, jobs, the war, etc. Instead the headlines focus on whether she has an innee or an outee. How can the American public be so stupid and fall for this ploy? Go figure.

Instead the headlines focus on whether she has an innee or an outee. How can the American public be so stupid and fall for this ploy? Go figure.

Ah, the traditional whine of the democrat - why are the proles so stupid?

Hint: it is the PRESS who are the stupids here.

The headlines can't focus on the issues you so adore because nobody takes the press seriously any longer. The press has chosen sides, and they side with Marx, Engels, and Obama.

It's not even lesser evil any more. They're both too awful for words.

But I do have to concur that asking the librarian if she would ban is just as creepy as asking her to do so.

I was actually starting to lean towards McCain until he picked this nutcake.

I can't vote for either one. If anyone dares even suggest that voting third party is throwing away my vote... Uh uh, honey, voting for either of these yahooes would be throwing away my vote.

"......, but why make up a list that's so easily proven false? It certainly doesn't do us Democrats any good."

So would a list that's hard to be proven false (but is) be more beneficial to the Democrats?

How long have you been beating your husband Emma?

I can't vote for either one. If anyone dares even suggest that voting third party is throwing away my vote... Uh uh, honey, voting for either of these yahooes would be throwing away my vote.

Posted by: T's Grammy at September 8, 2008 11:28 AM

Hell yes. I can't agree with you more, T's Grammy. Too bad more people can't see that trying to divine which parties policies are failing faster and voting for the one that is failing slower is suicidal. There is no utopian society, from either side of the political fence.

wolf, TG -

Given a slow decline with, perhaps, the likelihood of a rebirth of Constitutional Originalism, or the certain plummeting into the gorge, the slow decline is the logical course to choose.

Unless you're big on resurrection, that is.

brian, let me put it another way. I'm damned if I'll vote for a decline. If I can't find a third party that isn't voting for a decline, I'm not voting at all.

Then I look forward to not seeing you at the polls.

Even though a vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil, failing to vote amongst the evils on offer is an implicit vote of support for the winner.

Your only real option if you wish to avoid choosing among evils is to leave, really.

And I mean it this time - I'm gonna work.

I am TOTALLY against book banning, so if this rumor had been true it would have been a deal-breaker for me, & I would have been back to writing in Kermit the Frog. But I went to Snopes.com to check it out. (Gotta love Snopes!) They have an article about this subject here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

I don't care how religious you are, LEAVE MY BOOKS ALONE!!

Hmmm. Brian, how about voting for a party or candidate that stands for the Constitutional Rebirth, hmmmmm?

You WILL see me at the polls, voting my conscience, not copping out with "well, I don't want to waste my vote so I'll vote for the candidate I DON'T believe in less." Freedom takes courage. Small wonder it is disappearing.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Hmmm. Brian, how about voting for a party or candidate that stands for the Constitutional Rebirth, hmmmmm?

And who would that be?

Your choices are most likely to be the following: Obama, McCain, Barr, Nader.

None of these are the slightest bit interested in Original Intent. So what do you do, write in your own name?

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

You can vote for Ron Paul all you like. But he's a freak, he deserves to lose, and he will lose. And he's not a Constitutionalist either. So convincing 51% of the electorate to vote for him buys you nothing.

I see fine. I see that among all the choices, there are only two who are likely to win. Prudence demands that I choose the one least likely to harm me. Voting my conscience gets me nowhere.

WolfmanMac -

While you won't see me at the polls (I live in Oregon and we don't have those here - mailin ballots fucking rock), I will be voting my conscience - by abstaining. I actually voted for Nader the first time he ran - first time I voted for president. I discovered we have irreconcilable differences when it comes to the right to die (for which I am a voracious advocate) and couldn't vote for him again. Last time round, I intended on voting for Kerry, but couldn't bring myself to do it.

I may write in Frank Herbert, because a dead genius is better than the options we have now. But I think that my vote is probably more effective if I just leave that bit blank.

Brian says: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

As has been well said by someone else, Neither does it say "If any of this becomes inconvenient to certain persons or groups, just...nevermind. We only fought a war for it." Also, you yourself stated in your last post that you were doing the "logical" thing by voting for "slow decline" over "fast decline." So who is voting for a suicide pact? Particularly when Keynes himself admitted Keynesian economics would fail in the long run but "in the long run, we're all dead?" Accusations of "Suicide pact" is something I'd stay away from if I were a statist.
I'm not going to debate the relative merits of third party candidates with you. Your fairly characteristic descent into ad hominem and admitted abandonment of principle preclude that as a productive course. But if you think holding your nose and voting for the alligator most likely to eat you last is productive, I must respectfully disagree.

Duwayne - water birthing fan,

I agree that is a respectable choice. The old joke, "don't vote - it only encourages them" is funny because it contains a large grain of truth. Wendy McElroy has published a fascinating essay titled "The Immorality of Voting," and I can't really say she's wrong. I'm just not quite there yet. The Freedom Movement has been showing signs of (gasp - Organizing) and I'm going to be there to support it for the time being.

