October 01, 2004

Republicans Fail to Pass Gay Marriage Amendment

Letter to the Editor

Some things change and some things stay the same. What's the same are Republicans trying to amend the Constitution on an election year. But what's different is that in the good old days - instead of an amendment barring gay marriage - they used to try to pass a balanced budget amendment. But with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and with a Republican president and the biggest deficit in the history of the world - you won't see a balanced budget amendment any time soon.

Posted by marc at 10:38 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Upgrading the Blog

I'm in the process of upgrading the blog - at least I hope it's an upgrade - to Movable Type 3.11. It at the moment the comments aren't wotking. I'm going to registered commenters. Less comment - better comments - and no comment spam.

Right now it's moderated for everyone but once I get the user account thing figured out I will allow some people to post without moderation. The upgrade process hasn't been pretty so be patient.

Posted by marc at 07:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Why Kerry won the Debate

Letter to the Editor

There's a lot of discussion about why Kerry beat Bush in the debates last night. Bush supporters are claiming that Jim Lehrer was biased and gave Bush harder questions than he gave Kerry. Some say it was because of camera angles and that Kerry was taller. Although the problem with Kerry being taller was made worse because Bush slumped at the podium, making him shorter. Some people think that Kerry to unfair advantage of Bush because Kerry is smarter. But I have a different opinion.

I think Kerry had the advantage in the debate because reality was on his side. Iraq has become a quagmire and it's now obvious that invading Iraq was a bad decision. The economy is in shambles and so is foreign policy. Bush has used poor judgment for the last 4 years and because of that - it made it easier for Kerry to argue his position. Bush would have had the advantage if he had a record of success to run on rather than a record of failure. It seem that if a sitting president wants to have an advantage in a presidential debate - that doing a good job would be a good debate strategy.

Posted by marc at 04:19 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Add this blog to my Yahoo

If you notice there's a new button at the top of this blog. It lets you add this blog to your My Yahoo page just like any other news feeds. I'm just testing it out and it looks pretty kool so far.

Posted by marc at 03:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

MoveOn running a Killer Ad - Love it!

Check out this KILLER AD that MoveOn is running!

Posted by marc at 09:22 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Scoring the Media on who won the debate

First of all - Kerry won the debate big time. What do I say that and how do I objectively know that? Because Kerry's team is doing hand flips and Bush's team is crying and making excuses.

So - how is the media spinning the debate?

CNN - Reading this you'd think Bush won:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.main/index.html

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 615 registered voters who watched the debate, most said Kerry did the better job and almost half said the debate made them think more favorably of Kerry. (Special Report: America Votes, 2004, the debates)

By narrow margins, Bush came out better on believability, likeability and toughness. But there was virtually no change among those polled on which candidate would handle Iraq better or make a better commander-in-chief.

Microsoft NBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123725/

No polling information.

CBS - Experts rate the debate a draw

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/politics/main646711.shtml

ABC - Kerry wins but no change

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041001_648.html

USA Today - Kerry Wins - they get it right!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-01-battleground-debate_x.htm

Posted by marc at 09:02 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Another Marajuana Related Death

D.C. Jail Stay Ends in Death For Quadriplegic Md. Man Care Provided by Hospital, Corrections Dept. in Question

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page B01

Jonathan Magbie, a 27-year-old Mitchellville man, was sent to jail in the District last week for 10 days for marijuana possession.

He never made it home.

Paralyzed as a child and unable to even breathe on his own, Magbie died last Friday after being shuttled between the D.C. jail complex and Greater Southeast Community Hospital.

At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate.

An investigation is underway, but that is little solace to his family, which marched on the courthouse this week with signs accusing the judge of killing Magbie.

"I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been punished, because he did smoke the marijuana," his mother, Mary Scott, said yesterday, a day after burying her son. "I just don't think it should have cost him his life."

By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.

But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.

Police, she pointed out, found a gun and cocaine in the vehicle in which Magbie was stopped in April 2003. And, despite pleading guilty to the marijuana charge, Magbie told pre-sentence investigators that he would continue using the drug, which he said made him feel better.

"Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."

Details about Magbie's death were first reported by WJLA-TV (Channel 7). Magbie was struck by a drunk driver when he was 4 years old; he was paralyzed from the neck down, and his growth was stunted. Barely five feet tall and 120 pounds, he moved around on a motorized wheelchair that he operated with his chin.

For most everything else, from scratching an itch on his head to flushing his lungs of accumulated fluid, he had to rely on others. Along with his family, he had nursing care 20 hours a day.

"Jonathan was totally dependent," his mother said. "He couldn't do anything for himself."

