AndrewHyman's blog
Posted at 3:35pm on Jul. 8, 2008 Withdrawal Symptoms
By AndrewHyman
Sounds like Iraq is asking the U.S. for a timetable for a US troop withdrawal. This is good news, at least partly. It reflects the fact that security has improved in Iraq, that the government there is stronger and becoming assertive, and that the U.S. may soon be able to reduce the huge effort we’ve been making there.
On the other hand, setting a strict timetable for withdrawal does not take into account events on the ground that may develop in the future. If a withdrawal starts, and security then deteriorates, it would make no sense to require the withdrawal to proceed robotically.
Instead of a timetable, how about simply giving the Iraqi government authority to reduce the number of U.S. troops by 50% during 2009, by 50% in 2010, et cetera? The Iraqi government wouldn’t have to use that power, but could if conditions warrant.
Just my two cents.
Posted in National Security — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:00pm on Jun. 25, 2008 Obama on the Death Penalty for People Who Rape Children
By AndrewHyman
Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion today in Kennedy v. Louisiana, banning capital punishment for someone who rapes a child. Senator Barack Obama said today that he disagrees with this SCOTUS decision by Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.
But the latter three justices are Obama's model appointees, as he explained on May 8, 2008.
Wolf Blitzer: Are there members, uh Justices right now upon whom you would model...who do you like?
Barack Obama: Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges. I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge.
And doubtless those three justices will say tomorrow that the Washington D.C. handgun ban is perfectly constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment. Watch what they do, not what Obama says.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:30pm on Jun. 24, 2008 John McCain is Pale as a Ghost: Get a Tan!
By AndrewHyman
Senator McCain had melanoma during during the 1990s, and so he understandably wants to avoid getting too much sunlight. However, he often looks pale as a ghost, which is not the image he wants to convey. The Mayo Clinic provides info about sunless tanning which is perfectly safe and effective.
Yes, I know that McCain doesn't like the idea of cosmetics. I wouldn't either. But he shaves, right? And that's cosmetic, right? And it's not like I'm suggesting he wear lipstick, right?
According to the Mayo Clinic, sunless tanning is a safe alternative to sunbathing. Sunless tanning products (a.k.a. "self-tanners" or "tanning extenders"), give skin a tanned look without exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays. They’re commonly sold as creams, gels, lotions and sprays. The active ingredient is usually dihydroxyacetone (DHA), which is considered safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when applied to skin. Close your eyes and hold your breath while the tanner is applied, Senator McCain, and you'll be fine. You may also want to use protective devices, such as goggles or nose plugs. Sunless tanning products don’t include sunscreen, but you can apply sunscreen after applying the sunless tanning product.
I have no financial interest in these kinds of products, but I do want you to win in November, and a nice tan couldn't hurt.
The coloring doesn't wash off, but gradually fades in five to seven days. It goes on clear, and full color appears in eight to 24 hours. Some products contain a tint, which darkens skin immediately. Besides home products, spray-on tanning is available at salons, spas and tanning businesses, including full-body tan.
Sunless tanning pills are UNSAFE and aren't approved by the FDA. Tanning pills can cause nausea, cramps and diarrhea. So don't use them!
Unlike in previous decades, modern sunless tanning products such as creams, gels, lotions and sprays don't cause a streaky, orange-brown appearance. They offer an even, natural-looking tan, as long as they’re applied correctly. For best results, the Mayo Clinic suggests:
1. Choose a light- or medium-toned product, which tends to look more natural.
2. Before using the product, wash your skin with a wash cloth or sponge to remove excess dead skin cells.
3. Apply the sunless tanning product evenly and lightly. Use less product on dry skin or thickened skin, such as over your ankles, knees and elbows. These areas tend to absorb more product.
4. After you apply the product to your face and/or body, wash your hands with soap and water to avoid coloring your palms. Be sure to remove any product from under your fingernails. Then use a cotton ball to apply the sunless tanner to the top of each hand, if you like.
5. To prevent staining your clothes, wait to dress until the sunless tanner dries completely, about 15 to 20 minutes.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:12pm on Jun. 20, 2008 ANWR Drilling and 45 New Nuclear Plants: Proceed But With Caution!!!