Wolfman -

I'm not going to debate the relative merits of third party candidates with you. Your fairly characteristic descent into ad hominem and admitted abandonment of principle preclude that as a productive course. But if you think holding your nose and voting for the alligator most likely to eat you last is productive, I must respectfully disagree.

First, I only go ad-hom on proven morons. You don't fit the bill.

I'm perfectly willing to admit to my hypocrisy on this issue. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist.

First and foremost, all the third-party candidates are cranks not worthy of my vote anyhow. Therefore, you could not convince me of the "relative merits", because from my vantage point there are none.

But leaving that aside, if I have a choice between an act of futility meant to show my displeasure with the system and buying time to change the system, the pragmatic choice is the latter.

Some of the fans of third parties (Ronulans especially) have this dream that if only they could win the presidency, everything would be better. This is a fallacy of the highest order.

If we have any hope of restoring a Constitutional Republic, it starts in the cities and towns. People have this myopia when it comes to their own U.S. Representatives and Senators, where "everyone in Congress is a crook, except for my guy".

Cure the myopia, change the momentum at the local level, and swap out the legislators.

Allowing Barack Obama to win by default isn't going to help.

But casting a "protest vote" in the hopes that either the Republicans move right, or a third-party becomes ascendant is futile. You know what lesson the Republicans learned from their defeats in 2006 when scores of Republican voters stayed home? "Go left, young man". And we wound up with a passel of leftist Republicans running for President, and the Republicans in the Congress are falling over themselves to cooperate with the Democrats. Why? Well, the Democrats won, so obviously the American Public has moved to the left.

And before you ask, no, I didn't vote in the primary. Because of the broken primary system, the die was cast before my state's primary happened.

Brian says:
I'm perfectly willing to admit to my hypocrisy on this issue. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist

Yes. One of the "pragmatist" was one of the boasts of the original fascisti - thay were proud of the fact they just wanted to "get things done" and weren't about to be bogged down by pettifogging details like individual rights. Here is a prime example of how the American public (yourself included) is trying to fight against something with...the same thing. And just can't understand why nothing...ever...changes.

If we have any hope of restoring a Constitutional Republic, it starts in the cities and towns.

FYI, Brian, Ron Paul raised more revenue IN ONE DAY than any other Republican IN HISTORY. And he did it with an average donation of $250. That fact, the Free State Project..it just doesn't get any more grass roots than that.
But before you start lecturing anyone (particularly Libertarians) about how the change needs to be "grass roots" to achieve a "constitutional Republic," what exactly are you doing by casting your vote for a major party candidate if not displaying "myopia when it comes to their own U.S. Representatives and Senators, where "everyone in Congress is a crook, except for my guy"?
It sounds very much like the same cop out everyone uses - "I want things to change, but I'm afraid to change anything, so you all go do the heavy lifting and do the work. I'll just stand here and sneer at you, and if it works out and you achieve change in spite of me, I'll be on board."
The biggest barrier to change is not in Washington, Brian. It is, in a nutshell, in that attitude.
Now I realize as I write this you are admittedly a hypocrite, and I commend you for having the fortitutde to admit it. But acknowledging that fact, can you tell me if there is any reason anyone should take seriously your opinion upon whether to vote or whom to vote for? If you can, I'd like to hear it. If you can't, what is your obsession with sneering at those who are not hypocritical, and are still willing to put their money and their efforts where their mouths are?

I've got an idea, wolf. how about you come down off your high horse.

You don't know how I voted in local elections.

And I don't care how much money Ron Fucking Paul raised, the man's a loon as are most of his supporters.

But I refuse to vote for a man who has vowed to put a gun to my head and take my money. I feel very strongly that my short-term interests are served by making sure that he never has access to the levers of power again.

Furthermore, I feel very strongly that we need someone in the white house that will act as a foil for the fiendish plans of Nancy Pelosi. If she gets her way, you won't be TALKING about Ron Fucking Paul anywhere on account of the return of the "Fairness Doctrine".

So you go on lecturing me about change. Go ahead, I'll ignore you. Because if we allow the short term to destroy the Republic, then what the fuck point is there in change?

Because if we allow the short term to destroy the Republic, then what the fuck point is there in change?

Kind of like bush has done with the constitution?

brian says:
But I refuse to vote for a man who has vowed to put a gun to my head and take my money.

Yeah. 4 Republican Presidents in my lifetime. But if the IRS were abolished TODAY, the federal government would still collect revenue at the level it was collecting it in 1997. Those big government hatin', tax cuttin' Republicans have really delivered, haven't they? The democrats put a gun to your head and take it from your left pocket, the republicans take it from your right. Of course, one wonders where in the world you get the idea that a man who vowed to abolish the IRS immediately is going to put a gun to your head and take your money, but thats another conversation. Unless you work for the government. Then I see exactly where you are coming from.

The point is this, Brian - when someone is standing on your neck, it makes little difference whether they are doing it with their right or their left boot.

Brian says: Furthermore, I feel very strongly that we need someone in the white house that will act as a foil for the fiendish plans of Nancy Pelosi.

Oh yeah, the old "elect us to protect you from the ubiquitous, scheming THEM." Great philosophy. Keeps both parties in power, symbiotically manipulating the public. In the end, only they win, either way, you lose. How about voting for someone because you believe in what they are GOING to do, instead of because of what they say they are going to keep the OTHER guy from doing? Does that sound productive? Has it been?

Duwayne's excellent point reminds me of the conversation I had with my brother during the 2000 election. I asked why he wasn't going to vote AGAINST Gore if not FOR Bush. He said, Al Gore will only destroy in 4 years what George Bush will destroy in 8. Whats the difference? Hit the wall at 80 mph, or hit it at 100 mph. here we are, 8 years later, and I want to know - where was this 'radical Right Wing president" I was promised by the Democrats? He's been the best president the democrats ever had, and has done more to bury conservatism as a valid philosophy than any group of nutroots could ever dream of doing.

Finally, I should have said this in my last post - look up "Fallacy of the first order" in the dictionary, it should say "someone who thinks Libertarians believe their philosophy will create a utopian society." Anyone who knows anything about Libertarianism knows that it completely rejects the idea of a utopian society. A free society is a free society, not a utopian one. Government has limited consitutional powers for a reason - its philosophy should be (to paraphrase Jefferson) - "To leave the people free - neither helping or hindering them in their affairs."

Brian, its hard not to sound like I'm on a high horse when I'm speaking to man who not only admits he is a hypocrite, but can't address a single point in opposition without sneering and name calling.

Of course, one wonders where in the world you get the idea that a man who vowed to abolish the IRS immediately is going to put a gun to your head and take your money, but thats another conversation.

If he's so keen to abolish the IRS, how come he hasn't introduced a bill every year of his tenure to do precisely that? How about because he doesn't believe it.

Hit the wall at 80 mph, or hit it at 100 mph. here we are, 8 years later, and I want to know - where was this 'radical Right Wing president" I was promised by the Democrats? He's been the best president the democrats ever had, and has done more to bury conservatism as a valid philosophy than any group of nutroots could ever dream of doing.

How about voting for someone because you believe in what they are GOING to do, instead of because of what they say they are going to keep the OTHER guy from doing? Does that sound productive? Has it been?

Because there aren't any running that I believe in. I have never in my adult life voted FOR a politician. Only against.

Brian, its hard not to sound like I'm on a high horse when I'm speaking to man who not only admits he is a hypocrite, but can't address a single point in opposition without sneering and name calling.

Kind of like bush has done with the constitution?

You keep saying that. I still haven't, in eight years, been presented with any evidence that it's true. I've seen a bunch of hyperventilating, a bunch of hypothesizing, and a bunch of hyperbole.

Not one simple explanation of how Bush has single-handedly violated the Constitution.

Warrantless wiretaps for one. The denial of habeas corpus for another. Need me to go on?

Name one person subject to a warrantless wiretap. That case went away BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED. There was data mining, no wire taps.

Denial of Habeas FOR UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. Who should, if we were keeping up with Geneva, been SHOT.

NEXT!

What the fuck ever. Blinded by your love of your great leader, it is pointless to try to argue with you. But then I am a glutton for the pointless.

The cases all go away because any evidence that might be used to argue them is disallowed on national security grounds.

As for the "unlawful enemy combatants" it's hard to fucking know what they are because they don't get due process. Telling that they let a lot of these unlawful enemy combatants go free, when they figure out they fucked up and got someone who isn't any such thing. But of course you're right, much simpler (and less embarrassing) if we just fucking shoot them.

DuWayne, if you know anything about me, you know I don't care much for Bush.

And I'll agree Gitmo was a mistake, but not for the reasons you think.

We set up Gitmo because we thought we were being better than the terrorists by doing so. Which set up two different issues: separating the terrorist from the non terrorist when we did a sweep, and people falsely reporting their enemies as terrorists in the hopes we'd get rid of them.

The problem with granting them access to U.S. civilian courts is manifold. First, there's the whole OJ problem. Then there's the problem of having potentially secret information divulged in court (not that the NYT hasn't already done a bunch of that). Finally, there's the potential issue of attacks on the courts and the families of judges, juries, witnesses, etc. if we actually HAVE a terrorist.

In other words, providing rights to people that they aren't entitled to BY TREATY creates a logistical and legal nightmare.

I suspect that if we had simply not set up the equivalent of POW camps, shot suspected terrorists on sight, and not set up the whole "turn in a terrorist and get a prize" thing we'd have been better off, but "world opinion" (and therefore opinion of the NYT) would have been so bad that Bush would probably be dead by now.

Although there are probably a few million people who would have attended his hanging to cheer.

So, brian, you're good with anyone bush calls an unlawful enemy combatant being denied their civil rights? Will you be when it's you? Don't be so damned sure it couldn't ever be. But if it is, remember that you said you should just be shot instead of being granted due process.

Christ, DuWayne's right. You ask for examples of civil rights being violated, we give them to you and you still yell doesn't apply, doesn't apply. You're sounding rather like Bush et al.

Jose Padilla. C'mon, address the difficulties arising from that case.