 |
|
I am a nominee for the Campbell Memorial Award for Mainspring [ Powell's | Amazon thb | Audible ] — That’s a pleasant surprise, and I’m in very good company. I am terribly thrilled.
SF Signal reviews Escapement [ Amazon ] — So did June’s print issue of Locus, but they were not so much with the liking.
SF Signal with a mind meld on the next generation of SF writers — A lot of familiar (to this community) names there. I do think  kenscholes should have gotten more mention. See also the poll here.
Grants Pass finds a publisher — A collaborative project of which I am (or will be) a part.
APOD with a stunning photo of Dextre the robot — Wouldn’t Sinistre have been a much better name?
Determinism about the future — In which I learn about a new-to-me verb form known as “the futurate”.
BBC TV detector vans — Really?
Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution — I’m baffled by the lack of Democratic support for this. It’s not like Bush’s overwhelming popularity is an impediment. Much of what’s at issue is already in the public record — unlike our last impeachment, this president has indisputably committed both high crimes and misdemeanors. And apparently (not yet sourced) a president undergoing impeachment proceedings cannot issue pardons. Which would be a very good thing with the end of this disastrous and criminal administration looming. I can only assume the Democrats are afraid of being accused of political theatre in conducting groundless “tit for tat” impeachment proceedings. The evidence should speak for itself.
6/11/08
Time in saddle: 0 minutes (still recovering from surgery)
Last night’s weigh-out: n/a
This morning’s weigh-in: 262.2
Currently reading: The Alchemy of Stone by Ekaterina Sedia [ Amazon ]
Originally published at jlake.com. You can comment here or there.
SF Signal with a mind meld on the next generation of SF writers — A lot of familiar (to this community) names there. I do think kenscholes should have gotten more mention. See also the poll here.
The LJ-crew represents!
Reply | Thread | Link
At this point, I'm for impeachment proceedings against Pelosi as well... she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and 'taking impeachment off the table,' even if Bush starts eating babies on live TV, is contrary to that oath.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| klingonguy |
| 2008-06-11 13:13 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Campbell |
|
I mentioned this on safewrite's LJ where I first saw your nomination, and I'll repeat the question here: has anyone ever won both Campells before? This could be your chance! And thanks for giving me the excuse to drag out this icon again. :)
|
| jaylake |
| 2008-06-11 13:14 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I dunno, but it won't be me this year. Not with that slate of finalists... :D
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
|
this president has indisputably committed both high crimes and misdemeanors.
Indisputably? By what standard?
I think this is wishful thinking, alas. Kucinich's resolution focuses on the Bush/Rove/Cheney propaganda machine to drum up support for the Iraq war. It rides on the heels of the recent Senate report (which was largely toothless, and which Rockefeller is trying with all his heart to make more significant than it actually is)
There is proof of incompetence in the Bush admin; there is proof of loyalty being favored above merit; there is circumstantial evidence of backroom deals with Haliburton and Co.; but high crimes and misdemeanors?
I don't see the evidence. I see WHY people don't like Bush-- I'm not fond of him either-- but I'll be surprised if this comes to anything. There's simply nothing there (yet) to litigate against.
I'm a bit sickened that Obama's campaign is going to be tainted by Senateering before it even gets underway. Obama, for me, is the chance we haven't had since the late 90s to heal the political divide-- this effort by Kucinich threatens to upset that effort. What's worse is that it seems to me to be a completely empty effort.
Reply | Thread | Link
|
| jaylake |
| 2008-06-11 13:22 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
The Plame case alone has more merits than anything brought against Clinton. Also the doctoring of intelligence pre-war. Much of the rest of it is wishful thinking, agreed, though a surprising amount of substantiation might well emerge if there were any compliance with open records rules — Gannon, Abramoff, the Cheney Energy Task Force, a lot of things are very dark over at this White House.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
If the Plame case is your best example of an indisputable high crime or misdemeanor committed by Bush, you're on pretty shaky ground. It's disputable.
I would say it's indisputable that there was "cherry-picking" of intelligence before the war, but "doctoring" implies fakery, and I don't think there's indisputable evidence of that.
Frankly, it ought to be indisputable that Bush believed we would find WMD after the invasion, because the alternative makes no sense whatsoever*, but people still dispute it (i.e., by claiming Bush lied about existence of WMD, rather than merely claiming he was badly mistaken.)
*The alternative: Bush did not believe we would find WMD after the war. But he made it the centerpiece of the case for war anyway, knowing he would look completely foolish once it came to light that there were no WMD. Because, as everyone knows, Presidents love to look foolish for the history books.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| elfs |
| 2008-06-11 14:42 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
"There is proof of incompetence in the Bush admin; there is proof of loyalty being favored above merit; there is circumstantial evidence of backroom deals with Haliburton and Co.; but high crimes and misdemeanors?"
... are whatever Congress says they are.
It's rather clear that George Bush has been both reckless-- consciously dismissive of his own capacity for error-- and negligent-- failing to take the care necessary to avoid harm. Congress could well indict if it wanted.
But I am glad that it will sink out of sight soon enough. Obama doesn't need the distraction.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| oletheros |
| 2008-06-11 13:17 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| funky |
|
the british television system is very weird. anyone who owns a television has to pay a license to legally watch the bbc. this is why you have the tv detector van. they literally drive around in neighborhoods, detecting televisions and comparing them to the license lists.
the fun part is that the televisions can only be detected when they are on. so if you see a van outside your place, you just turn off the television. there's an element of the ss looking for french resistance radio operators in the whole thing, to my mind.
monty python did a great send up of this at the beginning of the eric the half a bee sketch, where they mention the cat detector van.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| goulo |
| 2008-06-11 14:32 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| polska walczy |
|
There seems to be a similar system in Poland. (I don't know the details, and I don't watch TV here anyway.) I don't know about any creepy TV detector vans here, however.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
|
| jaylake |
| 2008-06-11 15:33 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
is it wrong that I misread it as Grass Pants?
Welcome to Oregon, home of the lovely cities of Drain, Boring and Philomath.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
Ah yes, but PA still wins in my opinion, as you get to Paradise by going through Intercourse*, assuming of course, you avoid Blue Balls.
When my ex-GF was about 13 or so she got slapped ( and then given a $20 as "hush money" ) by a little old lady asking for directions to some antique store, or as she put it after telling her to go through Intercourse: "Look lady! I didn't name them! Blame the Amish!"
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
| sacchig |
| 2008-06-11 14:05 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
My reaction when the guy outside my favorite grocery store kept hounding me to sign the impeachment petition was, "Hasn't the bastard cost the country enough already?" And besides the expense, impeachment proceedings would bog down Congress (and the media) at a time when there are more important things to attend to. I hadn't thought about the pardons aspect, but I still don't think it would be worth it. I could easily be wrong, though. Where I live (western MA), everybody willing to admit it knows all the sordid details; possibly there are areas of the country where a few minds might be swayed, but I think it would be beating a dead duck.
Reply | Thread | Link
This one's easy -- the Dems don't want to get mired in an impeachment trial when there's a HUGE election they *need* to win. Historically, something like an impeachment does no good for getting elected as the "new" party in office...
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| cj_ruby |
| 2008-06-11 15:47 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
Most Democrats think Kucinich is a nut, but they overwehlming reason is not to take focus off the presidential race. Impeachment would take the sunny spotlight of the media off Obama.
Yes, I voted for Hillary.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| rsdevin |
| 2008-06-11 20:32 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I predict that in 5 years the voices over at SF Signal will regret not touting the names Ken Scholes and Jake Lake more fervently.
Of course, in 5 years, I hope to get a modicum of mentioning in a list such as this.
Reply | Thread | Link
|
|
|
|
|
