Blaggle

Liberal Crowd at LA Fundraiser Thinks Obama is "The Anti-Christ"

2011-09-27T12:04:00.002-05:00

I figured if an entire crowd booed a gay soldier,...

And if an entire crowd cheered alllowing a terminally ill man to die...

Well, then?

Shuttle Snub

2011-04-12T14:13:00.002-05:00

I'm so mad I can't even stand it. Johnson Space Center has seen astronauts safely through hundreds of missions over more than 500 million miles (and that's just the shuttles).

Still, after all the love, support, time, tears, prayers, and everything else this Great State of Texas has given to NASA over the years, we will not be the home to any of the retired orbiters.

I am saddened and angered beyond belief.

People from so-called "flyover country" are snubbed once again.

Kennedy Space Center in Florida will get Atlantis

The California Science Center in LA will get Endeavour

The Intrepid Museum in NYC will get Enterprise (currently at the Smithsonian)

The Smithsonian will get Discovery

Florida deserves the honor of hosting a retired Shuttle. The Smithsonian is a logical choice, as well, but there's already one there.

I also see the need for having one on the West Coast.

But the Intrepid Museum and the Smithsonian are less than 250 miles away from each other.

There is no reasonable explanation for this garbage.

He Can Still Make 'Em Swoon

2010-10-07T16:44:00.001-05:00

Three Dozen Fall Ill at Obama Rally in Md.

A Doctrine Is Born

2010-07-28T15:55:00.003-05:00

I have a new policy in my home. See, I have developed a "uniform rule of feeding my kids," you know, according to the Constitution of Aggle's House? Under that "uniform rule," my wife and I have "completely occupied the field" of feeding our children. Under that rule, we have agreed to provide them with 3 squares a day, plus the occasional snacks. Nobody else can make a law that provides for the feeding of my kids, not even other occupants of my house. My kids have no say in the matter.

This sucks for them, because if we decide not to feed them at all, they are officially preempted from feeding themselves. I and my wife are the only ones who can do it.

If they decide to try and feed themselves, I'll go to the Aggle's House District Court Judge for the Kitchen District, and have him (me)* issue an injunction forcing them to not feed themselves.

What are they gonna do, argue that the Constitution's unconstitutional?

Mwooohooohoohaahaahaaaaaaaa.

I call it the "I'm gonna take my toys and go home, so no one can play with them" Doctrine.

*My wife couldn't be the District Court Judge, because the Supreme Court (also me) ruled officially that she didn't have a bar card and is thus precluded from serving in any judicial capacity.

Lindsay Lohan's Passport Exclusive

2010-05-20T21:09:00.004-05:00

Lohan missed court in Los Angeles and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Her attorney said she was "stuck in Paris," (oh, the humanity!) because her passport got stolen.

I know. A likely story, right?

But folks, it's true. I know because I have just purchased Lindsay Lohan's passport from an average, everyday piece of Parisian gutter-trash.

And without further ado...

Here it is!

It's an old picture, but whaddaya gonna do?

Crash the Tea Party?

2010-04-19T10:33:00.003-05:00

"Our goal is that whenever a Tea Partier says 'Barack Obama was not born in America,' we're going be right there next to them saying, 'Yeah, in fact he wasn't born on Earth! He's an alien!'"

Cool. Can I get royalties from Mr. Levin?

Health Care Bill -- Consequences

2010-03-22T16:14:00.005-05:00

For those of you who live under rocks (don't worry, I'm sure the government will get to housing soon), the Democrats' health care bill passed last night.

Depending on where you're getting your news, the bill will (list exhausting, but by no means exhaustive):

1.) Either drive the country deeper into debt, or save the government tons of money;
2.) Create tons of jobs, or, well, cost tons of jobs;
3.) Help you buy insurance, give you insurance, or force you to buy more insurance even though you can barely afford the insurance you now have;
4.) Drive prices down through increased competition, or cause prices to go up through increased risk;
5.) Shore up Medicare, or gut Medicare;
6.) Allow you to control your own medical future, or give the government control over your medical future; and
7.) Kumbayah moonbeams and puppies, or grumble-grumble-grumble death of capitalism.

I'm already seeing those on the conservative side of the above arguments being called "irrational" (but hey, it's better than being called racist), even though nobody really knows whether this bill will produce the desired results. Some believe it will, some believe it won't.

