First, I'm chided that no named "conservative groups" are quoted opposing the vaccine, and that I fell into a pile of liberal bullshit by buying into that.

Well, maybe. But the article does say:

Several leading groups that promote abstinence are meeting this week to formulate official policies on the vaccine.

It doesn't say they've decided to oppose it yet, but there are quotes from some who do. Did the article jump the gun in supposing that "conservative groups" would oppose this? Perhaps. But if individuals oppose it, certainly it won't be long before they become a "group." That's the way it works.

Next, on to the mandatory-immunization issue. I know a lot of people, including Michelle Malkin, are pretty skeptical about the need to immunize their kids, even against mumps and rubella and so forth. There are, yes, dangers associated with vaccines.

I'm going to take a pass on this entire argument, except to say that I don't buy that just because you're a parent you can necessarily do whatever you like with your kid. When I posted that article about the vegan husband and wife who nearly starved their child to death by feeding it nothing but nuts and fruit, no one chimed in to say, "Well, their kid. They had that right. Who are we to interfere?"

I believe in a great amount of parental autonomy but I have to say when it comes to vaccinating against cancer -- assuming this vaccine is as effective as its said to be -- I'm not sure a parent should be allowed to knowingly expose a child to the risk of deadly cancer. To what end? To prove what point?

Further, when the debate is over the "mandatory" immunization, I assume "mandatory" has wiggle-room in it. I think parents can opt out of MMR vaccination; I assume they could do the same with this one. It might be a pain in the ass to do so, but, you know, if you've chosen to let a kid risk getting cervical cancer which could be prevented by a shot, I think the least you can do is fill out some f'n' paperwork.

Finally, someone says that this form of cancer doesn't happen just from having sex, but from having "promiscuous, non-monagomous" sex. Nonsense. True enough, it would be difficult for two previously-celibate and perpetually-monogamous virgins to ever give each other STD's. But any time you've had sex with more than one person (a threshhold I don't think counts as "promiscuous") in your entire life you have the risk of picking up the HPV from one partner and passing it to another. Of course those who have sex with more partners run a greater risk; but the risk exists for just about everyone.

I didn't mention this in the original piece, but there is sometimes an undercurrent of punitive prudery running through these arguments. One can make a good-faith argument against the vaccine, but sometimes people do seem to be thinking, way back in their skulls, "Well, you're a dirty whore. A little cervical cancer'll learn ya."

Again, not to indulge in ascribing bad faith to any particular opponent, and certainly not to opponents in general. There are good arguments to be made on both sides of most hot-button social issues. I'm just saying that sometimes, from some, I get the vibe that unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, and even cervical cancer can serve as useful object lessons for women of easy virtue.

I don't mind a little prudery. I think society could use a bit more of it. It's the punitive form of it I find a bit, well, nasty.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 622 words, total size 4 kb.

Or, "How Can You Have Any Pudding If You Don't Eat Your Meat?"

To be convicted of perjury or making false statements, the alleged false statement must be material to an investigation. Relevant to establishing the truth or falsity of an element of a claim or criminal charge.

Even assuming Libby did in fact lie (something not as clear as it may have seemed on Day One; check out Fitzegerald's friend and defender Andy McCarthy noting the thinness of some of the counts, quoted over a Naked Testicle Spiderman's place), Fitzgerald would still have to show his lies were material.

First of all, if no crime occurred, it's questionable if any subsequent lies were material. Fitzgerald asserts repeatedly that Plame's status was "classified" (not "covert"), and that leaking that information could implicate one classified information law or another. But what proof does he have that she was really classified? And even if she was, as a technical matter, labled "classified," was she really classified as we would typically understand it? With her driving to Langley every day, and her husband reportedly introducing her to people as "my CIA wife," it would seem she wasn't classified, even if that was the formal status of her affiliation with the CIA. As has been noted elsewhere, intelligence agencies frequently stamp The New York Times as "classified."

If it's not really a secret, it's not really classified. A man shouldn't go to jail because of the cover-your-ass kneejerk stamping of everyfrickingthing as "classified" by very low-level intelligence employees, who have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not stamping something as "classified."

Again, Fitzgerald asserts she was in fact classified. I question if that's true at all. If it's not true-- there should have been no subsequent investigation, as there was in fact no possible "underlying crime" to investigate. Making Libby's lies, assuming they were lies, quite moot. And immaterial.

Secondly, Fitzgerald asserts that Libby's lies were material because they prevented him from judging the intent of Libby. Establishing criminal intent is always an element of a crime; it's even trickier in a case like this, where one must not only prove intent, but specific intent, the willfull purpose to advance a specific bad cause. In this case, it's along the lines of "with the intent of undermining the intelligence capabilities of the United States."

But there are only two specific intents ever charged against Libby. And only those two are plausible at all.

FIRST, Libby's attackers say his intent was "to smear a political opponent."

SECOND, Libby's defenders say his intent was "to tell the truth about a serial liar who had been sent to Niger on a put-up job by his wife, a case of partisanship and nepotism working hand in hand."

No one alleges seriously that his actual intent was to harm the national security of the United States, except when his attackers actually are forced to allege this, in order to make the allegations against him conform to what the law requires a defendant to have done in order to be chargeable at all.

Again, given that it is simply implausible that Libby acted with the requisite specific intent to be guilty of the allegedly underlying crime, and Fitzgerald knew this from day one, any subsequent lies (if they were lies) were immaterial to any legitimate investigation.

So, we'll have to see.

My analysis looks good to me but it's probably off-base, because Libby's lawyer isn't making these sorts of arguments. But who knows. Perhaps he will.

Meanwhile... Let's not forget that this entire farce began due to the CIA's constant illegal leaking and constant illegal efforts to undermine the civilian elected goverment of this nation.

Remember who they sent to Niger-- Plame's husband, a committed partisan, a bit of a peacenik freak, and by no means an experienced intelligence officer or unbiased, impartial judge. They didn't even sign him to a standard confidentiality agreement, because they knew full well what he would claim to have found (that was the whole point of sending Plame's husband; they knew, through her, what he would say) and they wanted him to make the anti-war case to the world.

Be sure to check out this speech by the CIA's man in Niger, in which he's not at all ashamed to let his biases all hang out:

In this speech, Ambassador Joseph Wilson:

* describes himself as the investigator sent to Niger by the government
* details the African trip as only he is capable of
* says the government sent him there and not the CIA (a lie)
* says there was nothing to the uranium story (a lie)
* describes the US as "occupiers" of Iraq (a shocking statement at the time)
* describes a conspiracy to help Israel dominate the Palestinians
* calls the Administration warmongers and a--holes
* says Bush is in office for sex

Yes... if I were looking for an impartial investigator for this claim, I'd certainly send a liberal analyst's liberal husband, someone who believes Bush is in office for all the crazy White House pooter.

Fuck them. I'm backing away from my previous position that if Libby lied, he has to serve a couple of years in jail. What the CIA did here was monstrous and anti-American.

Joe Wilson's A Dirty Pirate Hooker: And a congenital liar.

Note that Wilson continues insisting his wife had "nothing" to do with sending him to Niger. Well, either he's lying or the indictment against Libby is.

In order to claim that Libby had perjured himself and obstructed justice, the grand jury goes to great lengths to show how and when he had actually learned about the origin of Wilson's trip. To do so, they refer on page 4 of the indictment to a conversation between Libby and a "senior officer of the CIA" on June 11, 2003:

[Libby] was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

And again on page 12 of the indictment:

[Libby] was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her.

This puts Wilson's fan club in a bind: either Wilson is lying, or the indictment is. Which is it? If it's the latter, then perhaps Scooter Libby didn't know what the indictment said he knew, and the indictment ought to be thrown out or at least amended.

As a technical matter, I suppose it could be true both that Libby was told Plame suggested Wilson but Plame didn't suggest Wilson; the high-level CIA officer alluded to (probably George Tenet himself) may have just been wrong. Then both the indictment and Wilson would be telling the truth.

But there is that memo noting that Plame suggested Wilson. And Wilson is not exactly a paragon of honesty and moral righteousness, such as Tiki Barber (206 rushing yards versus the Redskins).

If Only Libby Were Straight With Me... Fitzgerald doesn't seem to make a strong materiality case; he more or less assumes the materiality of the "lies." He should be required to make that showing at trial.

His claim is that Libby's alleged lies about when he found out that Plame was Wilson's wife would be helpful in determining why he leaked the information. Remember, it's the why that needs to be proven.

But let's assume that Libby just said, "Yeah, I heard about it from Cheney and Tenet and some other CIA guys, then I leaked it to the press." How exactly would that shed light on his intent? It would resolve the question of how he had come to know of the information; and also when.

But "how" and "when" aren't an element of the crime. "Why" is the element. How can a lie about "how" and "when" prove something to do with "why," unless one assumes, quite preposterously, that honest testimony by Libby would have divulged that he drank sweet mint tea with Cheney and Tenet and all three said, "Yeah, let's subvert the national security of this country. Old school."

That's not plausible at all.

Posted by: Ace at 09:20 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 1371 words, total size 9 kb.

Today's show will be a repeat, alas. Probably the Greg Gutfeld show, which was pretty funny. It wasn't particularly topical so it's not terribly dated. Except that, you know, you probably already heard it.

Basically, Karol is crazy-busy with the impending elections in New York (she's a consultant to a local pol) and so she can't make the show. Add into that that I busted out on trying to land a guest this week, and I was facing doing the show completely solo, which I didn't think I was ready for. There's only so much Klonopin can do.

Posted by: Ace at 08:53 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

What?

A vaccine immunizes perfectly against cervical cancer, and some don't want the shot given routinely to just-pubescent girls because it sends the wrong signal about having sex?

I'd say that's sending the wrong signal about cancer, myself.

Conservative groups say they welcome the vaccine as an important public health tool but oppose making it mandatory.

Well, I guess, sure, if you want to expose your daughter to cervical cancer, I guess I can see why you wouldn't want it to be mandatory...

Well, actually, I can't. This vaccine protects against one cancer, caused usually by the human papilloma virus, an STD. It doesn't protect against pregnancy or AIDS or herpes.

Mandatory? Why shouldn't it be mandatory (or "mandatory" in the sense that it's difficult to get out of it, requiring paperwork and such)? All women are going to have sex at some point, even if it's on their wedding night. We're not going to virtually eliminate a form of cancer just because it sends some "signals"?

Sending signals that we "expect" teenaged girls to have sex is bad. You know what else is kinda bad? Cervical cancer.

From Fark.

Posted by: Ace at 07:49 AM | Comments (36)
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.