Illegal Alien

"Boy let me tell you that its no fun (its not much fun) being an illegal-eagle alien." Genesis. GENESIS RULES!!!-sorry, the 17 year old version of the blogger came out for a sec...all better now.

Now that immigration is the hot button issue of the year I'm going to have to start paying attention to it.

So where what have I learned. Well listening to the political shock-jocks (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc) illegal immigrants are clearly destroying the country (I thought gay marriage was, but I guess that's so yesterday). Not only that, but
ordinary citizens are constantly bombarded with pushy, cheap working, criminally inclined. non-English speakers. Listening to some of the callers and the sympathetic shock-jocks it sounds like just walking downt the street in America is akin to walking down the barrio in Mexico City. With emotions running so high I keep waiting to wake up to a call to boycott Taco Bell, lousy Mexican fast food taking jobs away from good ol' American fast food companies. No wonder Burger Queen failed. I have to be honest, having lived in Florida, Texas and Colorado for more than thirty tres el decades I can honestly count on one hand the number of times I've run across anyone who didn't speak any English, and at least two of those fingers go to Greeks (but not the middle one-the Unknown Blogger is a known Greek). So when I hear stories of people being surrounded by all these folks who can't speak English, I have to wonder where they're standing. Or maybe, just maybe, they do speak English, but have figured out that pretending not to let's them escape having to talk to you. Believe me, I've tried that before, but pretending to speak just pig latin only takes you so far in this world.

In the spirit of fairness, I'm going to hanlde the main issues devoid of facts, with counter arguement devoid of facts.

First, some fun with math. 12 million illegal immigrants, 300 million Americans. Roughly 4%. Keep this in mind when you hear of all the damage being caused. All this hullabloo surrounding 4 in 100 people.

No speaka the Englaise. Yes, some small percentage of immigrants can't speak any English. But this is a small percentage. English is the most widely spoken language on earth, even when I travel abroad, it's rare that I find someone who doesn't speak any English-so unless countries are making the concerted effort to send us those that don't, it's safe to assume that most immigrants speak the language. Not only that, but to get around, even in a well protected sub community, you have to speak some English. However, the second generation speaks English, period. By the third generation, the first generation is now complaining that the grandkids don't speak any of the native tongue and that the culture is lost. This is no different from any non-English immigrant, legal or illegal, for the entire history of the nation. The melting pot works. Also, when people say they "constantly come acrosse people that don't speak English" think of this. If the full alotment of illegal immigrants didn't speak a lick of English, that's still only 4 in 100 people. And since we know that the illegal immigrants are not dispersed evenly, the chance of encountering anyone who doesn't speak any English is extremely remote. My bet is that a lot of these anecdotes are like when my friend told me that his cousin knew the "Hey Mikey" kid, and he was dead.

Crime. Oddly, with more than 12 million depraved illigal immigrants in the country, crime has stayed near it's hisoric low levels.

"Lousy Mexican's taking all our jobs." Just to be clear, these immigrants, who can't speak English, are taking jobs away from Americans. Apparantly the vast resevoir of wealth that is the non-speaking, non-understading, completely unskilled section of our economy is in danger! Clearly we need 500 bills at the state level this session to deal with this. PS, unemployment is near the historical lows. Here's my example. When I was growing up, before the Dukes of Hazzard came on I had to mow the lawn. I didn't know anyone who had a lawn service, and I don't think I ever saw but one Lawn Service truck, and I grew up in Florida. No one could afford it. Now, just about everyone with a lawn can afford to hire someone to mow it. The question is this, are illegal immigrants taking lawnmowing jobs from Americans? Nope. If you take away the immigrants, the cost of the service goes up, and less people can afford it, meaning less work, meaning less jobs, meaning I risk missing Dukes of Hazzard re-runs, which means I miss the hilarious hijinx of Cooter and Cleatus. Immigrants are creating their own jobs. Since they're poor, they spend nearly 100% of the deneros the earn, the economy expands and more jobs are created. Thanks Pepe. And Pepe is lonely, again what kind of job damage can be caused by 4 in 100 people.

Illegal Immigrants suck up all our services. Apparantly while being so hardworking that they will take the absolute crap jobs for almost no money, they are also so lazy that they suck up all our assistance spending. This while being terrified of being deported if they report anything. These are truley advanced people.

Education. "They're killing the education system, kick them out!" I agree, the best way to deal with people who are poor and uneducated is to keep them that way. And yes, they're the cuprits behind the failling US education system. Vote Pedro.

And one of my favorites as heard by one of the shock-jocks (I honestly don't remember which one, they all sound the same to me). Paraphrased-"If I hear one more automated prompt, you know from a bank or something, asking for English press 1, or Spanish press 2, I'm going to blah blah blah." Dude, I feel the same way. When I'm at Disney World and the monorial voice tells me to be careful in English, and then tells me to take the nino's by the hand, man that ticks me off. I don't care if they are a business making a business decision, it bugs me so they must stop. Same with Starbucks and their "vendi lattes." I think their ought to be a law making them call it a "medium milk," and if I go to Taco Bell I don't want to hear any talk of "Taco's el Grande," I want to order a "Large Mexican sandwhich."