Which brings me to my assignment. I want every American with a blog (and that's a lot of blogs) to post every time something health-care-bill-related happens to them, or which they personally witness happening to someone else. No "friend-of-a-friend told me," or "I heard that so-and-so." I want personally witnessed, brutally honest straight-from-the-horse's-mouth stuff, here.

This blog isn't really a high-traffic clearinghouse, but if my loyal readers (Hi, honey!) each tell 5 others, who each tell 5 others, etc., etc., before too long we'll have an Amway-style pyramid scheme of accountability going on.

I'd love it if I were somehow informed (by link or comment) of all the posts generated by everyone, but I'm afraid the increased traffic would cause my brains to leak out of my ears.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be covered for that.

Alito vs. Obama

2010-01-28T18:02:00.002-06:00

Our Supreme Court Justices are generally supposed to be staid and unflappable. Occasionally, though, we get something fun like Scalia allegedly using an obscene hand gesture to a reporter, or Sotomayor grinding on the dance floor at a post-swearing-in-bacchanalia.

But, usually, they keep pretty low-key. That's why it's confusing to me that bunches of folks in the press (and a whole host of lefty bloggers) are making it seem as if Alito jumped out of his chair foaming at the mouth, and went for the President's throat right then and there. Like he went from Doctor Jekyll to Mr. Hyde and tore Schumer's head off (because he was handy) before picking up Sotomayor and flinging her broken body into the upper reaches of the gallery. He didn't "wince." He didn't frown. He shook his head, and quietly took Obama to school.

To those of you in the media (or blogs) who are even calling it a "breach of decorum," well, if the camera had stayed where Obama wanted it to stay (squarely on him, the handsome devil) nobody ever would have known about it. Except maybe Cheshire Cat Pelosi (is it just me, or did she look, well, wierd?).

Since Justice Alito is constrained from saying what he probably wants to say in response to Obama's little, though, I thought I'd take a shot...

"How did this guy ever get a job teaching ConLaw at U. of Chicago?"

Just This

2010-01-03T16:35:00.002-06:00

Adam James is a wuss. Mike Leach never should have given him a shot at big-time college ball.

But, I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Adam, you obviously didn't inherit your father's football talent, but you sure did inherit his questionable ethics.

Here's hoping your selfishness and prima-donna attitude eventually catch up with you.

Oh, and ESPN? You suck, too.

Feinstein's New Bill (Hopefully)

2009-12-08T13:32:00.004-06:00

I heard her today saying -- about the amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions -- that it's simply an effort to restrict women's rights.

And therefore, I propose that she immediately introduce the following Bill, for which I've only done a title and intro. I'll leave the legi-language to others (besides, I don't have time to make it 2,000 pages long):

S.__________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 8, 2009

A Bill to require the government of the United States of America to reimburse its citizens, in whole or in part, for the exercise of any of their enumerated Constitutional Rights.

Short Title: The Government Isn't Footing The Bill Suitably Act

Of course, we'd call it The GIFT B.S. Act.

But I can't wait for the government to pay everyone's intertubes bill (or at least part of it) so they're no longer restricting our freedom of speech. I also drive about 16 miles to Church on Sundays, so the government should pay me a bit of gas money for that. Oh, and don't forget the guns. They can get me a couple at a reduced rate, otherwise they're simply attempting to restrict my right to keep and bear arms.

I like it.

C'mon, Senator. Put our money where your mouth is. It's never bothered you before.

Obama Bow-Fest, 2009

2009-11-15T09:20:00.002-06:00

I wonder if he'd bow to me?

For heaven's sake, dude. Nobody would have you act high-and-mighty as President of the United States.

But how about you try to show some respect for your own office?!

By The People

2009-11-03T20:02:00.002-06:00

I was thinking about watching the Obama campaign documentary on TV tonight.

I got a little confused about the time and channel it was supposed to be on...

I ended up watching "V," and I couldn't help but think how they amount to the same thing.

;-)

Seriously. It was a great show that I remembered from my childhood.

Now, though, I'm thinking maybe my prior post wasn't too far off the mark.

Nooooooooooo! Verizon! Don't do this to me!

2009-09-25T11:03:00.002-05:00

I just read a Futurelawyer post that's like a dagger right into my heart.

The buzz is that Verizon may not offer the Palm Pre in January.

Please, Lowell McAdam. You've got the absolute best wireless company in the country. Don't hamstring your loyal customers by refusing to offer the best smartphones.

Oh, and Palm? Wanna grease the wheels? Stick an expansion card slot in that bad boy.