By AndrewHyman
You've probably noticed John McCain's statement this week on oil exploration in the Arctic National Widlife Refuge (ANWR): "I would be more than happy to examine it again." He still hasn't changed his position against it, but he's open to persuausion. Maybe the prospect of getting Alaska Governor Palin on the ticket will help persuade. :-) Governor Palin has long supported drilling in ANWR.
Personally, I've always been sympathetic to keeping ANWR off limits. But now that the price of oil is so high, drilling there may be worthwhile as part of a larger energy strategy. And indeed, John McCain is calling for construction of 45 nuclear power plants by 2030 with $2 billion a year in federal funds.
Neither drilling in ANWR, nor building lots of nuke plants, is an inherently good idea, but not an inherently bad idea either. If done right, each could turn out great. If done wrong, each could be a disaster.
For ANWR, the best technology (including non-vertical drilling) would have to be required to shrink the human footprint. And the feds shouldn't just give away rights to the oil companies. The feds ought to insist that lots of free refined oil goes into the strategic petroleum reserve, and insist that some of the profits are donated for expanding ANWR, and for buying up critical habitat nationwide. With these kinds of steps (and Sarah Palin's agreement to get on the GOP ticket!!!) ANWR drilling could be a great thing.
And McCain's proposal for 45 new nuke plants by 2030 could also be a great idea. No carbon emissions, and cheap electricity! But Congress should insist on making the new plants highly resistant to terrorist attack. If 9/11 had been an attack on nuke plants instead of an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, much of this country might be uninhabitable right now. And we've got to make sure that the spent fuel isn't used to create dual-use material like reprocessed plutonium that could be stolen and used for bombs. If the whole world is going to start relying more now on nuclear power, we've got to make sure that it doesn't increase the ability of countries to create highly enriched uranium (HEU) and reprocessed plutonium. Neither HEU nor reprocessed plutonium is needed to run a nuclear power plant, and the world has too much of those materials already.
So, I'm all for ANWR drilling, and for 45 new nuclear plants, but only if it's done carefully!
Posted in 2008 — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:30pm on Feb. 16, 2008 AP: "Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights"
By AndrewHyman
That's the Associated Press headline, but let's look at what the article actually says: "At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month." Hmm. I guess Associated Press meant that Obama supports the inalienable right of an individual to obediently surrender his handgun to the government.
Suppose that an individual refuses. Would Obama waive all penalties for first-time gun control offenders, like he would for first-time drug users? Some drug users are addicts, and some are not (I don't know which Obama was when he was a teen). Why would non-addicts need the government's "help" to quit using cocaine, as Obama suggests? And why does Obama think that forcibly separating a cocaine addict from cocaine is not a legitimate tool for ending the addiction? Maybe the Associated Press can explain all this, because I have no idea.
(cross-posted at ConfirmThem)
Posted in 2008 — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:58am on Feb. 10, 2008 DC Gun Rights Case is Heating Up
By AndrewHyman
The upcoming SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller just got more interesting. Senator John McCain, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney, have signed onto a friend of the court brief. Together with bipartisan congressional majorities, they're urging SCOTUS to support the DC Circuit decision that struck down the DC handgun ban.
You can access all of the amicus briefs here. Strangely enough, VP Cheney (who is also President of the Senate) is now at odds with his own Justice Department. That is VERY unusual.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 43 that the District of Columbia would have a certain degree of home rule: "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed." But the framers never dreamt that the DC local government would cook up regulations that conflict with nationwide traditions of individual rights, and that conflict with national policy regarding fundamental freedoms. Even putting aside the constitutional issue about the Second Amendment, it’s difficult to see where the DC Home Rule Act provides any specific authority for the DC handgun ban.
I hope SCOTUS strikes down the DC handgun ban. As this amicus brief mentions, there’s no need to reach the Second Amendment issue; the ban was simply never authorized by Congress. And after the handgun ban is history, Congress ought to make some more history by approving a constitutional amendment giving DC citizens full representation in Congress --- DC citizens should be able to vote in Maryland's US Senate elections.
(Cross-posted at confirmthem.com.)