This is America, el go-o el homo.

PS, I'll try to put together some fact for my next foray.

What is Patriotism?

I spent a lot of the 4th trying to figure out what exactly "patriotism" is. What I find so interesting about the word is that the actual definitions don't really answer the question. I'm sure that most people concider themselves "patriots," well at least 71% do, but within that 71% some do things in the name of patriotism that others in that group would find distinctly unpatriotic, and vice versa. What is it about patriotism that two people, both being adamant "patriots" could not only take two distinctly different actions, but condem the other as being unpatriotic?

Here's my answer. I think there are two types of "patriots," those that are proud of and fight for the borders and physical security of the nation, and those who are proud of and fight for the ideals of the nation. The former believe that the ground is the most important thing, for without a secure ground there's nowhere for the "ideals" to flourish. While the latter feel that the ground is just dirt without the ideals that make is special. Hence, when both sides call for sacrifice, they are looking to sacrifice different things. The physical patriot sacrifices the ideals to keep the self safe, while the idealistic patriot sacrifices the self to keep the ideals safe. To a certain extent the Flag Burning Amendment crystalizes this point. There are those that wish to protect the physical flag, even if it means sacrificing the ideals that it represents, while there are those that are willing to protect the ideals that the flag represents even if it means sacrificing the physical flag. Thus both sides believe that the other is being unpatriotic. The "war on terror" also shows this gulf between the two patriot parties. "Put our rights on hold while you protect us" v. "Our rights are our protection." Because both sides come at the issue of patriotism from such different philosophical points, it is hard for them to reach any sort of common ground, especially as each sees the other as reckless and unpatriotic. Not only that, but because the other is unpatriotic, following their lead will lead to the harm of the country. No patriot can stand that thought, and discourd ensues.

I fall squarely into the latter group (no surprise to long time readers). I've always felt it was more noble to sacrifice self for the greater cause than to sacrifice the greater cause for self. But I do understand the other side. Preservation is the guarantee of opportunity, self sacrifice requires the hope that it wasn't in vain. I think this is why I'm so disturbed by the actions of the Bush administration. They are clearly physical patriots, placing them in direct opposition to my own idealistic patriotic philosophy.

Missed it by that much!

Not sure I'll sleep better tonight

The CIA has decided to shut down the unit soley focused on finding Bin Laden.

First, this will undoubtedly be viewed as a victory by Al Qaeda. Nice time to embolden the enemy.

Now for a recap on the man who no longer merits special attention.

Binny is responsible for:
Bringing down the Twin Towers
The direct deaths of over 3000 innocent Americans
The Afghan War
The Iraq War
The several thousand military deaths incurred in those wars
The tens of thousands of military wounded in those wars
The tens of thousands of civilian deaths in those wars
The untold number of civilan wounded in those wars
Gitmo
Softer issues like the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wire taps, etc

So I guess it makes sense that we no longer need a dedicated unit to bring him in. Clearly there's nothing special about him. The longer he's out there the less dangerous he and his organization become, right?

Fox news, tired of pretense of independence, publicly urges White House "Just tell us what to report."

Move also has benefit of getting rid of having to "work" and "think."

"It's a win-win!"-raves Sean Hannity

"Worked Great for Stalin."-notes V.P. Dick Cheney

"Bold move-not even China has that. This is just the move to show that we're still ahead of them."-Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist.

"Getting the press to plead for State sponosored media is Carl Rove's crowning achievement. I tip my hat to the master."-Rush Limbaugh

I feel good about the penny!-K-Fed

Looks like the penny debate is back, finally. As a long-time penny dissident, I'm happy to see that getting rid of the thing is again being debated, this time because it cost's more to make the penny than its worth. But dismayed that 75% of Americans want to keep minting them. Now we're even redesigning them-just for the fans. Get rid of it, round everything to the nickel, and save the taxpayers some money. If you're nostalgic for them, collect them.

I can't believe I'll lose this argument to Kevin Federline, maybe it's time to retire.

"Thank you very much, American people, for 'Love me Tender' "

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."

"Tonight on WINGS . . . ah, who cares."

"I'm a musician, man. This is what I do. I got a little bit of pride about the blues. I'm not like these actors who can't play."-Steven Sega

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.")

I know I'm late on this...

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?

Cheney, Off His Feed, Eats 1st Amendment!

"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."

Queer Eye for the Flat Tax

America's Got talent?

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.

Chicken Little Alert!

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.

Ok Arthur, time to get chopping

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.

Uh Oh, Muscles, looks like someone else is vying for the attentions of Ms. Coulter

With friends like this, no wonder Liebs is in trouble.

Ok, here it is

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.

"We will not give our government over to the Taliban, no matter the cost!"

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."

OK, UBlo: Here's Your Long-Distance Dedication

A Sweet Ride?

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."

Clog a Court, Not Your Arteries!

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.

Batman Has Something He Wants To Say, Everybody

"I am sorry for any anxiety and concern my actions have caused others, specifically my family, the Steelers organization, my teammates and our fans."

Stay Safe This Offseason Like the Pros Do

"I don't ride anything. I just talk trash. That's it."

Oooh, now I'm on a roll

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?

Hudson, We Have a Problem

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.

Well wobble my legs and call me shakey

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."

Here we go again...

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).

Cick here to read "speak english only" in spanish.

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?

Ummmm, duh.

Only in Politics

is this a good-looking woman.

Good news/Bad news for the GOP

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.

6/6/06 is a sign of the apocolypse...

...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?

ACLU responds

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 Kirk v. Picard debate is settled once and for all

The best is at the end, the even the Shatner version on the right looks perplexed by what's happening on the left.

Sniff, Sniff. Ahhhh, the sweet stink of election season

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.

The short end of the stick

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.

Third times the charm?

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.

Judicial Activism Alert!

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.

OK, now I am worried.

Stumbled across this littel gem. Can't miss section, "could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances."

Note, this is for a suspect. No trial, no court, no jury, not a single remnant of USC protections. No record of the obvious follow-up, "what if the suspect is a US citizen?"

One blogger mentioned that care should be used when granting more power to the EB. Do we care yet?

See, now we should be worried

Rep. Bob Walker, R-Pennsylvania says, "The American people should be deeply concerned that a decision to conduct a raid on Congress was made consciously and evidently at high levels inside the Justice Department and the FBI."

James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin titled his hearing into the matter, "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"

A couple of points. One, my post below was somewhat sarchastic. Now I'm not so sure I was that off. Two, I've posted lots of times about the slippery slope of Executive power. The same congress that rubberstamps everything having to do with increasing Executive power and decreasing the Fightin' Fourth is surprised when the EB makes an agressive interpretation when it comes to them. Wow, didn't see that coming. Stensenbrenner has a mixed history. While he was soft on the PATRIOT Act, he did have some hard questions for Gonzalez on the NSA issue, I couldn't find much on Walker (this is a problem with working a blogging at the same time).

In the end, how can Congress be surprised that the EB doesn't respect them when W has 750 "signing statements" to his credit, including ones that put him above the anti-Torture law, oversight for the PATRIOT Act, and other congressional oversight provisions. Maybe, just maybe, if Congress took its adversarial role with the EB seriously, the EB would respect it more. Personally, I think Congress should stop acting like a 16 year old girl smitten with the senior QB.

Oh, now I get it.

With all the NSA hulabaloo, that now, admittedly, has largely faded, the lingering question of why Congress wasn't that concerned may be that they thought they were immune. Key passage they all cite is: Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

Makes sense, and I get why its there. However, one has to wonder how concerned lawmakers are with my freedom when they have their own special protections. Granted, Jefferson overestimated its reach.

Couple that with lawmaker's blind eye toward agressive warrant searches, Balko's all over that topic here, for the rest of us schlubs, and once again the issue of having people above the law, either in the Executive or Legislative branches enforce and monitor laws for the rest of us arises.

Again, I think W gets immigration (at least pre-compromise).

While I disagree with walls and guardsmen at the border, to me "protecting our borders" happens at the ports. It is the ports where most figure that something nasty will come in (here's some fun reading on how serious we are-no way anyone's getting throug THAT), I like the speeding ticket analogy.

Yeah, what he said.

I'm just not as good at this as other writers. I blame my High School.

This came from Fox, so Stalin's contractually obligated to agree with every word.

Let's see, who starts the daily critique's again...

Ultimately Stalin, you're concerned with a sex scandal, I'm worried about abuse of power.

What's So Tough to Understand Here?

Before I lay me down, my apology to the president for misinterpreting his "tough talk" on the war in Iraq:

“Saying "Bring it on." Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people . . . You know, "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted."

Misinterpreted. Like if you didn't listen closely to what he said above, you could misinterpret it to mean Iraq before the war had something to do with Al-Qaida. But we all know that'd be a hell of a misinterpretation.

I tore my ACLU

The ACLU in concidering a plan to block boardmembers from saying negative things 'bout the number one group protecting the number one, and I don't mean the right to go pee-pee.

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Just to put it out there, I love this group and am a member. After reading this, I seriously concidered cancelling my membership, and still might. But since they haven't enacted this little gem, I'm going to stick with them. But this is a deal breaker and here's why.

The ACLU takes the stance that the people have a right to do and say certain things during a time of crisis where lives are at risk, and they don't want to risk "public support and fund raising?"

I'm hoping this is a leak bysomeone looking to derail the idea, and I hope they succeed.

Please Critique Page 1 of My Hydrablog Graphic Novel

Pressin' for Jesus

"This looks like a job for Muscles for Justice!" I found this reading The Agitator's blog. Pat Robertson, in an effort to boost sales of his snake oil, claims he can leg press 2000 pounds. For perspective, the FSU football team record is 1335 pounds. And Madaline Albright claims she can leg press 400 pounds 10 times. Maybe they should leg wrestle.

I have to be honest, I have no idea what I can leg press. I hope its more than 10 reps of 400 like Mrs. A, but I have to concede that without Robertson's magic potion, I don't think I can get close to 2000 pounds. In Red Dawn, "hate" kept Charlie Sheen warm, maybe it gives Robertson super strength. Malone, you're filled with lots of hate, how much can you leg press?

Petco

The House passed a bill today that requires disaster evacuation plans to account for pets. I think this is an interesting issue. On the one hand, and ultimately, I think it's bad law. The government has a responcibility to the people, not the people and thier pets. I also have a hard time imagining the Superdome full of people and pets. What about people with allergies? Or, what about dogs fighting, getting loose, biting people, deficating, marking their territory, chasing cats, barking, howling, cats caterwaling, what about litterboxes, cat fights, and a whole lot of other issues that now have to be accounted for...or more likely not accouted for until after the next disaster and everyone realizes what a logistical nightmare this idea really is. Again, this is politicians passing laws without context, planning, or any concept of how it will actually work. Just something to say, "Hey I care about you." This is going to be law because who can vote against little boys and their dogs. I can even imagine the attack ad on whoever votes against it. Negative imaging, showing a drowning dog and crying litte girl. Music: BWOOONG. Voice-over, "Senator Blogger voted against saving pets from the ravages of disaster." That's just political death.

On the other hand, and to a much lesser extent, should the government acknowledge that people won't move to shelters if they can't take their pets and try to formulate a plan around that reality? I say "no." But it is an interesting question. I also say, again, let each state establish what they want to do in these cases. I get that "The dog was taken away from this little boy, and to watch his face was a singularly revealing and tragic experience," said Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, but, while sad, couldn't he privately donate funds to some kind of "Pet Rescue" program? Oh, that's right, why should he spend his time and money, when he can feel just as good about himself by spending mine.

As far as the GOP's Shays, "When asked to choose between abandoning their pets or their personal safety, many pet owners chose to risk their lives." OK, that's the individuals choice. I get that. I love my two dogs, and two fish, I would be absolutely heart-broken if I had to leave them in an evacuation. But that's on me to deal with.

I really, really, believe that during the next mass evacuation and emergency housing issue, this pets thing is going to make matters much, much worse. I wonder how Shays and Lantos will feel then?

That's me, the Unknown Blogger, making friends.

I seem to recall something about "limited."

I know my commentary on this abuse of power is getting old, but it seems like the scope of these seized powers is getting larger everyday. Keep in mind Congress didn't even know about the NSA program until the press ran a story. If you stop investigative reporting, and that includes from the MSM, and MSMRight, we all lose. Notice that Gonzalez "denied that authorities would randomly check journalists' records on domestic-to-domestic phone calls in an effort to find journalists' confidential sources." He doesn't say "could."

Imagine if during Clinton's term, the Executive branch, which retains sole authority to say what is national security and what isn't and doesn't have to prove their decision, arrested Limbaugh for any of the leaks he reported during any of his many scandals or actions. Or, would Hannity feel as able to attack the left if he knew his calls were being monitored during a Democratic presidency?

Agian, has the Cato link says, W won't be president forever. We could be building a portfolio of powers that Hillary could have at her disposal.

Here I go again...

WSJ article, you can read it through this link, about the governemnt and private data mining. While this again touches on an an earlier discussion here (with my last reply), I think it reiterates some key points, and leads to some new questions. Key points are:

"New powers granted to the government under the Patriot Act mean that Washington can secretly access people's records from businesses without having to provide any notification or seek a judge's permission. Companies are in fact prohibited by the law from disclosing that they had received such requests."

And, "The records are supposed to be about people in terrorism and espionage investigations, but the FBI is not required to show how they are connected to any terrorism case."

A couple of questions. One, the only check and balance seems to be the conscience of those in power. I'm really strained to find an instance in history where that worked out well. We're set up as a system of doubt of power, and controls on those who wield it. This is going away.

Two, because the Feds now have a vested interest in what companies record about our lives, they are no longer reliable protectors of our privacy. Issues like what can be gathered, shared, stored, and for how long are can no longer be trusted to the State. Rather than being a protector of the people, the Feds now need as much info on us, and kept for as long as possible. In other words, what should be an adversarial relationship between business and state, is now a cooperative one. Guess who loses in this new relationship? Look, I get why the feds have decided to outsource data collection, its much more efficient and cheaper to have companies do it that develop their own. But the question isn't is it smart for the feds, its is it smart for the citizens to allow it? and more importantly, is it legal?

Finally, I want to be clear, gathering info for a criminal investigation is a crucial step in protecting us all. My point is that I just don't understand why we the people no longer want a judge to voluntarily sign off on what can be done. Why are we so desperate to concentrate more power in the Executive branch? Why are we so willing to give up on the fighting fourth? Why eliminate what's worked though 200+ years, several wars, and a prolonged nuclear standoff?

Having a gay old time?

I see this as a possible Pyrrich victory. Personally, I like the ruling. However, it will give ammo to the FMA (see Malone, no adjectives, as much as I wanted to go with "hateful," "stupid," "un-American" or "dummy-headed," I didn't). Because OK now has to recognize adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries, it directly hits the big concern for FMA, namely that one state will have to recognize a "gay" marriage from another state. If I was a FMAer use the OK ruling as an arguement to support the need for the FMA.

Donde esta Casa de Pepe?

Clearly one can dismiss out of hand the charge that requiring English of all citizens is a racist pursuit. That is the type of laughable hyperbole that makes politics nothing more than professional wrestling for people in horrible physical shape. But, even if it is clearly not sinister...is it unreasonable?

If you can't speak English you are unemployable in the more lucrative corners of our economy. Clearly, you can't be a manager of English speakers if you can't communicate with them. Clearly, you can't be a first-responder if you are unable to communicate with the people who will need your help and direction. Clearly, if you are allowed to avoid learning English, you will be left at the bottom of the economic ladder. Encouraging people to learn English is an act of kindness that only serves to improve their lot in this country.

Also, attempting to provide services for people who do not speak English increases the cost of government for all of us. Many urban areas now employ translators. When one considers all the different languages spoken in New York or Boston, these costs can become significant. There are also printing costs and advertising costs that are incurred trying to accommodate this growing segment of society.

I'm amazed that such a sensible effort as encouraging people to learn the language of the country they live in is being opposed by 1/3 of the Senate. There is some truth to the view that in a democracy common sense prevails. But I'm very uncomfortable with how thin the margin of victory is.

When they're better than me I admit it

Catomakes a point I've tried to make in the past, only, not suprisingly, much better. Focus on:

"What I do know is that if Hillary is the next president, she’ll be able to lay claim to a number of vast, extraconstitutional powers championed by right-wingers like, uh, John Podhoretz. Among those powers is the ”inherent executive authority” to wiretap at will and, perhaps, to seize American citizens on American soil and hold them without charges for the duration of the war on terror — in other words, forever."

And:

"Over the last four and a half years, many of the same wailers and gnashers have cheer-led the concentration of unreviewable power in the executive branch, as if George W. Bush would be the last president ever to wield that power."

What everyone seems to forget is that America is a nation of law, not whim. When you give authority to a position, that position retains that authority regardless of whatever whim you may feel about who next holds that position. When the next guy or gal is on the seat, I'm curious if all those who trusted W with this authority, and warned against questioning the President in a time of war will feel the same way? Then I wonder if the horse will have already left the barn.

Mr. Roper's Revenge

Proving the old adage, "He who laughs last, laughs best," Mr. Roper finally has the ability to evict those crazy kids. Black Jack, Missouri plans to evict these types of low-life vagrants from their homes. Not because these families are "dangerous," or because they don't pay rent/mortgages, or for any other reason...well, besides this, apparantly the town has an ordinace that "prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." It's some kind of anti-hospitality law I guess, or a "do not help others" law. The net effect is that this family in the town is denied an occupancy permit, and many others will be evicted. So if you and your wife, or you and your son are thinking about letting a buddy crash at your house for awhile, you could be facing eviction in America's most unfriendly town. I'm sure this is somehow good for society, and evicting these families is a wise use of public funds, but as far as I can tell, this is another example of abuse of power in the name of some sort of value system that has nothing to do with "family" or "values." Rather than just leaving honest people alone, the tenor of the country at the present seems to be more coersive and punishment based, especially if people don't conform to some random vision of an "ideal" society.

Hey, I'm not alone

Looks like I'll have more guests at my annual "Libertarian's who vote for Democrats" party than I thought. With a full 41% of all Libertarians identifying as Dems. Looks like I'll be held-over for another gig.

It does make sense. Once you give up the pretense that either party will cut spending, all you're left with as a differentiator is what both parties want to do with their power, and your money. The NeoGOP wants you to do exactly what they want and they're watching, leaving you free to do what they want. The other party is grossly incompetant, but at least I can work their incompetance to my advantage and be left alone.

Ahhh, 'tis a fine time to be an American voter.

W agrees with UBlogger, dissing love lorn supporter Malone in process

Awhile back, there was a debate on this blog about the NSA wiretapping scandal (my post, I can call it what I want). It has now moved from the metaphorical to the actual. Now that the phone companies have given your complete phone records over the the Feds, sans warrant, judicial oversight, or even a second thought, to monitor your every call, and patterns, can we all agree that W feels as I said, which is to make sure you spy on the bad guys, you have to spy on the entire population? Can we also agree that there is nothing "limited" about his intentions? Tack on this little tid-bit (here's the original story), and you can almost watch the Fightin' Fourth get slaughtered. It's like the Bushies are rail-car hunters gunning down Fourth Amendment Buffalo's across the praries of the midwest in some "strategy" to rid the area of hostiles.

I'll be back, I have to change the tinfoil on my head.

The problem with poll politics

When you try to please everyone, you wind up pleasing no one. Take immigration. Bush is trying to appease his radical base, and fair, brilliant minds like myself. He's doing neither. Between, Malkin, "his plan is stupid" to my "his plan is stupid," one thing is becoming clear, W is a uniter afterall.

Watch his poll numbers on this (he who lives by the poll, dies by the poll). While he did have pretty words last night, by the time each side of the issue bashes him for his mollycoddling to the other side, most Americans will just remember one thing, "his plan is stupid." At least until he caves further and just focuses on enforcement.

The neoGOP

The next time someone says they're voting for the Republican because they beleive in smaller government and less spending, you can point to this handy chart and let them know they need a better reason.

Like I said, Watch this very closely

Bush wants to militarize the border with Mexico by sending 5000 non-border troops to the southern border. First, I want to express my dismay with W on this. I originally hoped that he would lead his party to a rational conclusion on immigration because he seemed to really care for and understand the immigration issue. What I should have realized is that it's very difficult for a man with no principles to stand on them. My bad.

So now we're going to send 5000 troops to the border. They won't make arrests, detain, etc and will only be used to help with surveillance. They also will only be there while the border control gets beefed up. My prediction, more troops over time, with an increased role for those troops. But beyond that is the question, "why?" As I've stated before, this is a created issue. Why all this hype and urgency? Yes, people are coming over illegally. No question, but is a wall, or thousands of US troops the answer. Millions of people speed every day, should we post military personnel along the nation's highways? Unemployments hovers around 5%, clearly if you want a job you can find one. Where is the harm that requires these kind of ideas? Are we really at the point where an implied, hyped, or imagined issue merits troop movements? This is blatent poll politics from Bush. Are GOP politicians really willing to send the National Guard in to help ratings, or score political points on an issue they created?

Well, at least one is. In a quote that takes the already pathetic Frist to the head of the class of low-life politicians, he says, "lawmakers who doubt that the National Guard, whose members have served for years in Iraq and went to the Gulf Coast after last summer’s hurricanes, could take on border patrol duty are “whining” and “moaning.”" He sure seems to be taking the awsome responsiblity of troop movements and the impact on them and their families very seriously. When I look at the political parties in this country and their leaders, Frist, Pelosi, Hastert, Reid and Bush, its no surpirse that only three in 10 Americans think either party, or their leaders is worth a damn.

Something that's been bugging me

Sandra Day O'Connor. And no, its not because I won't get to see that frilly, sassy doily thing. It's not because of any of her decisions, well, except for her last one...to retire. Just to be clear, I'm not irked because she chose to retire, it's her life, I'm not irked that it gave a chance for Alito to get a seat as I have no idea how he'll vote, its because of this. She's made quite a name for herself lately attacking Delay and others for their attacks on the judiciary. Even going so far as to coyly throw around words like dictatorship (quick aside, I like the way The Guradian both had and kept track of their correction on the term "brain dead"). What bugs me is that if she really felt this way, why did she step down from the one position in the whole world that would give her the best chance to fight? To stop the what she's trying to stop. How does that work? Keep in mind, the things she's warning against were all happening during her time on the highest court in the land. To be honest, I'm having a hard time thinking about her points on merit. I just keep thinking, if this were a big deal, surely you would have stayed in for the fight. If knowing what you know, and believing like you do, you still wanted to do something else with you days, well, then so do I. Granted, I tend to agree with her, but she's not the one I want holding the flag on this issue.

Financial Scientists

For anyone still paying attention...the Wall Street Journal article has been critiqued on a scientific blog.

Basic gist...an implication is not an observation. However, that fact is regularly ignored in scientific reporting. Why? I'll let you decide that one for yourselves. My views have been well documented.

Seriously, Politics is Not Serious

Hillary gives us tough talk about how kids need to work harder. Hillary trumpets plan to make it easier for college grads to repay their college allowing them to move more cash from the "responsibility" column and into the "beer money" column. Chelsea calls to whine about her comments and Hillary caves. And, I kid you not, some people will actually vote for this person if she runs for president.

Why Politics Is Not Serious

Forgive the inflammatory rhetoric but it is true that there is a PENALTY for seniors who CHOOSE to sign up late for the new Medicare drug handout. This PENALTY is so onerous that it inspired Charlie Rangle to say, "I really think its a cruel thing to penalize people for what has been admittedly a very complex procedure in order to get drugs. To put a penalty for the rest of their lives on our oldest citizens, I think, is just an improper and wrong thng to do." The PENALTY is...I hope your sitting down...$2.31 per month. This is not a serious issue and Charles Rangle is not a serious person.

The article allows the idea that this is a very confusing program. But for some reason it fails to question whether it is needed at all. Somehow, prior to the passage of this boondogle, seniors managed to balance drug costs and other costs. I never witnessed dog food isles clogged with grey hairs at my super market. Or any supermarket. Because seniors were never choosing between food and medicine and gobbling down Alpo to compensate for shortfalls. That was an urban myth, but one uncritically reported by the media. Just as the necessity for this "solution" is being uncritically reported. I've been enlightened by the great minds of Hydrablog time and time again that there is no media bias. And it still amuses me.

Underground, There's Only One Rule: Them or Us

Hydrablog: I'm back baby

Leftenant Limey, you got a lot to learn about C.H.U.D.

Coal Plane

Bush's Energy Information Administration says we're sitting on at least a 200-year supply of coal, and the Air Force, along with businesses large and small . . . well, they dig that.

The Bush adminstration: waging the last war; creating the next energy crisis!

The Universal Whipping Boy

More on Stalin's favorite whipping boys, the media. Just to recap, Stalin feels there's a "bias" in the media against the right, but when he talks about it, it often sounds suspiciously like "conspiracy." But my man steadfastly denies that he really thinks its a conspiracy. To him its not a conspiracy, only "conspiracy like." I dunno, you figure it out. My point is that that "the media" is a business, and puts out what sells copy, or generates viewers. I also maintain, and here's where SM always, and I mean always, gives me a "spit take," that both the left and the right feel that the media supports the other side. The way I figure it in the end is that "the media" is an easy scape-goat for both. It can't report all the stories that everyone thinks is important, and when you think something is important, and its not getting press, well then clearly "the media" is against you. The proof is that they're ignoring crisis x, just to help the left/right. "The media pandered to the Bush administration in the lead up to the war, didn't ask any hard questions, and now they don't cover all the lies to hide their own cowardice," or "The media only reports the bad news coming out of Iraq." Pick your flavor.

An example of "right" bias in the media is this latest dust-up with Rumsfeld and the CIA heckler. The CIA guy asked Rummy why he lied about knowing where weapons of mass distruction are, Rummy says he never said that. Only, he did. Now, you have the Secretary of Defense caught in a bald face, and public, lie about an increasingly unpopular war. You would think that this would be getting some attention from the "MSM," but its just not. Daily Show, of all things, covered it, but everyone else either ignored it, or just covered the act of heckling.

I guarantee that Malone can come up with lots-o-examples of other issues that helped the left. And that's my point.

Things I remember

I remember when Eddie Murphy was a cutting edge comedian.

I remember when superheros didn't die.

I remember when I could stay up past midnight and not be useless for three days.

I remember when Stalin was a triple jump champion.

I remember when M3K was the fastest person on this blog in the 400 meter race.

I remember when courts decided what was legal.

"Issue" Politics

Harris Interactive has a new poll out. Not much new, W is at 29%, congress is at 28%. But looking through the other data, in particular, the data the question, "What do you think are the two most important issues for the government to address?" and this interesting info comes up.

Immigration goes from 2% in 2003 to 16% (the second highest) today. Gas is similar, but there's a catalyst for it. Immigration is a created issue. No one cared until the GOP told them to care. Unemployment's at 5% and the economy is humming.

A cynic would say that the GOP created it, as they did the "Gay Marriage will destroy America" issue (which, while we still don't have an amendment marginalizing Americans, the country still hasn't collapsed-fingers crossed), as an election year issue. Only it looks like this one has backfired. While its easy to rally the base around hating gays, immigrants are harder. They work (like gays), they attend church (like gays), but unlike gays, we all come from immigrants. That and there's nothing inherently creepy about them. I think immigration is a terrible issue for the GOP, its really dividig it, only creating more of an opportunity for the Dems. Bad issue creation.

For all the press that the Dems are getting on their chances in 2008, they rank a whopping 3% higher (20 v. 23%) at the congressional level. I wouldn't plan that "We're Relevant Again" post taking the House party just yet if I were them.

Also interesting in the poll, Social Security is actually down from 25% in 1999, to 4% today. This is after Bush made SS reform the focus of his second term. Nothing's changed and people aren't as worried about it. Oops.

Despite MSMRight carping on about the "War on Christmas" and "War on Catholisism" "Decline of Religion" is at 2%.

Apparantly M3K is all alone in his quest for World Peace at 1%, but it still makes a heckuva answer in all those beauty pagents he enters.

Really interesting to see what American's care and don't care about in that whole section.

If Love for UBlo is a Disability, Then Add One More

20 % of the population is disabled. Um...no it's not. The term "disabled" has simply been stretched to an ubsurd degree so as to count as many heads as possible and justify ever more funding to fight this "growing epidemic". Nothing could be easier to document then all the unworthy cases currently being funded by programs designed to help those who can't help themselves. But, for some odd reason that few on this blog can discern, the media never brings those cases to our intention. Instead, they report statistics of questionable merit to us and consider the case closed. I deserve better!

Throwing up a soft-ball for Malone and all the other "science haters."

Good article on Global Warming in Mother Earth Journal. Wait, I mean Wall St. Journal. Says its free, let me know if its true, or if they lie like all the other corporate widow muggers.

It lays out the case for man-made global warming, but unlike other articles I've read it gets into "why" the data points to man-made, rather than just repeating man-made again and again. Like, for example, I just did.

I thought it was very convincing, and uses real nerdy words like, "Walker Circulation," Pacific decadal oscillation" and "natural variability."

Malone, this is my gift to you.

Looks like Malone's write in campaign worked

Ok Malone, now you can really enjoy the View.

"How it works," a play by the Unknow Blogger

So I guess this is how it works in our democracy.

The Nation: White House, we think you've committed a crime.

White House: (Not bothering to look up from "Family Circus" cartoon) Mmm-hmm...

TN: Seriously, we're investigating

WH: Oooh, "Marmaduke" looks funny today.

TN: Anyway, we need to collect information, or evidence, to see if you've committed a crime.

WH: No can do...classified.

TN: Well...ok then. I guess we're done here.

WH: (Moving on to "Dennis the Mennace") Ha! Got Margaret again.

Hey froggies, the waters getting warmer

First Bush appoints the guy who started the warrentless wire taps to be the new head of the CIA, then it comes out that that very same NSA is collecting and storing data on every call made in the US, but this is OK becasue Bush says, "Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates," and, "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." Except that Hayden, while very certain he knows the Fourth Amendment, well...doesn't. In this telling exchange, he shows very clearly that he's not aware of the laws he's sworn to uphold. It may also explain why he thinks he's not doing anything wrong, but alas, he is. I'm still trying to figure out how keeping records of millions on Americans phone calls is a "focused" effort on Al Qaeda.

Seriously, its like these guys read Orwell not as warning, but as a field manual.

Rock-y, Rock-y, Rock-y

I'm back baby

So I'm back from my vacation to London. I visit the most newsworthy site on the net, you're reading it, and find that in the two weeks that I was gone...nothing happened. I fully expected Stalin to make his mark on the blog since I was gone and unable to fully reject his points like I do his little girly shots on the court. But no, like the NeoGOP, he is unable to generate his own points and can only bash the creativity of others. As far as M3K, well, I'm scared of M3K so...well...hey buddy, good to see you again. Well Stalin, get your feet ready to tromp on the sandcastles of my creativity.

Before I get into current events, let me give a quick shout out to London. Great city, probably my favorite world-wide, you know, as far as foreign cities go. We all know that our most sludgefilled cesspool of a town (I'm looking at you Buffalo) is better than the best that any other nation can offer up.

A few things they do right.

One, dollar coin (they call them "pounds" how cute is that?). Always a big fan of this, saves a ton of money. We just need to stop producing dollar bills, and stop making dollar coins that look like quarters. Make them bigger, thicker, look like doughnuts, even square, I don't care, but just please stop making dollar coins look like quarters. (As a side note I also favor getting rid of pennies. If something has so little value that people won't bend down to pick them up off the ground (meaning they're worth less than "free," we should get rid of them. England misses here, they have one cent and two cent coins. Just waisted all that money they saved with dollar coins.)

They speak english. I sure wish all the other foreign countries would follow suit. Much easier to get around.

They use metric, sort of. I'm also a big fan of the metric system, just makes more sense. But they also use miles. Very bizzare. You'll be driving down the road reading everything in k's, and a sign will pop up out of nowhere saying to please drive 15 mph, or that a new exit is in 5 miles. They also use a weight system called "stones." I have no idea what the hell that is.

The underground rules. It got me thinking. The big belief in the US is that mass transit doesn't work. But what I don't hear is how that failure is measured. Its not use, because you could just make it free to increase usership. So it must be cost. Some sort of subsidy hurdle must be used to determine success and failure. But compared to what? Cars? Here's where it gets interesting. I'm curious about the all in cost of cars v. subways. Oil is subsidized, as are the cars themselves, and most importantly the roads are massively subsidized (I'm just focusing on direct costs and ignoring things like health issues due to particulate emmissions, injuries, fatalities, crime, etc). If we're just looking at all-in costs, then cars in Alaska, for example, are a massive failure. Should we abandon them? I think that the car subsidy is so entrenched that it gets ignored. So much so that when people talk of FDR's role in creating big government, they never, ever talk of Ike creating the federal highway system. Talk about a massive increase in govt spending. Even if you still buy the hype that we need an internal network to move troops around the nation in event of an attack, surely we can all agree that we don't need more that two lanes to serve that purpose. If Atlanta needs 12 lanes, that feels like an Atlanta problem, not a Palm Harbor, FL problem, so why are those people paying for it? My gut says that on a per person, per mile base, subways are much cheaper than cars. Its just that the costs associated with cars are so spread out, that they become invisible. Now before Stalin freaks out on me, my point isn't to build more subways, rather that in a free market with no subsidies, my bet is that trains are cheaper, and are/would be more "successful" than currently assumed.

Finally, all prices include tax. If something says 25.45, you pay 25.45. I'm not smart enough to figure taxes so I need this.

That's enough for now. The pound is already killing the dollar, I don't want them to get too heady.

The 1st in a Series of 1 Reports on Pain at the Pump

"Now, I'm just going to work and coming home — not doing anything else," said Kathleen Roberts, who makes a daily, 100-mile round trip from York, Pa., to her teaching job in Baltimore.

***

Hearing talk about short vacations upsets Susan Morang, a psychiatric counselor from Washington, Maine. She helps clients deliver antiques for sale during the summer tourism season.

"Each summer, you have to make the majority of your money to live on the whole rest of the year," said Morang, who has cut her driving to the minimum.

Morang's GMC truck guzzles gas, but she said she needs it to help clients haul their belongings. "A lady paid me $40 yesterday," she said. "I used it to fill my gas tank halfway."