FutureLawyer on Pixi

2009-09-21T14:29:00.002-05:00

I (kind of) agree with the FutureLawyer on the Palm Pixi.

Great phone, great features. Crazy desirable, no matter what they call it.

Still, I'm troubled by Palm's apparently newfound inability to include an expansion slot. Everyone has expansion slots in their phones now, and I credit Palm primarily for forcing that change.

So why abandon it when card slots are getting smaller and cheaper all the time?

It just doesn't make sense.

Mac vs. PC -- Am I a Fluke?

2009-09-03T14:01:00.004-05:00

I'll start by saying I've never owned a Mac. I've played around a bit with friends' Macs, and it seems like they do pretty much the same stuff as my PCs.

I've owned a grand total of 3 PCs over the past 12 years. The first was a pieces-parts comp-in-a-box that I got for a whopping $300; the second, an Emachines that I bought shortly before law school (again, about $300); and the third, a loaded Dell desktop that I bought for $450 off of Dell's outlet website (this one I still have).

And I've never had a serious problem with any of them. Free firewalls and free anti-virus/anti-spyware programs are wonderful things, I guess, because I've never experienced an attack on my computer. Not one of those computers was replaced because of crashes, viruses, or "headaches." Simple obsolescence did the trick.

Also, an occasional warning or error message when I install a new peripheral or piece of software hardly (to my mind, at least) doesn't rise to the level of the "thousands of viruses and tons of headaches" that the Mac people keep telling me about.

So my question(s): Am I a fluke? Should I be scared of continuing on my PC-paved road to oblivion? Should I take out a second mortgage on my house and buy a Mac?

Please let me know.

Cash for Clunkers

2009-08-05T10:52:00.002-05:00

I just found out I can trade in a 1993 Toyota Camry, and the government will give me $4,500 towards the purchase of a fuel-efficient vehicle, like a...

2009 Ford F-250 Super Duty with a 5.4 liter V8 engine.

No, really.

Trans Texas Corridor

2009-06-29T08:58:00.003-05:00

It ain't dead, folks!

Call your State Legislators today and tell them we're not interested in taking private land and handing it over to foreign corporations so they can charge us to drive on our own Texas roads!

House
Senate

Urgent action is needed! No CDAs!

Palm Pre

2009-06-23T16:08:00.002-05:00

I'm a gadget lover, as well as an irrational hater of all things Apple. When the iPhone came out, and folks were trampling each other to get one, I wasn't impressed. I've seen and played around with the iPhone in its various incarnations since it was born, and I'm still not impressed.

I've been a loyal user of Palm products since I started law school, and have owned several different Palm devices. It's why I've been so excited for the new Pre to be released.

Well, it's out now, and let me say first that I agree wholeheartedly with Futurelawyer when he says (to paraphrase) that it'll be a cold day in Hell before I switch to Sprint, even if the phone will do my laundry and go to the fridge to get me a Dr. Pepper. I'll wait for the Pre to be offered by the soon-to-be-fully-integrated Verizon/Alltel.

I just checked out the CNET review of the Pr e, and I like what I see. I don't have a problem with the keyboard (I've been using a Treo 650 for about 1.5 years now), but I do wonder why there's no expansion slot.

For years, Palm's phones and other devices have been built with a memory card slot. I didn't realize the Pre wouldn't have such a slot, and its absence makes me a little disappointed.

So, I'm addressing this post directly to the folks at Palm...

Please, do that last little thing. Go that last extra mile to make the Pre truly the best smartphone ever built. Give us our expansion card slot.

You can even wait six months to release the new expansion-ready Pre, too. Because it's unlikely that anyone who'd keep their cell service with Sprint would be able to figure out what it was for anyway.

Congratulations, Kris

2009-05-21T09:25:00.002-05:00

Didn't watch the American Idol finale, but I'm glad the better voice won.

I kinda feel bad talking trash about Guyliner, and since I heard Adam Lambert Googles his own name and reads everything, let me say that I also wish him the best. He'll obviously be a success as a performer.

Aggle for Supreme Court #3

2009-05-13T08:41:00.003-05:00

You know, I'm a bit surprised that my name isn't on the short list.

I have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom." I also happen to have "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." (link)

What's even better is that I'm not an ivory tower type who only pretends to have those qualities.

I hope I get a call from the White House soon, because the only other job I can think of that emphasizes those particular qualities is acting as a stand-in for Dr. Phil.

Aggle for Supreme Court #2

2009-05-05T13:33:00.002-05:00

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery,
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
'Cause none of them can stop the time.
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look.
Some say it's just a part of it,
We've got to fulfill the book.

Won't you help to sing
These songs of freedom?
'Cause all I ever have:
Redemption songs,
Redemption songs,

Redemption songs.

For obvious reasons, I rejected "I'm too sexy."

Aggle for Supreme Court

2009-05-02T15:32:00.002-05:00

In my new series of musical promotions of my candidacy for the Supreme Court to replace Justice Souter, I will expand on my musical bio begun in the last such post.

The place where I come from is a small town
They think so small, they use small words
But not me
I'm smarter than that, I've worked it out
I'll be stretching my mouth
To let those big words come right out

...

My parties have all the big names
And I greet them with the widest smile
Tell them how my life is one big adventure
And always they're amazed
When I show them round my house to my bed
I had it made like a mountain range
With a snow-white pillow for my big fat head
And my Heaven will be a big Heaven
And I will walk through the front door.

Big time
I'm on my way, I'm making it
Big time
I've got to make it show, yeah
Big time
So much larger than life
Big time
I'm going to watch it growing

Big time.

Indeed. I'm a much neater person than I originally thought.

Throwing My Hat In

2009-05-01T08:35:00.003-05:00

So Justice Souter is going to retire from the Supreme Court. (WaPo)

I, Aggle, hereby submit my name for consideration as a replacement for the distinguished Justice.

A bit of background:

I'm an attorney who knows the law, and actually cares about it.

I was born in a small town
And I live in a small town
Probably die in a small town
Oh, those small communities

All my friends are so small town
My parents live in the same small town
My job is so small town
Provides little opportunity

Educated in a small town
Taught the fear of Jesus in a small town
Used to daydream in that small town
Another boring romantic, that's me

No, I cannot forget where it is that I come from
I cannot forget the people who love me
Yeah, I can be myself here in this small town
And people let me be just what I want to be

Got nothing against a big town
Still hayseed enough to say
Look who's in the big town
But my bed is in a small town.

Gee, I hope Obama likes Mellencamp. I'm not behind on my taxes, but I could try doing something to trigger a federal investigation before my nomination hearings.

Guyliner Update 4-21-09

2009-04-21T19:55:00.002-05:00

Ummmm, nope. Adam Lambert still sucks. AI judges (and AI voters, presumably) still smoking crack.

1. Y'know, Simon used to have a problem with people screaming songs. What happened with that?

2. Randy used to have a problem with people who were "pitchy." Where'd the ability to hear pitchy-ness go, Dog?

3. Paula... well, someone needs to tell Paula that Guyliner's not likely to sleep with her anytime soon.

4. New judge whose name I can never remember? I don't remember what you said about Guyliner, either; so if it was good, you're an idiot. If it was bad, bravo for being the only judge with sense.

Please, people, prove to the world that America can vote for someone who can really sing (Alison, Danny, Kris) over someone who's only "pretty."

Please.

Stockholder Aggle?

2009-04-21T10:36:00.004-05:00

I was listening to a news report on the radio yesterday, and I heard something interesting.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama Administration is considering converting its preferred interest in the bailed-out banks into common stock.

Considering I know next to nothing about stock ownership, I have a question...

Would that make me a stockholder?

If so, can I vote my 1/300,000,000th of the U.S.' interest in those banks at stockholder meetings, or would I have to go along with whatever the Obama Administration wants?

Does my "ownership" interest in these banks qualify under the corporate bylaws so as to grant me the right to inspect their books & records?

Hopefully, one of my three or four readers can answer those questions for me.

A Movie Experiment

2009-04-16T13:54:00.002-05:00

Hey everybody!

I recently heard that Utah has been testing out the 4-day workweek for almost a year now.

That's not what this post is about, but it got me thinking about "small" experiments in the way government works. I started to wonder what other experiments we as Americans could do, to test out some of our political beliefs.

And then I had a brainstorm. I'll call it "Aggle's Movie Experiment." This is not to be confused with "Aggle's Economic Stimulus Proposal." That particular plan would have worked, but all I could get the government to give me was a lousy 8 bucks a week.

Okay, here we go.

AGGLE'S MOVIE EXPERIMENT

This is an experiment in socialism. First, we find a movie franchise. For the purposes of this discussion, we'll use the "Ocean's" movies, since they're heavy with big-name actors and incredibly light on story.

Call up Clooney, Pitt, Roberts, Cheadle & Co., and pitch them this idea. Since the U.S. unfairly allows rich people to keep a bunch of their money, we need to make another "Ocean's" movie. The storyline could be anything, but I'm suggesting Danny and his super-cool pals embark on a quest to pull a heist on the International Space Station. That way, the special effects will be enormous!

With those folks involved, the movie's virtually guaranteed to bring in oh, say about a billion dollars.

But all the current contracts are out the window.

See, each person working on the movie must sign a contract that they'll take an equal share of the profits.

Yeah, you heard me right.

If there's 1,000 people working on the movie (producers, actors, directors, lighting, sets, wardrobe, caterers, grips, gaffers, effects, personal assistants, everybody), then they each get one-tenth of one percent of the profits.

And they don't get paid before the movie goes to the theaters.

That means the guy who fans out the "Save Darfur" brochures in Clooney's trailer gets paid exactly the same as Clooney himself. The gal who brings Julia Roberts her chai latte gets as much as Roberts. Everybody's got to bring their A-game, because their compensation will directly depend on everybody else equally. Right?

Brilliant!

Let's give it a go.

I Just Saw Something Really Disturbing

2009-04-14T19:25:00.003-05:00

Seriously, people.

Paula, Simon, and everybody who's ever voted for Adam Lambert must be smoking some really bad crack. That rendition of "Born to be Wild" was the biggest train-wreck since William Hung.

Somehow I've been sucked in to watching most of this season of American Idol, and that guy is consistently horrible. And that's only because I can't think of a word worse than "horrible."

For real. Stop voting for guyliner, please. Okay, so you'll have to stop voting for him twice in a row, because the smooth-brained judges are salivating to use their "save" on this entertaining butcher, but still.

He's horrible.

Mexico Doesn't Like Short Wrestlers

2009-04-14T08:59:00.003-05:00

Mexico's Ambassador to Spain has sent a letter to Burger King complaining about the following ad:

He says it's because of the "stereotype" of Mexicans. I'm wondering if Burger King is really stereotyping Mexicans as short wrestlers. Does Burger King's racism have any boundaries?

I've decided to be offended by their characterization of Texans as lanky cowboy-types who don't have the strength to open a pickle jar (or maybe that's a job Americans won't do). I hereby demand that Burger King immediately remove the ad and replace the Cowboy with a 6-foot tall, medium-build, balding lawyer like yours truly.

But leave the wrestler in. That's funny stuff.

Texas Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton Plays the Race Card?

2009-03-09T13:25:00.002-05:00

What the?

In the video, Ted Houghton of the Texas Transportation Commission is sparring with Hank Gilbert. Gilbert is at the meeting to ask the Commission why it plans to use stimulus money to build toll roads for the benefit of foreign companies. Houghton dribbles something about how "foreigners" will own the debt either way. I'll address that remark first:

Commissioner Houghton, even if foreign countries, or companies, buy up stimulus debt by the truckload, Texans would still own their own roads.

There, now that that's over with, we can proceed to the meeting's most glaring injustice. At about the 7:10 mark in the video, Houghton says,...

"Your group are a bunch of bigots, is what you are."

Seriously?!

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how a person who wants to keep Texas roads free is a bigot. I'm sorry, but I just can't do it. It's impossible.

Mr. Houghton, you are supposed to be serving the people of Texas, not serving on a de facto foreign corporate board. We don't want our roads taken away from us and given to any corporation, least of all a foreign one. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with citizens wanting to keep their roads.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I sincerely hope that you are.

Ted Houghton should resign immediately. He's shown quite clearly he doesn't know who his bosses are.

Shepard Fairey -- More to the Story

2009-02-26T14:48:00.003-06:00

This post is not about the Obama "Hope" poster. Well, not totally, anyway. I heard about Fairey's initial run-in with the AP over the use of the work they may not even own ("Mr. Garcia contends that he, not The Associated Press, owns the copyright for the photo, according to his contract with the The A.P. at the time").

My initial thought when I found out that the Fair Use Project had filed a Declaratory Judgment action against the AP was,"Go get 'em, tigers!" I generally agree with the stuff the Fair Use Project does. The Obama "Hope" poster is, in my opinion, a pretty cool interpretation of Garcia's photo, and as far as I was aware, Fairey wasn't using it for anything other than campaigning. That may or may not be true (The FUP's complaint says Fairey rolled over all the money he made into printing posters to be distributed for free).