Asked how her son was able to inhale marijuana, Scott said only that "he learned to do a lot of things."

Ahead of Magbie's sentencing, a staff member in Retchin's chambers contacted the office of Chief Judge Rufus G. King III to find out whether the D.C. Corrections Department would be able to house a paralyzed person in a wheelchair. The answer from the chief judge's office, which is the liaison with Corrections, was yes.

Leah Gurowitz, a court spokeswoman, said yesterday that the full extent of Magbie's paralysis was inadvertently not relayed to the chief judge's office.

Sandy Thomas and her great-nephew Anthony Smith are among several relatives and friends of Jonathan Magbie at a candlelight vigil outside the D.C. jail. (Photos Marvin Joseph -- The Washington Post) In a statement yesterday, Retchin said she was led to believe "that Mr. Magbie's medical needs could be met; this was such an unintended tragedy. I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to Mr. Magbie's family."

Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie, Philip Fornaci, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, said yesterday.

"I certainly would not say they killed him or any conclusion like that," Fornaci said. "But it certainly seems likely that he wouldn't have died if he hadn't gone to jail."

The initial medical evaluation of Magbie after his arrival at the D.C. jail on Sept. 20 found him in need of "acute medical attention," according to the Corrections Department. Within hours, Magbie was moved to Greater Southeast Community Hospital.

The nature of the medical problem was not specified in a chronology issued by the Corrections Department, which declined to make officials available to comment on the specifics of the case. The timeline shows that Magbie arrived at the jail at 2 p.m. and that he was taken to the hospital at 9:40 p.m. What happened in between is not explained.

The next day, Magbie was discharged and placed in the Correctional Treatment Facility, the jail annex that is operated by Corrections Corporation of America under a contract with the city. But almost from the moment Magbie arrived there, a senior doctor was concerned that Magbie might not receive the care he needed, according to his mother and a court official.

The court official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the doctor believed that Magbie belonged at the hospital and pressed Greater Southeast, which handles inmate hospitalizations, to take him back. But the hospital rebuffed the request, the official said.

Hoping to change the hospital's mind, the physician asked Retchin to issue a court order, the official said. But the judge declined, saying she lacked the authority to issue any such order.

The hospital said in a statement that it could not comment because of federal privacy regulations. It said that it provides "top-quality" care.

Apparently resigned to having him stay on at the jail annex, the medical staff decided after a couple of days of back-and-forth with Magbie's mother and attorney to allow Magbie's mother to bring his ventilator.

Told to bring the device down Friday morning, she did, showing up about 10 a.m. A half-hour earlier, she would later learn, her son had been taken by ambulance back to Greater Southeast.

That night, she received a call from a warden telling her that her son was dead.

Posted by marc at 07:57 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 30, 2004

What Conservatives think about the Debate

I'm posting this whole article from the National Review in case they try to pull it or change it. Sure answers the question on who won the debate.

by Jay Nordlinger. National Review Managing Editor.

I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly — much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy — not Joe Political Junkie — I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate.

And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less.

Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything — were a political naοf, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time — I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate.

As I write this column, I have not talked with anyone about the debate, and I have listened to no commentary. I am writing without influence (which is how I try to do my other criticism, by the way). What I say may be absurd in light of the general reaction — but so be it.

I'd like to share with you some notes I made during the debate. You may recall that I offered similar scribbles from the two conventions.

Bush "won the stride." By that I mean that he crossed the center of the stage first, to shake his opponent's hand. In 1980, Reagan strode over to shake Carter's hand — and utterly surprised him. Carter was sunk almost from that moment.

Kerry must be darned tall — he made Bush look pretty short. Same as the Bush 41-Dukakis gap? Not sure.

As he began, Kerry spoke clearly, and at a nice pace. He was disciplined about the clock. I wasn't nuts about those double fists he made — but he relaxed them as the evening wore on.

Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his.

Bush, throughout the evening, as Kerry spoke, had that pursed and annoyed look. I think it must have driven many people crazy. (I happen to love his whole battery of looks — but I'm weird.) Also, the president did his eye-closing thing, just a little. Could have been worse.

Furthermore, Bush sounded very Texan — I mean, extremely. More Texan, more drawly, more twangy than usual. I think the more tired he is — and, as a rule, the later in the day it is — the more Texan he sounds.

He was right to say that the enemy understands what is at stake in Iraq — bingo. In fact, Bush was never stronger than in the opening rounds of the debate.

Kerry was smart to mention all those military bigwigs who support him. We conservatives roll our eyes when we hear this; sure, Kerry can roll out about ten; we can roll out about ten thousand. But this support for Kerry will be news to many Americans.

