tvashtarkatena

I would say the fault lies primarily with individual landowners. The city's new densification policies (smaller setbacks, and a lack of architectural and landscaping requirements for new construction) have some culpability, however. The City Arborist's tree program is definitly a good one, no doubt.

OK, here goes. Marriage is a civil contract between two people, and, as such, is governed by state law, as long as that law does not violate the Bill of Rights, particularly the Equal Protection clause, of the US Constitution. Statehood is explicitly defined by the Articles of the US Constitution, particularly Article IV (see my previous post). Significant changes in Statehood, unlike a divorce, require ratification by Congress. Furthermore, the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly outlaw divorce as it does significant changes in Statehood.

I take it from your statement that you would agree with me that succession became explicitly unconstitutional after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Now for the counter punch. Secession was not only implicitly unconstitutional (throwing the entire constitution out the window and replacing with another one seems to me to fit that definition pretty completely), but also explicitly prohibited from the very beginning: Article. IV. Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future Lawn of the future

Lawn of the Future:

Your standard 4 neuron response. There is plenty of room for more trees in Seattle, both large, old ones and new ones, even with densification. They can easily coexist. It depends on how densification is done. It's estimated that American cities could support 700 million more trees than they do now without eliminating any existing infrastructure.

I have a recurring dream that I'm sitting in the back of a very large, driverless automobile that is careening down a steep hill. It's very exciting.

Seattle, the 'Emerald City', has lost 1.7 million trees since 1972. My next door neighbor just cut down four beautiful, healthy, 30 year old doug firs. The folks across the street took out 2 enormous doug firs from their back yard that didn't seem to be in the way of anything. Many healthy trees that have withstood the test of time get the axe for bullshit reasons: they're 'messy', they 'might get blown down', they're 'out of scale', or they 'might ruin the sidewalk'. Many get the axe through urban densification (thank you Mr. Nichols). Fucking ugly Bellevue style econoboxes and townhouses are springing up all over Seattle's craftsman neighborhoods. Some of the big trees that are left are being killed by climate change. Two big Eastern Pines up the street just up and died in the last 5 years. It's fucked.

We crave excitement.

Unfortunately for your argument, 'Bullshit!' and 'should be able to' appear nowhere in the Constitution. What does appear is the following: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Amendment XIV: Privileges or immunities, due process, elections and debt. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; Secession would constitute a law that would certainly abridge the privileges of the citizens of the United States (living in the succeeding states) by removing their United States citizenship entirely. And, BTW, your marriage analogy is ludricrous. Next...

Specific prohibition is not necessary to make succession unconstitutional. It is implicitly prohibited, because the constitution defines a single federal government. To reject that government is to violate the constitution. There were many Union bases and much Union equipment located deep in the South. It was a huge issue at the time, according to the memoirs of WT Sherman (who was running a military school in Louisiana during succession), anyway. Had there not been, the Civil War might never have happened. And, as we all know, an attack on American soil requires a strong response. The South and North obviously differed in there definitions of 'American soil'. ] We apparently agree on this point, except that I would say that politics and morality are often intertwined. Hey, the South started the shooting.

There are a lot of liberals who'd love to get rid of the South and a lot of conservatives who'd love to say goodbye to the North, that's for sure. But seriously, and in the Christmas spirit, I'll take this as a non-troll historical exercise. the Civil War differed from Iraq in several important ways: It began as a Southern rebellion that violated the constitution. The Federal government had to choose between enforcing the law, or walking away from the constitution and letting the federation unravel. Actual hostilities commenced because the North refused to relinquish federal military property located in the South to the South. Tensions had been rising because of this issue during the six months following succession. The South conveniently answered Lincoln's question of how to enforce the Union by attacking Fort Sumter. Slavery, long unpopular in the North, provided Lincoln the political support he needed to prosecute the war. Preserving the Union was his primary objective, but slavery was the issue that spoke most directly to Northerners. As for war crimes tribunals, there did occur against the officials who administered the Southern prison camp at Andersonville. As is all conflicts, it is only the loser that goes on trial, never the winner. The differences between this internal American conflict and an invasion of an entirely separate country of non-Americans halfway around the globe on false pretenses should be obvious to even casual observers.

I certainly agree that any law that excepts government operatives from obeying the law is a bad law. You've pointed out a central flaw in all of this: we have one set of standards for the military regarding torture, etc, and virtually no set of standards for contractors and the CIA. This represents a dangerous hole in government oversight. I also agree that criminal or civil proceedings against individuals (Rumsfeld being just one) can shed light on the kind of disturbing facts that drive policy change. Fortunately for all of us, Rumsfeld is out of office. Taking him to court post-tenure presents the paradox of increasing the chances of nailing him while decreasing the reach of any resulting policy change. Whatever ruling comes out of his legal proceedings will act as a threat to Gates and future SODs, though. In the end, congress needs to act decisively with legislation that reigns in the CIA and their secret prisons, as well as the president, Gitmo (although the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the legality of such detention, and will certainly weigh in again when the new legislation is tested), his spying program, tribunals, and enemy combatant status. Every American, regardless of political leanings, should be concerned that only 7 out of the 430 prisoners at Gitmo have been charged with a crime. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional protections, which have been grossly ignored in this case, extend to Gitmo, the administration has barely budged on this issue. This is a political embarrassment that has cost us much more globally than it has improved our national security. Try the detainees fairly, that's all human rights advocates ask for.

Assclown # 1 reporting for duty. I think it's more important to stop the human rights violations by the military than to punish one man, however important and symbolic he might be. The military has clarified its field manual to come in line with the Geneva conventions regarding treatment of detainees; basically outlawing torture by military personnel. That's a good thing. The CIA and private contractors, on the other hand, are operating under considerably more ambiguous guidelines. That's a problem. The military is still involved in questionable tribunals and running Guantanamo, but the problem there lies more with an executive branch that refuses to abide by supreme court rulings and operating either outside the law or under amiguous laws than with military doctrine. Assuming some reform happens, should, then, Rumsfeld be punished? Personally I think yes, in that he violated the international conventions, to which the US is a signatory, that are essentially the laws that govern military conduct in times of war. Rumsfeld's conviction would require proof that he ordered such violations. The question is, how to get the proof? A grand jury is the most powerful way (they have the most far reaching power of subpoena), but they are extremely time consuming and expensive politically and monetarily. A special prosecutor is another, but partisanism seems to always creep into the proceedings. Probably the most feasible way to punish a guy like Rumsfeld is through litigation on behalf of victims. Subpoenas and FOIA requests can be an effective way of gathering evidence to suppport or deny his culpability. The government (all three branches) often block these under the catch-all guise of national security. In litigation, if the case is without merit, it will quickly be thrown out without ballooning into a three ring circus on CSPAN. If it has merit, huge amounts of congress' time won't be wasted; the case will move forward without being compromised by excessive publicity. This allows the legal process do its work to determine innocence or guilt. It is also an effective means to win systemic reform, because the parties can agree to settle at any point. In any case, I suppose Rumsfeld won't be attending Oktoberfest any time soon. Assclown signing off.

My God, you guys have a hunger for horseflesh.

I'll get right on that, should the situation ever arise.

Well, I wouldn't misinterpret them, nor omit key details. The private land exchange isn't 'incomplete', it's been invalidated in court. The cross is still on a public preserve. If the White House wants to appeal the case, so be it. If they win, and the land is privatized, then let the man have his cross. If, however, the land remains a preserve, no cross. That's our legal system. Gotta love it. Here's some bedtime reading for you: "On April 5, 2005, the very same U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that the land exchange enacted by Congress in 2003 had been a "sham" amounting to an “attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin cross” on federal land. Unless the White House chooses to appeal District Court's April 5, 2005 ruling, the cross must ultimately be removed." Next caller, please...

I thought that was supposed to be Colorado Springs.

I am Everyman.

No one argues that the US is 'no better than the terrorists.' For one thing, we have a means for dissent and a mechanism for change when we do something wrong, unlike a totalitarian entity. In a world increasingly intolerant of human rights abuses (the civilian bombing of WWII would never pass muster in today's military doctrine), the US has a particular responsibility as the world's most powerful and visible nation to serve as an example for others. We should lead in the human rights arena, not continually provide excuses for our abuse of those basic rights, regardless of how tough times are. That is what it means to be a nation of principle, not convenience. Indefinite imprisonment, abduction, and torture without due process are the mark of tyranny, not a free society. Much of the world has condemned the US, and rightfully so, because our use of these tactics is not the way forward. We have a moral responsibility to do better than that. WWII provides an example. German invasions of third party countries often involved wholesale slaughter of the civilian population, and widespread programs of ethnic cleansing, and the execution of military prisoners. While the Allies were not totally exempt from atrocities, for the most part Allied forces refrained from these practices. It is not necessary, nor is it advisable, to match an enemy's brutality tactic for tactic. As the bulk of the Arab world watches our every move to gauge our intentions, we should provide a positive alternative, a way forward, as compared to the violence and extremism of our terrorist opponents.

OK, I'll come clean. I never finished watching the video.

Dissappointing. I thought Colorado was now missing a town.

I hate people who don't love God as much as I do.

KKK hates butt sex? What was last night about, then?

I would never accuse the other side of being funny.