Posted in Law — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:44pm on Jan. 26, 2008 McCain the Mudslinging Grouch
By AndrewHyman
Desperate to win the Florida primary in three days, Senator John McCain is falsely accusing Mitt Romney of having refused to stand by our troops in Iraq. Below you can compare and contrast McCain's wrongheaded accusation with what Romney actually said. Here's Senator McCain's statement today (emphasis added):
“Last April, Governor Romney said he supported ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our troops from Iraq and keeping them secret. When he suggested secret ‘timetables,’ General Petraeus’ new strategy in Iraq was just starting. Opponents of General Petraeus’ strategy all argued that we should not increase troop levels, but establish ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our forces from Iraq. It was clear at the time that some were hedging their bets on Iraq, positioning themselves politically by being deliberately vague on their support for General Petraeus’ new strategy.
“Governor Romney also said that there wouldn’t be any real difference on Iraq policy between the Republican nominee and Senator Clinton during the general election. Well, Senator Clinton advocates withdrawal from Iraq within 60 days. Should that be the policy of the Republican nominee in November? Would it be Governor Romney’s?
“I understand if Governor Romney has changed his mind given the obvious success of the surge. But the fact is, like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself.
“The only people who are owed an apology are the men and women fighting for our country in Iraq, who have a right to expect their leaders to stand by them and their mission not just when it is easy, but when it matters most — when it is hard.”
And here's the actual transcript of the Mitt Romney interview last April (emphasis added):
QUESTION: Iraq. John McCain is there in Baghdad right now. You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.
QUESTION: So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave? You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition.
Seems like McCain is lying about Romney not standing by the troops. Come on Senator McCain, you know better!
And Senator McCain, no one thinks we should have remained in Iraq forever even if the Surge had been a complete failure.
P.S. Oh, and here’s McCain saying last February that we won’t be “able to maintain” our Iraq endeavor if the Surge fails, and saying that remaining in Iraq would not be a “good option.” And here's a link to Romney's completely innocuous remark about Hillary Clinton.
UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 29, 2008: At this point, Senator McCain is the inevitable GOP nominee, having won in Florida and on Super Tuesday. Mitt Romney has not only withdrawn, but has also endorsed John McCain. It's true that McCain was a bigger supporter of the troop Surge than just about anyone, including Romney. But that doesn't mean Romney was waving the white flag or that he owes the troops any apology. I'm strongly supporting McCain for President, because he'd be light years better than either of his likely opponents.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:01am on Jan. 9, 2008 Romney's Winning
By AndrewHyman
John McCain edged out Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. But, in case you didn't notice, Romney now has a three-to-one lead over McCain in the overall delegate count.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:39pm on Dec. 24, 2007 Santa Better Learn How to Swim
By AndrewHyman
Whether this is due to human factors or not, it appears that Arctic ice is on the verge of disappearing for the first time in more than 700,000 years. Santa has about Archived — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:33am on Oct. 23, 2007 Schiavo Once Again
By AndrewHyman
I respect Fred Thompson a LOT. But, I was frankly a bit put off by this recent comment about Schiavo-type situations:
Erick here at Redstate praised these remarks by Thompson, but I would be more cautious.
People who say that the government should stay out of situations like the Schiavo situation are being naive and simplistic. In the Schiavo situation, the parents wanted one thing, and the husband wanted another thing. In such a situation, the government must intervene. And that's what the government finally did in the Schiavo situation; it intervened to forcibly prevent the parents from taking custody of their daughter.
People may disagree about whether the government should have instead taken the side of the husband. But no one who actually uses their brain to think about that Schiavo situation can seriously believe that the government should have taken neither side.
Just think what would have happened if the government had stayed out of the situation. Violence surely would have ensued, as the parents attempted to grab their daughter to keep her alive, and the husband physically tried to stop them. Plus mob violence, as the pro-parent forces sought to defeat the pro-husband forces.
It is absolutely ludicrous to say that the government should stay out of a situation like that. The real question is which side the government should take, in a given set of circumstances. Even if a family is unanimous, there must be situations where the government should be willing to step in and say, no, the person is not sufficiently vegetative to be starved to death.
I personally don't know whether Schiavo was sufficiently vegetative to be starved to death. To those who say that there was "no there there", my response might be to ask how she could then have been harmed by keeping her alive. But I am also not unsympathetic to the notion that she may not have wanted to live like that.
