Malt Shop Logic

Actually my boss is a pretty nice guy. I have no desire to beat him up.

But this is frickin' hilarious.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5251952.stm

Few can argue that it has been the Democratic Party that has been leading the public relations charge against the strategic and tactical changes being made by the Administration and military in Iraq. Congresspeople and Senators with names like Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and others have railed against the "surge".

One would assume that if a Congressperson or Senator believes fervently in the wrongness of the "surge" and other components of the President's new strategy for success in Iraq, then it is incumbent upon that Congressperson or Senator to exhaust Congress' warmaking and oversight powers to prevent or end the surge, and even the entire Iraq adventure.

Instead, witness Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid's, recent quotes during an interview with the new Washington, DC, political newspaper, "The Politico": Republicans "would like this debate to be as whether or not we are going to be cutting off money for the troops," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently told The Politico. "The logical conclusion is that a lot of things can happen. But right now, the most important thing is to tell the president that what he has done with the escalation is wrong. And that's what we are doing, bi-partisanly."

You are Congress. You alone have the Constitutional authority to declare war. Under your War Powers Resolution of 1973, you have clarified the circumstances under which a president may take the country to war, and you have reserved for yourself the right to withdraw statutory warmaking authority from the executive branch. And the extreme action you're taking is "to tell the president that what he has done...is wrong"??????

Reid's quote lays bare the true nature of the "opposition" in the Congress to the Iraqi conflict, led by the Democratic Party. It's not actually interested in solving what it perceives to be a problem -- not interested in exercising its powers, acting boldly (or recklessly, depending on your perspective) -- it's content with just talking about it. How sad and pathetic. How poorly we are all represented by the new party in power. Shame on them for their weakness and laziness.

PS Contrast this with Senator Russ Feingold, who at least has the courage of his convictions.

When I got home last night, I found a business card in my door frame from a special agent with the Criminal Investigations Bureau of the California Department of Justice. There was a hand written note at the bottom that said "Pls. call [REDACTED]" with a phone number that was not already printed on the card.

I called the phone number, and reached a recording of a female informing me that I had reached the voicemail of the name printed on the business card. I left a message giving my phone number.

Not sure what this was about, I immediately called my cousin's husband who is a detective with the Sacramento police department. (I also called Ben Maplethorpe who was, unfortunately, in bed when I called. I guess now that he's a cop, he actually goes to bed early. Sorry, Ben.) The best my cousin-in-law could offer was that it could be regarding just about anything, and to let him know what I found out.

I then turned to the one other resource I had at my disposal which would reveal if I've been tapped to provide information as part of a clearance check, or if one of my friends recently ran afoul of the law. (Not that I'm accusing anyone. But, let's be honest: if that situation were to happen, someone on this site would know of it.)

This morning, I called the number again. No response. I didn't leave a voicemail.

Around 10:15, she called me back. Let's replay that conversation, shall we?

Me: This is Josh.
Special Agent (subsequently to be to referred to as S.A.): Joshua Cheshire? This is Special Agent [REDACTED] with the California Department of Justice. Do you have a moment to speak with me?
Me: Hi. Yeah, I can talk now. How can I help you?
S.A.: You should know that I'm partnered with the F.B.I.'s Counterterrorism Unit. We received some information and would like to ask you some questions around that.
Me (wondering what you guys have gotten me into now): Okay...
S.A.: Specifically, can you tell me if you visited the city of Denver in September of 2006?
Me: It's quite possible. May I ask what, specifically, this is about?
S.A.: Would you prefer to speak in person?
Me: Yes, I would.

At least now I was 95% certain that it didn't involve any of you. But, I was in the area meeting with Focus on the Family at the time. God only knows what that crazy little enclave is up to at any point in time. (Some day, I'll have to tell you about that particularly creepy day.)

It was decided that she was coming to my office to speak with me. Now.

Imagine the buzz in the office when at 11:00 AM this morning, two members of the California Department of Justice show up flashing badges asking to speak with Joshua Cheshire.

Short version? It turns there was some sort of activity that occurred in the city of Denver the day I arrived. It happened with the same vehicle I rented the night I got in. I clearly remember this rental, as the guy who had it before me was being extremely difficult with the rental agency and refusing to return it. Now I'm just wondering if I was radiologically poisoned.

S.A.: Well, Joshua, it looks like you weren't even in town when the event occurred. We're going to follow up on your flight information, and assuming it comes out as you say it was, you'll probably never hear from us again.

It has come to my attention that comments have not been posting. Well, it's true. I recently approved about five months of comments. Scroll through and see what people thought about your posts months ago.

I'm going to turn off the comment moderation, which I think is preventing the comments. If we have comment spam problems, we'll revisit the issue.

That is all.

I won't be inundating you with posts about the Super Bowl in the next couple weeks, but this article in the Chicago Tribune today is really interesting about how the northern part of Indiana is filled with Bears fans. It should be somewhat interesting to you because the town that is its case study is Renssalaer, Indiana.

I witnessed this personally this past weekend in Susan's hometown where I saw more Bears gear than Colts - though I think it's more of a generational thing (older folks are Bears fans, younger folks are Colts fans) than a geographical thing.

I came home this evening to find a business card on my front door from a special agent in the Criminal Intelligence Bureau of the California Department of Justice. Anybody want to tell me something?

Bear Down, Chicago Bears
Make every play, clear the way to victory!

Bear Down, Chicago Bears
Put up a fight with a might so fearlessly!

We'll never forget the way you thrilled the nation
With your T-formation

Bear Down, Chicago Bears
And let them know why you're wearing the crown!

You're the pride and joy of Illinois,
Chicago Bears, Bear Down!!

What, I don't pay attention to the blog for a while and Chapin's driving the national debate on the Iraq surge?

Anyway, so at the end of last week, I went to Vegas - for work. Here's a little quiz about my time there. Which one of the following things did I do while in Vegas:

a. Eat pigeon.
b. Tool around in stretch Hummer for no particularly good reason.
c. School a bunch of Consumer Electronics Show stragglers in poker.
d. Be in town during the apparently annual porn convention.
e. Stay at the magnificent Wynn Hotel, the newest on the Strip.

Trick question. It's all of the above. Can't say actually working in Vegas is exactly worth it, given how it cut into gambling time. But I was able to fit in all the rest of that. The Wynn is nice. Stretch Hummers are ridiculous, the CES guys sucked at poker, and I don't know how the porn convention was (honest!) but there was a little more artificiality than normal there.

And here's the verdict on pigeon as a meal: it's a fattier quail.

So, even from my remote outpost in Danbury, CT, I've been following (via MSNBC) the punditocracy as it ruminates over Congress' supposed powerlessness to "stop the surge".

Most pundits have said with certainty that the only power Congress might have over the presidential action is the power of the purse -- in other words, Congress can cut or rescind the appropriation and/or authorization of funds used to support the surge.

But here's a premise, and a question for the scholarly among you:

1. Congress, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, is the only US governmental entity expressly empowered to declare war.

2. Congress, through the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), clarified the circumstances under which, and the manner in which, the executive and legislative branches interact when the US government commits its forces to hostilities. In that resolution, Congress essentially creates two "extra-constitutional" grounds for the President to commit US forces to hostilities:

A. "...specific statutory authorization...."
B. "...a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

3. Congress authorized the president wide authority to commit US forces to hostilities to Iraq in the "Authorization for Military Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002", aka Public Law 107-243.

4. Why couldn't the "powerless" Congress simply do one of the following:

A. Pass a new Joint Resolution simply stating, "The Congress of the United States, consistent with its powers under Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution, and consistent with its War Powers Resolution of 1973, hereby rescinds the statutory authorization granted to the Executive Branch in Public Law 107-243." There would have to be a few procedural steps afterward, but unless this new resolution was reversed, my understanding after reading the law is that the President would be without any legal authority to wage any hostilities (up to and including war) against Iraq.

b. Pass a new Joint Resolution simply stating, "The Congress of the United States, under Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, hereby renounces any and all laws, previously passed, to include Public Law 107-243, that alone or together could be interpreted as a declaration of war against the sovereign nation of Iraq."

Thoughts?

...about Miller Lite (and for that matter, most American beer),

"Miller Lite...now there's a beer. I'll tell you what, I could piss in a cup and give it to this guy here and he'd like it better than a Miller Lite. "

Eddie Vedder