The senator seemed to rattle the president, about 15 minutes in — and he stayed rattled. Also, the president was on the defensive almost all the time. Rarely did he put Kerry on the defensive. Kerry could relax, and press.

I was hoping that Bush would put Kerry on trial — make him the issue. Sure, Bush is the incumbent. But it can be done.

Kerry was effective in talking about parents who have lost sons or daughters in the war. Bush was fairly good, later, too — but not quite as good, I thought. (These are all "I thoughts.")

Although the two candidates had the same amount of time, Kerry got many, many more words in. And they weren't rushed words. Kerry spoke at a good, measured pace all through.

Bush said, "We're makin' progress" a hundred times — that seemed a little desperate. He also said "mixed messages" a hundred times — I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, "It's hard work," or, "It's tough," a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience (if I recall correctly).

Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition — when there are oceans of material available — is another.

When Kerry said that our people in the military didn't have enough equipment, Bush was pretty much blasι. He showed no indignation. He might have said, "How dare you? How dare you contend that I am leaving our fighting men and women defenseless!"

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man.

When he talked about Iraq, he ran the risk of sounding Pollyanna-ish — a little head-in-the-sand-ish. Bush is not. But he might have left that impression.

And why didn't he do more to tie the Iraq war to 9/11? To the general War on Terror? Why didn't he remind people that this is a war of self-defense — that, after 9/11, we couldn't go back to the days of episodic strikes, and law enforcement, and intelligence gathering?

And why didn't he shove Kofi Annan down Kerry's throat? "My allegiance is not to Mr. Annan; my allegiance is to the American people. The secretary-general has called our war illegal. Nuts to him."

Kerry kept mentioning Bush's father — how good he was, as compared with 43. Why didn't Bush let loose the significant fact that Kerry voted against the 1991 Gulf War?

When it came time to mention our allies in the Iraq campaign, Bush mentioned only Blair and the Polish premier. That made it seem like a pathetically short list — no Italy, no Spain, no Australia.

In fact, it was Kerry who had to bring up Australia!

When Moderator Lehrer and Kerry were talking about American casualties, Bush might have brought up the 9/11 casualties — and the casualties we might have incurred had we not acted against Saddam Hussein. "We ran the risk of suffering a lot more deaths if we had let Saddam remain in power."

Look, I'm not Monday-morning quarterbacking here. This is not simple esprit d'escalier. This is all basic.

Bush could have mentioned that Saddam was a great harborer and funder of terrorists. He let Kerry get away with saying that Iraq and terror had nothing to do with each other.

Why did Bush keep requesting a special 30 seconds to say the same thing over and over?

Kerry used Secretary Powell against Bush repeatedly, and effectively — same as he used 41 against him. Bush never parried.

I'm thinking that Bush didn't respect Kerry enough. That he didn't prepare enough. That he had kind of a disdain for the assignment — "For gooness' sake, the American people are with me. They know I'm doin' the necessary. They're not going to dump me for this phony-baloney."

Well, they may opt for the phony-baloney.

I had a feeling that, as the debate progressed, Kerry felt very lucky to be hit with so little. To be relatively untouched.

On other occasions, Bush has been extremely persuasive in talking about the "risks of action" versus the "risks of inaction." Could have used that — to remind people of the choices he faced.

I have a feeling that Bush could have done just the same — exactly the same, no better, no worse — with zero preparation. With no practice at all. Just wingin' it.

Kerry said, "I've never wavered in my life." That's ridiculous. Who doesn't waver in his life?

Strangely enough, it was Bush who got bogged down in detail — trying to remember detail — not Kerry, who was good on generalities (as well as details).

So when Bush talks about Iran and North Korea, he gets all ally-loving and anti-unilateralist? He gets all, "Be my guest, Jacques and Gerhard"? Bush may be right; and he may have been trying to show his flexibility; but I think this can confuse the average voter.

And his answer on North Korea is to tout Jiang Zemin, that beast? (At least Scowcroft and Eagleburger should be proud.)

From this debate, you would never know that Kerry is one of the most famous, or infamous, doves and lefties in American politics — lefter than Ted Kennedy, lefter than Hillary. He seemed positively Pattonesque, at times. So now he praises Ronald Reagan! A fabulously disingenuous performance.

Toward the end, Bush mentioned SDI (though weakly). Hurrah.

His pronunciation of "Vladimir" was priceless.

His pronunciation of "mullahs" as "moolahs" was a little less fun — more silly.

Ah, so it's Kerry who mentions George Will! And favorably!

Oh, Bush could have killed Kerry on the Patriot Act. Just killed him. Didn't happen.

Kerry's closing statement was superb — couldn't have made better use of his time. You almost didn't recognize the Massachusetts liberal we have known for 30 years.

Bush was weary — harmfully weary, I think. He let a million opportunities go by. You can't exploit them all, no. We all kick ourselves, after some public performance. But Kerry, it seemed to me, let not one opportunity go by. And he perceived some that I hadn't caught.

Yeah, he screwed up a couple of times: got the "break it, buy it" line wrong; said "Treblinka" instead of "Lubyanka." But that was small beer.

And you know what? The worst thing about Kerry is not that he is inconsistent; not that he is a flip-flopper. The worst thing about him is that he is a reflexive leftist, who has been wrong about nearly everything important his entire career. Nuclear freeze, anybody? Solidarity with the Sandinistas?

This is a man who called the Grenada invasion — carried out by his now-hero Reagan — "a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation." His view of Grenada was no different from Ron Dellums's.

Friends, I have no doubt that this little reaction column of mine will disappoint many of you. I'm sorry. I have called George W. Bush a Rushmore-level president. I believe history will bear that out; and if it doesn't, history will be wrong. I think that Bush's reelection is crucial not only to this country but to the world at large. I not only think that Bush is the right man for the job; I have a deep fondness — love, really — for the man, though I don't know him.

But tonight (I am writing immediately post-debate) did not show him at his best. Not at all. He will do better — I feel certain — in subsequent debates. I also worry that they count less.

Posted by marc at 11:06 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Kerry stood straight - Bush Slumped

Bush is shorter than Kerry - but he was even shorter tonight because Kerry stood straight up and Bush was slumping. Bush was so out of it that he couldn't even stand up - and it was a reflection of where he was emotionally. Kerry hicked his ass and you could see it in how they stood up.

Kerry was strong and decisive - Bush was week and stupid. He studdered - he stumbled - he was clueless. He was fumbling through his notes looking for answers and came across as clueless. Kerry succeded in making Bush look stupid.

Posted by marc at 09:46 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

Objective tests as to who won the debate

Of course the real test is to see how it affects the polls. But as far as testing it right now - the instant polls are strongly in favor of Kerry. But one of the tests too is that the Kerry people are happy and the Bush people are unhappy. And I think that's probably the best test that we have in the 90 minutes since the debate ended.

And - it looks like even Fox News is conceding that Kerry won. And when they got it - I think everyone got it.

There's 2 more presidential debates - a town hall debate - and one on the economy and domestic issues. This is the one where they were on Bush's turf. It's up hill for Bush now.

Posted by marc at 09:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Kerry won it - big time!

I was really nervous about this one - but Kerry really won it. Even the coverage on Fox News showed that Kerry was the clear winner. Bush supporters are clearly depressed and Kerry supporters are clearly elated.

Kerry was no Clinton - or even a Reagan for that matter. But - as I saw on democratic underground.com - Bush looked like a toad sucking lemons.

I can't help to think that the undecided voters are swinging towards Kerry - and that Kerry will win the real test of who won the debate - who gains in the polls.

Posted by marc at 08:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Take away the Debate Notes

Letter to the Editor

Having watched the debates I have a problem with the fact that the candidates had prepared notes to read answers from. Several times I saw that Mr. Bush was flipping through what was what we called when I was in school, a cheat sheet, with what seemed to be prepared answers on it, and he was reading from those notes. I didn't see Kerry doing that - but I assume that the rules allow him to do that as well.

I have a problem with that process because it allows other people behind the scenes to participate in a debate that is supposed to be a contest between two men. I would hope that in the upcoming debates that they would change the rules and take away the prepared notes. I want to see these men debate on their own rather than have the ability to read from a script. I want to see how they do on their own without the help of their support staffs.

--------------------

Clarification for the confused. Kerry had a notepad and was scribbling notes as Bush spoke. That's OK. Bush had a cheat sheet with answers written on them - I assume that - because he was writing nothing and reading a lot. If he wrote nothing and read a lot - that means that what he brought in already had things written on it. And he had pages of notes because you could see him filipping through them.

Posted by marc at 07:41 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

A Victoy against PayPal

I found a trick that worked for me to get my account closed and get my money back. I filed a complaint with TrustE and they acted - and it worked!

As you know - PayPal doesn't close accounts. They "Limit" the account forever. They steal your money for at least 180 days and often forever based on stories we have all heard. And by keeping the account open they still have access to your bank account, credit cards, and you are subject to their changing user agreement. I deciced to put and end to it.

Here's the link:

http://truste.org

Here is my complaint:

I have asked paypal to close my account and they have refused to do so. I want to close my account and terminate my user agreement with them. I have called them and I recorded the phone call of them refusing to close the account and terminate the user agreement.

Here is a link to the recording:

http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000394.html

I am not done with PayPal yet. It's not over until they change in a permant way. But for those of you with frozen and limited accounts - I suggest you do what I did - it worked for me. Victories come one step at a time. This is a step forward.

Posted by marc at 05:40 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack

September 29, 2004

Democrats don't Hate Bush

Letter to the Editor

The press has been saying that Democrats hate Bush - but I don't think that's true. I think it's more accurate to say that a lot of people are ANGRY with Bush, but they don't hate him. I'm sure that are some people who hate Bush - like if you lost a child in Iraq who died because Bush lied - then you might hate Bush. Or - if your retirement got wiped out because it was all in Enron stock - you might hate Bush,

But for things like taking away civil liberties with the Patriot Act, people losing their jobs, turning the biggest surplus in the history of the world into the biggest deficit in the history of the world, or the rape, torture, and killings at Abu Ghraib prison - I think people are just angry with Bush about that.

So I don't think it's accurate to portray Democrats as people who hate. You have to take into account issues and real reason people might be angry about personal losses and the direction America is heading. I think the media should look closer to see if people really do hate Bush - or if they are just angry with him.

Posted by marc at 04:55 PM | Comments (24) | TrackBack

September 27, 2004

Carter fears Florida vote trouble

You won't see this story in the Republican controlled American press even though it's a story about comments make by and American president about American elections. This article comes from the BBC.

Former US president Jimmy Carter
Carter has monitored more than 50 elections worldwide
Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.

He said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000 election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins - "seems likely".

Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".

His remarks come ahead of the first TV debate between Mr Bush and John Kerry.

They are expected to discuss the war on Iraq and homeland security during the programme on Thursday.


It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation
Jimmy Carter

Shaky confidence in Florida vote
Florida: Getting out the vote
Both men have cut back on their campaign touring to go behind closed doors and rehearse the arguments and techniques they will need during a series of three debates to be held over two weeks.

Each has held mock debates with aides standing in for their opponent.

Tens of millions of television viewers are expected to watch Thursday's head-to-head.

Mr Kerry, a debating champion at high school and college, will hope it can help him claw back a deficit in the polls variously put between 3% and 9%.

Florida vote

In an article in the Washington Post newspaper, Mr Carter, a Democrat, said that he and ex-President Gerald Ford, a Republican, had been asked to draw up recommendations for changes after the last vote in Florida was marred by arguments over the counting of ballots.

Mr Carter said the reforms they came up with had still not been implemented.

He accused Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, a Republican, of trying to get the name of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader included on the state ballot, knowing he might divert Democrat votes.

He also said: "A fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."

Mr Carter said Florida Governor Jeb Bush - brother of the president - had "taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future".

"It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation," he added.

"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."

Posted by marc at 09:01 PM | Comments (23) | TrackBack

Is Alan Keyes Daughter a LESBIAN?

Perhaps so - check out this blog. This makes the race more interesting.

Posted by marc at 06:33 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

September 26, 2004

Cat Stevens was NOT on no fly list after all

As it turns out. His Islam name - Yusuf Islam - was not on the list. But a similar name - Youssouf Islam - was on the list.

None the less - the Bush administration still insists that Cat Stevens is a terrorist supporter and that the acted properly in deporting him for having a similar name to someone else on the list.

The solution - people with common names or names spelled similar to those who might be on a terrorost list - names like David Nelson - should change their name, or maybe just move to some other country and stay out of America. I don't know why people from free nations would want to visit this country anyway.

Earlier this week Colin Powell defended the deportation:

NEW YORK (AFP) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell defended a US decision to deny entry to British singer Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens.

"We have no charges against him," Powell told reporters at the foreign press center here. "We have nothing that would be actionable in our courts, or in the courts in the United Kingdom, I'm sure.

"But it is the procedure that we have been using to know who is coming into our country, know their backgrounds and interests and see whether we believe it is appropriate for them to come in," he said.

"With respect to Cat Stevens ... our Homeland Security Department and intelligence agencies found some information concerning his activities that they felt under our law required him to be placed on a watch list and therefore deny him entry into the United States," Powell said.

"In this instance, information was obtained that suggested he should be placed on the watch list and that's why he was denied entry into the country," he said.

-------

This is what happens when you suspend the constitution like the Bush administration has done.

So - now that we know that the problem was a spelling error - will they let Cat Stevens in now?

Posted by marc at 07:26 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack