From sportswriter Greg Cote's blog:
"Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi, in the U.S. to visit the White House, detoured to Graceland because he worships Elvis. Outside the mansion, six Elvis impersonators protested Japan's whaling policy by singing, "Don't Be Cruel." It was at that moment that Koizumi lamented privately that Elvis never recorded a hit song in favor of whaling."
Ohhhhh, now I get it, he's a musician who can't act. It does explain the silly clothes, and Wilsonian weight gain though.
(Yes, I'm very tough on my blog, if I saw him in real person you could expect to hear, "Excellent set Mr. Segal. By the way, I love your energy soda, kicks Red Bull's ass.")
But I couldn't help pointing out that Congress just declined to increase the minimum wage, which hasn't increased since 1997, ostensibly on the grounds that it forces employers to increase wages, yet they recieved its annual COLA to their own salaries, a forced increase for the employers (me and you and a dog named boo). Actually, in a truely inspired move, tired of the all the bad press that comes with voting for a raise, they had the brilliant idea of making the raise automatic unless unless they vote to not take it. Guess how often that happens? I wonder why they didn't do the same thing with the minimum wage?
As a quick side note to all you economists out there, one of the main arguements for the Congressional COLA by Congresstypes is that at nearly $160k they are underpaid compared to the private sector. Oddly, none of them ever leave to take a higher paying job until either, they lose, they're in danger of losing, or they retire after several decades in office. If the job is so underpaid, why do they keep running, and why do are so many people lined up to take the gig?
"What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Mr. Cheney said, in impromptu remarks at a fund-raising luncheon for a Republican Congressional candidate in Chicago. "That offends me."
Because Stalin and Muscles are too high class to watch the kinds of TV that America watches, I'm providing a quick reveiw of two TV shows, America Got Talent and So You Think You Can Dance, and yes, I will watch just about anything.
America Got Talent is brought to you by Simon Cowell, the meanie on American Idol. The judges are David Hasselhoff, Brandy, and some random English guy, with Regis Philbin taking the role of host. It's the Gong Show with a million dollar prize and that's all you really need to know. Here's what's great about it, and it has nothing to do with the "talent" on stage, and everything to do with the "talented" judges. Hasselhoff's is introduced as a major TV, movie and recording artist. TV I sort of get and I'll always feel a special bond because Stalin and I happened to be in Germany in 1991 and saw a black Trans Am decorated with his picture and "Looking For Freedom Tour 1991 empazened on the hood where the firebird would normally be, you just don't forget something like that. But movies? I'll let you be the judge. Oh and he's nuts, plane and simple. Beyond being reduced to tears in the Americal Idol finale (which seriously jeopardized our aforementioned bond), he's always jumping up out of his seat, babbling on about something else, then stops and looks seriously at the contestant and gives them his best acting ability and says "your going through to the next round." It doesn't capture well in print, but its awsome to watch. Mrs. Blogger notes that he has some kind of drinking problem and wonders if he's drunk. Either Mandy either does the worlds greatest Paula Abdul impression or I fear that every singer/dancer in Hollywood has major issues. Again, Mrs. Blogger was wondering if this was a SNL skit and actually gave Brandy props for her dead on impression of Paula. The random English guy appears to be the only one who gets that you're supposed to "gong" the bad contestants. It's also fun to watch REG and DH wrestle for role of Alpha Dog. The show is terrible but apparantly had great initial ratings. You get two acts, then commercials, two more, commercial, and then for some reason they have a Price is Right thing where they call down four more contestants. The show knows how to waste time, I think in the two hour premier I saw 10 acts. Then at the end they show you all the acts we didn't get to see. Just a disaster.
So You Think You Can Dance is a good show with real talent, brought to you by one of the Nigel something, who also produces American Idol. These dancers can move. Not quite Stalin at prom, but not bad for ameteurs. Unfortunately they changed the rules this year (yes I'm a returning vet of the show). This year the audience votes for the bottom three couples and the judges make the final decision as to which male and female get the ax. Last year it was the opposite. The problem is that America's vote doesn't matter, sort of like a Democrat in Texas. The voters have no say in who actually wins. A favored contestant could wind up in the bottom three every week and the judges could give the ax to someone else until the favored dancer ultimately wins. Part of the draw of American Idol is wondering who the viewers vote for, it adds randomness to the show. SYTYCD is now more like the Apprentice with viewers wasting their time on a voting gimmick. Now part of the reason I watch the show is to find out when the public get this and stops voting.
That's your TV post for the week. Next week look for a review of Judge Judy, Judge Mathis, and The Wiggles.
I'm going to concede to Stalin that this may well be a "the sky is falling" missive, but here goes.
With news of the "homegrown terrorists" coming to light, I think we will see a wave of quotes from politicians like, "what does it matter if you're a US citizen or a member of al- Qaida, a terrorist is a terrorist" and "we must apply the same techniques that have prevented another 9/11 in the US to thwart "homegrown terrorists." And all the "we have separate rules for US citizens and foreigners" talk and placations will go away.
Turns out "boutique" blends of fuels may not be responsible for higher gas prices. It seems that higher gas prices are due to supply and demand, that oil comes from highly volatile parts of the world (where real distribution problems exist) and the fact that there are no competing products to drive prices down. While it's fun to blame the environmentalists and their wacky birkenstocks for the fact that it's real expensive to fuel up the SUV, blaming the additives is like a 500 pound man blaming that last dougnut for ballooning up to 501. He can yell at that doughnut all day long, but the reality is that skipping it wouldn't turn him into Brad Pitt.
With friends like this, no wonder Liebs is in trouble.
My last post on Frist wasn't particularly clever, but given that I'm not particularly clever person that should be no surprise. Here's my beef with Frist and his Corey Hart moment, every group has that guy that always pushes things too far, but it shouldn't be the Senate Majority Leader. I get that there's a huge battle going on to frame the Iraq issue, and I think "We can't 'cut and run'" is a great slogan, it's a valid point wrapped up in a quick, easy to understand, and loaded slogan. Frist, takes the "If that's working, let's turn up the heat" (if the cookies are cooking at 350 degrees, they will really cook at 600 degrees) approach. So he went with "we won't surrender" pushed it too far, and looks like an idiot (granted, for all I know, in two weeks I'll be hearing all over about how the Dems want to surrender in Iraq). Both parties do this, and have always done it. The difference is that pushing the envelope on this kind of rhetoric used to come from the lower ranks. New guys looking to gain favor or get some name recognition would float these kinds of statements, allowing leadership to stay above the fray and work with the other party when the time comes. However, with Gingrich (at least its the first I remember it) leadership started taking a front and center roll with the attacks. Newt still managed to work with the Dems but the next generations of leaders, as is the norm, pushed harder and lacked his other skills. As the venom went up the ladder it became harder for the two sides to work together. Or as leadership became personally involved, the flex in the system was replaced with personal reputation. In the past, leadership could always blame the young hot-head for a given statement and still work with the other party. That's not the case now. Leadership cannot blame itself, so it gets staked to a position. My problem with Frist is that I expect better from the office of the Senate Majority Leader. My real concern is that he's not the last of his kind.
I'm trying my hand at creating an issue to be defiant and patriotic over. Since Sen Frist has declared that "We cannot surrender" in Iraq. I also like, "I will not allow our women and children to become slaves in a new Saddam Hussein regime. I will fight to my last breath to thwart Democratic indifference on this!"
"Surrender" I love it. Can you imagine Bush signing the surrender document with the 100 little pens they use when signing important things. And whoever leads the Iraqi's solemnly standing over Bush's quivering hand, and jubulantly accepting terms. Would it be held on an Iraqi fishing boat? Or is Frist referring to surrendering to the insurgants? But since Zaquari is dead, who would recieve our white flag? Would Iraq get control of the enire US, or just the parts that voted for Democrats? I need to know what the stakes of Frist's "surrender."
From the AP:
"WASHINGTON — With the market for corn-based ethanol booming, lawmakers from sugar-producing states like Minnesota and Florida are hoping that beet and cane growers can soon jump onto the renewable fuel bandwagon.
They cite the model of Brazil, which produces ethanol made from sugar cane. But critics, pointing out that sugar is much cheaper in Brazil than in the United States, question whether the economics of sugar-based ethanol would work in this country."
Food and beverage franchises with deep pockets and high profiles: Mind my diet, or the Center for Science in the Public Interest will mind it for me in court! Or at least the court of public opinion, where we all can learn--at last--the truth about dairy-rich drinks and fast-food fried chicken being (gasp!) fatty.
From the article:
"[The Center] has support in the campaign from the small IWW Starbucks Workers Union, which has members in three stores, all in New York. They would like Starbucks to list nutrition information -- which is currently available online and in store brochures -- on its menu boards.
'Customers can ask for nutrition information, but when you're talking about a transparent business in a busy world, that's not enough,' union organizer and Starbucks 'barista' staff member Daniel Gross said in an interview.
He said the company should use healthier shortenings without trans fat, and publicize its smallest size, 'short,' which is available but does not appear on the menu.
The union contends that Starbucks staff gain weight when they work at the chain. They are offered unlimited beverages and leftover pastries for free during their shifts."
Me, I'm more worried about the health of organized labor and the PIRGs. Yeah, it's tough standing on the shoulders of Nader and Chavez, but when the fight's for freedom from trans fat in the workplace, maybe the fight's over.
"I am sorry for any anxiety and concern my actions have caused others, specifically my family, the Steelers organization, my teammates and our fans."
A Colorado court has ruled that girls as young as 15 (and possibly 12) can marry under common law situations. As far as I'm concerned this is legalized pedophilia. The only silver lining I see to the rediculus Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment is that defining marriage as between man and woman will protect our children. But what I don't get is why people are so concerned about label two adults give themselves, but don't seem to care at all about the real ramifications of allowing 15 year old girls to marry 38 year old men?
Feel free to skip this post if you're looking for well reasoned and supported arguments on the Hudson case just decided. This is going to be pure rant.
In Hudson v. Michigan the Supreme Court voted today to allow police to enter your home without knocking or announcing themselves as long as they have a warrant. Granted, anyone who know's me knows that I'm going to rail against this. So, since I don't want to dissapoint, here we go.
This is judicial activism at its highest form. I remember a comment on this entry that if W's SCOTUS nominees turn out to be conservatives, then W will be a successful president. The thing is, what is a conservative judge? More and more I think this means "Anti-Abortion Liberal." So yes, it is a safe bet that Roberts and Alito will join Scalia as fantastic AAL judges, but conservatives? Not a chance. These judges don't care about "original intent," "keeping the power of government in check," or even the actual words of the US Constitution. Perusing the verdict and reading some reports these appear to be Scalia's reason's for allowing cops to enter your house without knocking or announcing themselves. Holding that cops had to knock would lead to "grave adverse consequence" of a flood of appeals by accused criminals seeking dismissal of their cases. Ahhh, so doing right and upholding the principles of the USC would be a hassle, so we should take the easier path and just make it ok. So now rule of law is driven by the "hassle" factor. I also like, "suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves." So again, law is based on Scalia's opinion about the peanalty of a miss-step by the police. I read the 4th again, nowhere does it say, "unless, you know, it's it would be subjectively costly for the government to follow this right." Agian, if conservative judges are supposed to follow the law and not create it on their whims, how's this conservative? If a company came before a judge said in some environmental law case and had a right to say drill for natural gas, but the judge said, "wellll, I think the flowers there are pretty so I'm just going to trump the law" "conservatives" would go nuts, and rightly so. Robert's made the argument during his confirmation hearings that he's just there to call balls and strikes. This is like saying, "Well the pitcher really needs an out here, so I'll call 'strike' on this pitch that just hit the ground." Also, there was all this talk about "respect for precedents" but this ruling erases something like 90 years of them on this issue according to Ginsberg. Scalia makes two other great opinions has he strips us of more 4th Amendment protections. One, that the cops would have found the drugs if they didn't make the mistake, so what's the harm, and announcing themselves may lead to more danger for the officers. On the first, why have protections at all? Cops should just go around looking in people's houses for illegal stuff. Then when they find something they can just arrest you and say, "Well, if I had a tip, or warrant I would have found this stuff anyway, so what's the harm?" On the second, son now if someone enters my home I have to decide if they're an intruder or a cop. He doesn't think that will lead to more violence? What about in "shoot first" states like FL? Again, not a point above has to do with law, just his opinions about things. Keep in mind, now cops can get warrants because a neighbor smell's "something funny." So imagine this, a neighbor with a grudge calls the cops and says she smells something coming from your home. The cops do no additional investigation, and get a warrant. Then then serve this warrant by walking into your home unannounced at 3:00 am, shoot your dog because they felt threatened and you didn't have time to put him up because they didn't announce themselves, but you're innocent. And this isn't even a "what if?" Each part of the above is taken from actual cases heard before courts. Does any of this seem ok? Does any of this sound like its what the founding fathers had in minde when they crafted the USC? Does any of this make you feel safer? Scalia is the prime example of a liberal activist judge. For all his words and speeches to the contrary, he's done more to expand government power than any judge I can remember, all based on his own wishes. If he want's to change law based on his desires he should do what the rest of us do, vote for legislators who make the laws. He is the definition of a AAL judge.
The end result of the ruling, near as I can tell is this. It is wrong for cops to enter a home without announcing themselves. However, everything they find is still admissable in court, you still get your collar and the attorney general still gets his case. So there's zero peanalty for doing so. In fact, it's all upside. All of it. Imagine if Bud Selig announced his plan for steroids in baseball. "Steroids are wrong. But there's no peanalty for using them, and you get paid more for hitting more homeruns." Does anyone think that steroid abuse will go down? Does anyone think that anything's fixed? Scalia and the other AAL's just gave the state an unprecidented amount of power. Not just in the case, but in the words they used to decide it.
This all stems from the "war on drugs" which should be called the "war on the 4th amendment."
My hope is that some president sometime appoints actual conservatives to the bench. But now that the standard is appoint whoever will give more power to the state, which only makes the executive stronger, I don't think this will happen.
And this rant didn't even help me. I'm still upset.
Bush is creating a marine reserve, or "national park" that will be roughly the size of California and will cover a remote section of Hawaiian islands. This is a huge step, not just for W, but for the country and I'm very impressed. One thing that most biologists agree on is that to preserve the fishing industry, there must be no fishing zones. This allows fish stocks to repopulate and migrate out. In the absense of no fish zones a "tragedy of the commons" occurs where everyone just fishes until there are no more in an area. The article says that W plans to make this a complete no fishing zone. This whole area is important for our fisheries, scientists, and tourists. Personally I would prefer to see more of these. It's a great move by the president and I say "thank you."
A radical San Francisco judge overturned the will of the people because of his personal beliefs. When with these renegade judges quit legislating from the bench? When will Judge Warren and his liberal cronies at the NRA get out of the way of the democratic process? It's just a shame that these lefties can't abide by the will of the people and instead run off to activist judges to get their way.
"We're disappointed that the court has denied the right of voters to enact a reasonable, narrowly tailored restriction on handgun possession," Dorsey said. "San Francisco voters spoke loud and clear on the issue of gun violence." (and won with a crushing 58% vote).
GOP immigration hardliners who take the "english only" stance, apparantly don't mean it for those who read their websites. Maybe it's intended to be used as a learning tool?
I remember Muscles for Justice being a star pupil in spanish back in the day, is the spanish option a direct translation of the the english site?
First the good. The Republican won the "predictor" race in CA. It was close enough, 49.5% to 45% or 5000 votes, that the the dems can say, "This was a victory. We came within 5000 votes in a heavily GOP district of winning and were outspent more than two to one. See, we have the momentum." Or at least, that's what I would say. But the GOP can claim the victory, and in the end, that's what really matters. There's a reason you never h ear the winning side claiming a moral victory.
Now the bad. The Senate rejected the FMA vote 49 for, 48 against, well shy of the 60 needed to take it to vote. Interestingly, the GOP, while they knew they would fail hoped to pick up on the 48 positive votes they had last time. The GOP knew that since the last vote, the dems lost 5 votes against to 5 Republicans that supported the FMA. Math says that the vote should have had 53 votes to take it to vote. But they only came up with 49. Now the math says they lost support the biggest issue facing the country today. "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one," said Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican.
I know I go through periods of paying attention, and not really paying attention, but did we catch Binny? Is Iraq now a stable state? Is health care fixed? How about Social Security? The deficit? The War on Drugs? Oh, I know, what about the new kid on the block, immigration? Must have been a really busy week leading up to the FMA vote for it to move to the head of the class.
Jackass.
...for one political party, but no one know's which one.
Special election today in CA. MSNBC is calling this race an indicator of the mid-term elections coming up in November. My take, using the scientifically unassailable, "as far as I can remember" these types of "forcasts" just aren't real accurate. It seems like everytime there's some sort of election before a general election, wonks get all worked up, tell us what it means, and are then wrong when the normal election comes.
But just for fun. This particular harbinger, which, whichever side wins will cliam either: The dems are poised to take over one, or both of the House and Senate, or that the GOP is still strong and all this talk of a dem "revolution" is all fluff. The media will fuel either scenario (see article), and this election will have powers that go well beyond its real impact.
Keep this in mind. This is an election for Republican Duke Cunningham's seat. He's now in jail for accepting bribes. This is not what one would call a "neutral" election scenario and is a big plus for the dems. It's also getting a lot more money and press than a neutral election which skews the vote, a wash. Finally, the whole nation isn't voting, just this district. A solid, solid GOP district, a big plus for the GOP. In any case, this is not a quality sample under any method for polling the nation on their votes in Novemeber. Scientifically, this "sample" would be laughed out of any journal supposing to report an "knowledge" based on the election.
But I think the more interesting "poll" is that this election is a proxy on God. Since the GOP is God's party, will he reward them with a victory and smite the dems? Or will the Godless party be victorious on 666? Hmmmmm?
I wrote them about the NYT article. Here's their reply.
"Like you, I was deeply troubled by the New York Times article “ACLU May Block Criticism by its Board.” The story wrongfully portrays the nation’s premier civil rights organization, its Board members and leadership. Let me assure you that the ACLU will never advocate censorship. Nor has the Board considered removing two members as incorrectly reported in the article. The ACLU will always fight for the free expression of ideas, will always foster debate, and will always tolerate dissent. Simply put, the ACLU is larger than any one person – it is a boisterous family of more than 550,000 members, 360 employees in the National Office alone, and 83 National Board members. We may disagree on issues from time to time, but we are unanimous in support of our mission … a mission that is critical now more than ever.
Ours is a unique organization. We probably put more importance on process than many other advocacy organizations, in part, because we want to ensure a truly democratic process and the type of robust debate that guarantees a free exchange of ideas, even those that are ultimately rejected. All of our policies and practices are carefully scrutinized and implemented with this core value in mind, including a recent proposal from the Board to review policies related to the rights and responsibilities of Board members.
And yet, there is nothing exceptional about the ACLU Board – or any nonprofit board – thoughtfully considering its governance roles and responsibilities. In fact, we ought to do exactly that, especially during times when the need for a strong and vibrant ACLU is so critical in our country. It is an enormous responsibility to lead an organization of this size and importance and our Board members take their role very seriously. The committee examining these issues only just convened last year and has yet to make its report to the Board, though you would hardly know it from the Times story, which portrayed the process as much further along than it actually is. The issue of rights and responsibilities of Board members has never been discussed by the full Board. It will be a topic of discussion at our next Board meeting in June and I am completely confident that the Board will stay true to its principles of advancing free speech and to the principles of sound governance.
Rest assured, I have and will continue to embrace robust policy debate with the ACLU Board, with affiliates, with staff … that is the heart of the ACLU.
I appreciate your longstanding commitment to the ACLU and our shared passion for civil liberties. I would simply ask you to withhold judgment on the committee’s proposal until after it has been discussed and fully vetted by the Board. Let me assure you that the ACLU is more focused than ever on the bigger issues that unite us all: defending civil liberties, protecting our Constitution and putting a stop the Bush administration’s unprecedented abuse of presidential power. I want to assure you that we have our eyes on the prize and we will never waver from our mission. The ACLU has a long and proud history and I am honored to be a part of it. I consider myself a custodian of its legacy and its unique role, and I will continue to do all that I can to ensure it remains focused, effective and, most importantly, true to its mission.
I treasure my relationship with ACLU members. As always, my mailbox is open for your questions and comments. Please do not hesitate to be in touch with me regarding the information I have shared here. I can be reached at the address above or via email at aromero@aclu.org. You may also email Jeffrey Outler, Member Services Manager at joutler@aclu.org.
Thank you for your understanding and support. Please stick with us.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director"
The best is at the end, the even the Shatner version on the right looks perplexed by what's happening on the left.
It must be election season. Facing an increasingly unpopular war, unrestrained spending, the fact that after 6 years Binny is still on the loose, scandals at every turn including big issues for Rove and Cheney, W's forced...to...reach...for...the...Bat...Base...Rallier. First it was immigration, but that's kind of backfired, so it was back to the old stand-by. "Hey, look over there, gay people!" The good news is that passage of a constitutional amendment against US citizens looks to have less chance of passing then two years ago, the bad news is that the issue is still in play.
W say's, "As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity." Just not with equality.
I really hope we've weathered the storm on this issue, but you never know. Immigration wasn't on anyone's radar until the GOP made an issue out of it and gays are a much easier target. Once the Rove Hate Machine gets rolling, it's very possible that tide could turn again.
So much to discuss about Nebraska Judge Kristine Cecava's decision to not jail a 5'1" sex offender because the guy may "not survive state prison." And, "I truly hope that my bet on you being OK out in society isn't misplaced. It's very hard to keep you in society when I know the risk is another child getting hurt." Wow. See, I thought prison was where you send people who are dangerous to society. Just so I understand, she's worried about this sick, demented demon in prison, and she's worried about children if he's not in prison. And tie on the "potential hurt-o-meter" went to the pervert. She's obviously a very bright person. Also, just to get this out of the way, I'm sure that the 12 year old girl he's charged with molesting wasn't very small at all. Bastard. Also, I'm protecting this entire post under a "rant disclaimer."
Now on to the other points. One, even the ACLU was surprised at the verdict. Local staffer says, "Using Thompson's height as a reason to avoid sending him to prison is surprising, because neither the U.S. nor state constitution provides protections based on physical stature."
Then, and this was particularly interesting, Joe Mangano, secretary of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults, agreed with the judge's assessment that...wait, there's a "National Organization of Short Statured Adults?" Seriously? And what's with "Short Statured?" I mean once you put "short" in the title, why do you need "statured?" If you don't want to say "short people" don't use the word short. Plus, that's some solid reporting to even think such a group existed, much less track down a quote.
So I did some digging. None of the listed official web-sites worked so here's what I could find. This venerable organization, founded during the height of the anit-short backlash, riots, and marches that rocked the nation in 2005 the "National Organization of Short Statured Adults or NOSSA is a non-profit, membership organization of men 5 foot 7 inches and below and women 5 foot 2 inches and below in height. NOSSA is a united organization of short men and women from around the globe, committed to opposing heightism in society, providing a supportive environment in which to share experiences, and promoting the message of self-empowerment for all of its members." That same heightism that held billionare presidential candidate Ross Perot back. Or Bob Rubin? Or Rudy? But more alarmingly I qualify. What the hell? I've had a support group for the last year and I didn't even know about it? I had people that I could rage against the terror of heightism with. Here I thought my only outlet and support for my massive deficientcy of being 5'7" was this blog. Now I know that I do have friends who understand my pain. Now I know who to pitch my inspirational movie, "Climbing the Mountain, One man's journey to the top in a Heightist America" of the week to. I just didn't know I had a title. Can I start claiming things. Like first Short Statured American to climb various mountains?
I just feel bad for Stalin. Getting beat on the basketball court by a darwinian nightmare like myself must be painful. Lets face it, it's inspirational every time I step onto that heightist regime's torture zone-I mean, just overcoming the pain of facing my physical demons is victory enough, but dropping that winning shot? Man-o-man. Maybe you could start your own National Group of Basketball Players Stomped by Short Statured Americans.
Anyway, back to the case. Apparantly this guy Manago is a bit of a loose cannon. NOSSA dropped him and disavowed his statements. See, we're short-statured, not short-smarted.
As a final follow-up, local citizens are calling for Cecava'sresignation. I hope they win. Plus, she's up for election in 2008. Let's hope she goes home.
As for the child-molester. I want to be clear, I don't want him to go to prison so he can "feel what it's like" or any other such ideas. That's not justice, but he needs to be held in a cell where he's not near any innocent and vulnerable children. That's why we have prison. Let's use it.
I saw X-Men III, and give it a solid "it was ok" and if I'm honest with myself I just didn't like it. I can't get into why without spoiling the surprises (happy to do so in the "comments" section to spare those who haven't seen it), but it missed. However, I have to say I was a major, major comic book geek and the Uncanny X-Men was like my crack, but I really liked the first two. This one was by far the weakest one of the trilogy.
Which got me thinking about treequels. Why is the third one always so bad? There's no excuse for X-Men, where there's decades of story lines to explore. But I also saw Mission Impossible III, the worst of that series. Start Trek III, terrible. Jaws 3 in 3-D, oh man was that bad (despite Dennis Quaid's efforts), Return of the Jedi was third in that group, Once Upon a Time in Mexico (third in the El Mariachi, Deperado series) was borderline unwatchable, Superman III (Richard Pryor couldn't save that mess), Forget Highlander III (talk about killing a great original movie), the list goes on, and on, and on.
Makes me really worried about Spiderman III (a fantastic series), the heroin that fed my comic geekiness.
Let's just write down when the government needs a warrant. It would certainly be easier to understand, and would end the death by a 1000 paper-cuts at around 993. A California court says a cop can enter your home and wake you up if they "suspect" you of drunk driving.
Re-read the case synopsis.
"The case concerned the 2003 Santa Barbara arrest of Daniel Thompson, whom a neighbor suspected was driving drunk and notified authorities. They found a parked car matching the description the neighbor provided and went to the front door of the adjoining residence during a summer evening."
Key scary part: It was not the police that saw the suspect drunk driving, it was a neighbor. So now reasonable cause is a neighbor saying you did something wrong.
The justification for the ruling, and justification used by renegade activist judges in other cases, I'm looking at you Scalia (who I think is a major violator of his own "orininal intent" doctrine) is that the government does not need a warrant if evidence is at risk of destruction. OK, fine point, however...
(For those of our readers that do not have this committed to memory by now)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Notice the word "papers." Now by my reasoning "papers" are easily destroyed. You can eat, burn or shred them, even in 1776. So by actual example, you have the right to be secure in your papers, something that can be destroyed, unless there the government meets the above conditions. Also, note that "probable cause" only gets the warrant, when those conditions are met. "Probable cause" is NOT the key to warrantless searches, its the key to getting the warrant.
Posts
All Comments