For those of you who haven't seen the following image, take a good long look:
This is not a photo of Terri Schiavo's brain. It is a brain scan of a 44-year old Frenchman who recently went to a hospital after he had been experiencing weakness in his left leg. All of the black in the middle of the photo is liquid, and the brain matter is the rim of white along the outside of the skull. In July of 2007, Fox News quoted Dr. Lionel Feuillet as saying: "The images were most unusual... the brain was virtually absent." Intelligence tests showed he had an IQ of 75, below average but not mentally retarded. He is a married father of two, leading a normal life, despite having little brain tissue.
Terri Schiavo had a different brain condition, but don't jump to conclusions when you see scans of her brain. Human life is an amazing thing, and we barely have an inkling of all its wonders.
Posted in Life Issues — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:35pm on Sep. 24, 2007 Hillary: Attacks on Petraeus are "Too Frequent"
By AndrewHyman
As most everyone knows by now, the group MoveOn.org ran a really outrageous ad against General David Petraeus in the New York Times on September 10. The U.S. Senate subsequently condemned MoveOn.org for that ad, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 72-25. That lopsided vote was in favor of a Sense of the Senate Resolution offered by Senator Cornyn. However, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was one of the 25 Senators to vote against Cornyn's Sense of the Senate Resolution, as you can see from the roll call. I don't think Senator Clinton will be able to live down this ignominious vote of hers.
She may have emerged relatively unscathed from the Sunday talk shows yesterday, but this vote will come back to haunt her. Even partisan Democratic Senators like Barbara Mikulski and Pat Leahy voted for the Cornyn resolution.
And it gets worse. Senator Clinton claims that she instead voted for an alternate resolution offered by Senator Boxer. But Boxer's Amendment merely offered a general condemnation of attacks on the military, without even mentioning MoveOn.org. And the Boxer Amendment pathetically included a finding that unwarranted attacks on General Petraeus and the military are "too frequent." The full texts of both the Cornyn Amendment and the Boxer Amendment are below, so you can read them yourself.
And it gets even worse for Clinton. The Boxer Amendment went down to defeat before the Senate even voted on the Cornyn Amendment. Thus, when she voted against the latter, Senator Clinton showed that she preferred no resolution at all, rather than a strong resolution like the one that passed.
Posted in 2008 — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:16pm on Sep. 9, 2007 Thompson Bleg
By AndrewHyman
I've never written a bleg before, but there's a first time for everything!
MORE BELOW THE FOLD....
Posted in 2008 — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:05am on Sep. 8, 2007 Rudy Says Illegal Immigration Isn't a Crime, Even Though It Is
By AndrewHyman
Yesterday, Rudy said:
It's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime. I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding.
Hizzoner added that illegal immigration shouldn't be a crime, either: "No, it shouldn't be because the government wouldn't be able to prosecute it."
Rudy ought to read 8 USC 1325:
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
Title 18 involves "CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE." Obviously, Title 8, Section 1325, Subsection (b) is about civil penalties; and, Title 8, Section 1325, Subsection (a) is about criminal penalties. Duh.
I wonder if the other candidates will call him on this. It's one thing to oppose criminal penalties for illegal immigration, but quite another to deny the obvious reality of what the law currently says.
P.S. People who immigrate legally but then overstay the term of valid legal visas are unlawfully present. That does not make them criminals. However, people who immigrate illegally (e.g. by sneaking across from Canada or Mexico without any kind of visa or other authorization) are criminals under 8 USC 1325.
P.P.S. The crime is a "misdemeanor" for the first offense, and a "felony" for the second. See 18 USC 3559. Either way, it is a crime. Because it is a crime, rather than just a civil offense, the fine can be as great as $5000 for the first offense, and $250,000 for the second offense. See 18 USC § 3571.
Posted in Immigration — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:22pm on Aug. 11, 2007 Say Goodbye to the Baiji
By AndrewHyman
The Baiji dolphin, which splashed around in China’s Yangtze River for 20 million years, is now probably extinct. An August 7 research article in the journal Biology Letters reports:
We are forced to conclude that the baiji is now likely to be extinct, probably due to unsustainable by-catch in local fisheries. This represents the first global extinction of a large vertebrate for over 50 years, only the fourth disappearance of an entire mammal family since AD 1500, and the first cetacean species to be driven to extinction by human activity. Immediate and extreme measures may be necessary to prevent the extinction of other endangered cetaceans, including the sympatric Yangtze finless porpoise.
Click on the image to learn more about this magnificent creature that we human beings have now banished from the universe forever.
There is a flip side to emerging markets around the world. The global stampede to prosperity is causing damage, and there will probably be many more tragic stories like that of the Baiji during the next few years.
Newt Gingrich has pointed out that, "The greatest dangers to biodiversity on the planet today are poor people cutting down tropical forests for money and killing endangered species for meat. Wealthy people can afford to protect the forests and protect endangered species." But there really isn’t any good excuse for global extinctions. As Gingrich notes, "It is clearly possible to combine human progress with biodiversity." Why not insist on it?
Here's some further coverage of the Baiji's sad end: Dolphin Species Goes Extinct Due to Humans, Fox News (August 10, 2007); Farewell to the Yangtze River Dolphin, Time Magazine (August 10, 2007).
It may be possible that there are still one or two Baiji surviving in some obscure tributary of the Yangtze. But the end of that species is at hand.
Here's a quote from Ronald Reagan about endangered species, from a speech late in his second term.
President Theodore Roosevelt, who began our system of national parks and forests, said that "A grove of giant redwoods or sequoias should be kept just as we keep a great and beautiful cathedral." And by respecting the land that we share, we respect one another. To preserve America's beauty, we have to work together. Private sector activities, as we recognize today, are irreplaceable, but the role of government is also vital. In fact, nearly one-third of our country's land is owned by the Federal Government.
In 1982 we began a $1 billion restoration program to improve and protect our national parks, thereby ending some years of neglect. We've added millions of acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Since 1981 the number of rivers protected as "wild and scenic" has more than tripled. And 34 new national wildlife refuges, totaling over 400,000 acres in 20 States, have also been added. And our administration has made more than 270 additions to the endangered and threatened species list. But we've done more than just make a list; we've put new emphasis on restoring animal populations, with over 180 recovery plans, compared to just 36 approved under the previous administration.
This President Bush has done a lot to prevent extinctions too, including establishment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.
I hope that the U.S. Government will more actively promote and finance conservation around the world, and demand some minimal standards from countries that want free trade with us (e.g. no free trade if you wipe large species like the Baiji off the face of the Earth). How about a fine of, say, five hundred billion dollars whenever a country causes a large species to go extinct? The money could go toward habitat conservation. In any event, as a wealthy country, the U.S. could get a big bang for our buck by conserving an acre of habitat in the third world, compared to what it would cost to do so here in the mainland United States. Let's do it.
Posted in Life Issues — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:11pm on Aug. 2, 2007 An Outrageous Article in the Politico Slamming CJ Roberts
By AndrewHyman
See this article in The Politico, which erroneously says:
In a 5-4 decision a few weeks ago, the Roberts court ruled that race cannot be a factor in the assignment of children to public schools, even when the purpose is to desegregate those schools.
I have written to the author of this article, Roger Simon:
Dear Mr. Simon:
I am an attorney in Connecticut. Your recent article, "Leahy attacks Bush, Roberts", contains an error. You wrote: "In a 5-4 decision a few weeks ago, the Roberts court ruled that race cannot be a factor in the assignment of children to public schools, even when the purpose is to desegregate those schools." That is false, and I hope you will correct it.
The Roberts opinion said that it was dealing with “a public school that had NOT operated legally segregated schools” (emphasis added). The Roberts Court did not remotely forbid race-based school assignment when the purpose is to desegregate schools segregated by law. The Roberts opinion repeated this point again and again:
“Seattle has never operated segregated schools--legally separate schools for students of different races--nor has it ever been subject to court-ordered desegregation.”
Louisville had already eliminated “'[t]o the greatest extent practicable' the vestiges of its prior policy of segregation....[and] had remedied the constitutional wrong that allowed race-based assignments.”
“For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis.”
Please, please correct your article. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Hyman
Monroe, CT
Posted in Law — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »
