Content by jadedmara
Posted at 2:51pm on Jan. 20, 2008 [UPDATED w/Photos] McCain in South Carolina
By jadedmara
Go here for photos.
Alas, I'm not one of those cool press people who can file stories from anyplace, anywhere. I'm posting this after waking up from a marathon sleep after crashing down on my bed in my Triangle-area, NC home at 4am.
Weather
A few notes on the weather on Charleston on Saturday: it really wasn't bad for most of the day. It was drizzly, and walking around downtown Charleston wasn't fun, but driving to the polls wouldn't have been a problem. By nighttime, thankfully around the time polls were closing, it started getting colder and much ickier.
Posted in Archived — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:24pm on Mar. 4, 2007 Protecting Our War Memorials
By jadedmara
On March 17th, 2007, a group of war veterans will be gathering in Washington, D.C. to protect the Vietnam War memorial and other war memorials from descration by protesters at an anti-war rally being held that day adjacent to the Wall. The veterans are trying to prevent the recurrance of desecration that occured at a similar event in January.
Posted in Special Events — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:56am on Jun. 24, 2006 My father's solution for America
By jadedmara
I've been confronted with the notion that my father is the brown, Muslim, Paul Cella. Not exactly, of course, considering I strongly suspect my dad voted for Kerry. But he's been expressing notions that have me confronting my basic political beliefs.
It all began when we were, as usual, discussing the Iraq war. My father and I were both against the war, both for pragmatic reasons and not the McChimpBushHitlerCo conspiracy theories. However, we disagree on whether the war will work out in the end. He is negative on our chances. "The Iraqi people will never become democratic, and Iraq will never become a pro-American state," he said, "even though there are of course pro-American, pro-democratic Iraqis. It just won't work."
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:41pm on Jul. 26, 2005 Free Muslims meet with the Congressman Tom Tancredo
By jadedmara
I'm copying this email in full. Not much more can be said on my end.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:58am on Jul. 26, 2005 Tube Staff to Strike over Security
By jadedmara
The union said it would demand the introduction of guards on trains, more station staff and better emergency training and equipment including breathing apparatus for rail workers.
It is also seeking assurances that rail operator Transport for London will not reduce staff at rail stations or weaken fire safety regulations.
Ok, so I can sympathize. But, so, now the tube workers strike, there's no revenue to be made off the tube during the strike, and somehow the British government will be able to pay for stuff like a breathing apparatus?
Apparently this comes just a year after they striked over pay. I guess, being Europe, this shouldn't surprise me.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:45pm on Jul. 25, 2005 This is not a war against Islam
By jadedmara
Forgive me for reposting a comment as a diary. This is a topic that has been saddening me for a few weeks: namely, the prevailing view of Islam here at RedState.org.
I haven't posted a diary on this topic because I can't leave my emotion out of it. It's hard for me to not make this about myself, or my family, and to keep this a dispassionate response to some of the arguments I've seen on the site. Generally, RedState deserves better than that type of diary.
However, I give in. This is my 80% solution. I want to be heard. I want other detractors here to be heard also, not hidden in a larger story about nuking Mecca or the great divide.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (56) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:16pm on Jun. 22, 2005 Response from Senator Warner
By jadedmara
Most of this discussion is overcome by events, but I wanted to post the response I recieved from Senator John Warner (R-VA)'s office in regards to my letter about the judicial filibuster.
Dear Ms. _:
Thank you for contacting me to express your views about judicial
nominations, the filibuster, and the so-called "nuclear" or
"constitutional" option. I appreciate you making this effort and offering
me the opportunity to give you my perspective on these important issues.
Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution provides that
the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court, and all other
Officers of the United States . . . ." Thus, pursuant to the
Constitution, both the President and the United States Senate play a role
in the judicial nominations process.
In over a quarter of a century of serving the citizens of the
Commonwealth of Virginia in the Senate, I have taken my constitutional
responsibilities of providing advice and consent very seriously. In
considering a nominee, I look at many factors: character, professional
career, experience, integrity, and temperament for lifetime service on our
courts are all important. The opinions of the officials from the state in
which the nominee would serve and the views of my fellow Virginians are
also relevant. In addition, I consider whether the nominee is likely to
interpret the law according to legislative intent and precedent, as all
judges should, or whether he or she will improperly impose his or own
views from the bench as a judicial activist.
Considering these many factors, I believe that President Bush has
nominated many well qualified nominees to serve on the bench. While the
overwhelming majority of these nominees have been confirmed by the Senate,
unfortunately, starting in 2003, some Senators in the last Congress
resorted to using a rare procedural maneuver known as the filibuster to
prevent the full Senate from having up-or-down votes on certain nominees.
The filibuster is a Senate procedure defined as an extreme dilatory
tactic used to obstruct or prevent action. Under Senate rules, a
filibuster can only be defeated if at least sixty Senators vote in support
of a motion to invoke cloture - a motion to defeat the filibuster and end
debate.
In my view, systematic party-led filibusters of judicial nominees are
wrong. I generally believe that nominees who enjoy the support of the
majority of Senators ought to receive up-or-down votes. Accordingly, in
the last Congress, I participated in an all-night Senate session to try to
break the judicial filibuster within the framework of our existing rules.
Regrettably, our effort was not successful.
Since then, it has been suggested that Senators should employ a mechanism
commonly referred to as the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option in an
effort to ensure that all judicial nominees receive up-or-down votes.
Under this proposal, the Senate essentially would change its rules to
ensure that judicial nominees could not be filibustered. While rule
changes in the Senate usually require the concurrence of at least 67
Senators, this option would only require a simple majority vote.
As supporters of the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option considered
utilizing this extraordinary procedure, I intentionally withheld
expressing how I would vote on it in order to encourage the Republican and
Democratic leaders to come to a mutually acceptable solution for the
consideration of judicial nominations. However, once it became clear that
the Senate leadership would not be able to reach such an accord, I then
worked with a bipartisan group of thirteen other Senators to craft such a
solution. In my view, bipartisan consensus was necessary to break the
impasse on judicial nominations in a way that paid respect to the
Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision of the United States Senate.
Under our agreement, signatories committed that future judicial nominees
will only be filibustered in extraordinary circumstances. I take this to
mean that the kind of systematic party-led filibusters we saw again and
again in the last Congress will no longer occur in the current 109th
Congress. In return for this commitment, Senators who signed the
agreement also committed not to support the so-called "nuclear" or
"constitutional" option so long as filibusters on judicial nominations
only occur in extraordinary circumstances.
In my view, our Constitution and the history, traditions, and rules of
the Senate are very clear: while nothing explicitly guarantees judicial
nominees an up-or-down vote in the Senate, the use of the filibuster in an
attempt to prevent such votes has historically been very rare. Our
agreement pays respect to these facts, and if the spirit of the agreement
holds, the vast majority of judicial nominees will receive up-or-down
votes while future judicial filibusters will once again be very rare.
Finally, while some have claimed that the "nuclear" or "constitutional"
option, if successful, would have guaranteed an up-or-down vote for every
single judicial nominee, this is simply not the case. While such an
option would have, if successful, eliminated filibusters on judicial
nominations, the fact of the matter is that throughout history Senators
have used a variety procedural tactics other than the filibuster to
prevent the full Senate from considering certain judicial nominees. In
fact, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, since
1945 approximately 200 judicial nominations have not received up-or-down
votes in the United States Senate. These other procedural tactics would
have remained untouched by the "nuclear" or "constitutional" option.
In my view, the agreement on judicial nominations reached by 14 Senators
will do far more to ensure that a large number of judicial nominees
receive an up-or-down vote all the while paying respect to the
Constitution and to the history, traditions, and rules of the Senate.
While it is not a perfect agreement by any means, it is one based on
mutual trust, respect and good-faith.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
John W. Warner
United States Senator
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:10pm on May 17, 2005 My Letter to Senator Warner
By jadedmara
Senator Warner:
I am a lifelong Virginia resident who is troubled by reports of a compromise deal in the works that would result in six Republicans Senators to vote against the constitutional/nuclear option regarding the recent Democratic filibuster. I, like many others, respect the history and importance of the filibuster as a tool to fight significant battles in the Senate. However, I likewise believe that the filibuster is a tool to be used for legislation, not for judicial confirmations.
Sir, if you are one of those who is tempted to advocate a compromise in this instance, I'd like to point out that the battle over the current judicial nominees is just a precursor to eventual Supreme Court nominations. I fear at this point, the filibuster is NOT being used in extreme cases; it appears that objectionable judges are those that are against Roe v Wade or who hold the constructionist view of upholding the Constitution. I do not believe that this is a case of people of faith being under attack, but I do believe that this is a case of minority views rising up and holding all others to be extreme or intolerant.
Sir, I do not consider myself to be a social conservative, although I am a conservative nonetheless. Although I am strongly pro-life, I will be content with the overthrow of Roe v Wade so that legislatures in individual states can decide as opposed to the activist elite on this issue. Compromising on the filibuster issue, or voting against the constitutional option, will put us down a path in which an anti-Roe or constructionist Supreme Court Justice will never be nominated. We are the majority party now, and we have played by the rules. I urge you to not allow the Democratic Party to suddenly change those rules.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:56pm on Feb. 18, 2005 Another year, another Ashura
By jadedmara
Tomorrow's Ashura observance marks the holiest day for Shias throughout Iraq and throughout the world. Attacks against Shia worshippers in Karbala, Najaf, and Baghdad last year killed over 170 and have been linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Given continued jihadist desires to target Shias and the symbolism of mass casualty attacks against Shias on Ashura, the potential for such attacks tomorrow remains high.
What to expect tomorrow from Shia worshipers:
1. Mourning observances typically commence in the early morning and are at their peak during the time of Asr prayers in the afternoon, when Imam Hussein is said to have been martyrd.
2. Shia mosques throughout Iraq will likely be overcrowded with services involving an emotional recounting of the historical day's events, mourners walking outside in procession (many in the procession may even beat their chests with their hands to show their grief) enactments of the final battle that took place on Ashura, and an evening observance discussing the hardships that would befall the women and children followers of Iman Hussein.
What we have seen thus far today: a car bomb exploded outside a Shia mosque in Iskandariya, south of Baghdad. At least seven people killed. No claim for the attack thus far. A suicide attack against Shias participating in a procession to the al-Khadimain mosque in Baghdad. At least 15 people killed. No claim for the attack thus far. Two suicide attackers target a Shia mosque in Baghdad's western sector. At least two were killed. No claim for the attack thus far. A rocket fired in NW Baghdad in the direction of a Shia mosque. At least one person killed. No claim for the attack thus far. Car bomb against a Shia mosque NE of Baghdad. At least 13 people killed. Zarqawi's group denies responsibility, claiming the patrol they were targeting "just passing by."
When Ashura came around last year, Zarqawi still had not formally allied with Usama bin Laden. One point of contention in the alliance is that UBL is not in favor of targeting Shia; however, he has made the concession to targeting Shia in Iraq. Nice of him. I still find it interesting that we haven't seen any formal Al Qaida in Iraq claims of responsibility for today's attacks.
Nevertheless, be warned of the potential of US and Iraqi lives being lost tomorrow.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:34am on Nov. 3, 2004 "Undecided" states' roundup
By jadedmara
CNN:
Ohio
Iowa
New Mexico
NBC:
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Iowa
New Mexico
Nevada
FOX:
Wisconsin
Iowa
New Mexico
Nevada
CSPAN:
Iowa
New Mexico
Ohio
ABC:
Ohio
Iowa
New Mexico
Wisconsin
Daly Thoughts predicted:
Iowa and Hawaii as too close to call