And then I read something that made me look a little closer. It's a pretty eye-opening article discussing Fairey's unattributed use of the works of many artists (see also). A little further digging turned up a definitely-not-good-for-the-gander article. That's right, Fairey sent a c&d letter to an artist who created a parody of one of his works.

The most interesting point to be made, though, is not the double-standard. It's the fact that Fairey has built his anti-corporate, anti-establishment reputation on the backs of his predecessors, and has parlayed that reputation into a highly polished, very corporate entity.

Now, ordinarily, I wouldn't give much thought to a story like this other than my initial reaction I noted above. I'd follow it, and I'd generally pull for Fairey as "the little guy." For the record, I do think his case against the AP could easily be decided in his favor. I don't, however, like having the wool pulled over my eyes; and being fed a line of garbage about how avant-garde someone is, only to find out they're really nothing more than a semi-talented, hypocritical thief.

My New Economic Stimulus Proposal

2009-01-28T16:30:00.002-06:00

Democrats want "family planning" money...
Republicans want tax cuts...

Some folks want roads...
Some folks want schools...

I'll tell you what'll fix the economy. Aggle's Economic Stimulus Proposal is as follows:

Give me $800 billion dollars, and turn me loose. The catch is, every dime must be spent by the end of the year, without anything to show for it on January 1, 2010.

That's what they're going to do, so why shouldn't I get to have some fun?

I'm telling you right now. I'll Johnny-Appleseed my way all across the country in a tricked-out conversion van rigged up with a snow-blower specifically designed to spread C-notes in a 100-yard radius. I'll start a website taking suggestions for what to do with the money, and no suggestion will be too over-the-top (except for bridges that don't actually go anywhere, or teapot museums). Okay, so I won't take suggestions from Congresspersons or their staff... Or Joe the Plumber.

If I succeed, I get to not pay taxes for the rest of my life. If I don't succeed? Then we've wasted $800 billion...

But Congress is going to do that anyway, so where's the problem?

Treasury Secretary-Designate Geithner

2009-01-14T09:55:00.002-06:00

Wow! Two posts in one day? I don't know if I'll recover from this.

Politico is reporting that a "full-court press" by Obama could keep Geithner from being dropped/blocked as his Treasury Secretary appointee.

One question: For the reals?

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe it. Aside from the now undisputable fact that Geithner is unamerican (at least according to Joe Biden's "patriotic duty" statements), can we really afford to put a man in charge of the nation's finances who couldn't be bothered to stay up-to-date on his own tax situation?

Insane.

Trans Texas Corridor Is Not Dead

2009-01-14T08:31:00.002-06:00

I received this update early this morning from Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF):

No laws have been changed, no Minute Orders rescinded, contracts revoked, nor environmental documents re-done to actually KILL the TTC once and for all. What we got instead was effectively a hail Mary pass from a TxDOT Executive Director, Amadeo Saenz, whose job is about to get axed if the Sunset Commission's recommendations to cut his position are adopted. Too little, too late, Mr. Saenz. The people of Texas want to clean house and start over with new leadership the public can trust, not more of the same corrupt and illegal dealings from a belligerent and unresponsive state agency about to tax its citizens off their own public roadways!

Saenz even stated in his speech that they're simply renaming the TTC and chopping it up into smaller projects under different names. This famous bait and switch act by government gone awry amounts to a sneaky attempt at duping concerned citizens into thinking the battle is won only to rear its ugly head later. They're putting lipstick on their pig, but it's still a pig!

Read the press statement here.

Yearly Awards Shows Rant

2009-01-12T13:50:00.002-06:00

Hello all!

I just realized I've almost let the award show season pass me by without weighing in on the winners (and losers) of our glitzy Hollywood annual back-slap fests:

The winners: who cares?

The losers: Anybody who was looking forward to watching an actual television show.

Seriously? The People's Choice Awards on CBS Wednesday at 8? Don't they realize that if the People had a Choice, the People would very likely Choose to watch the People's Choice of actual television on Wednesday night (in my case, that would have been "Criminal Minds")?

Okay, so that's not actually a substantive argument. It's more my personal gripe. I'd rather see an "un-sub" brought to justice by the BAU in a gripping tele-drama than watch a small statue be delivered to Hugh Laurie (Did Hugh Laurie win? I'd simply die if he didn't!) so he can prattle on for a bit until the music starts.

Now for the substance. Yes, really.

The economy is in the tank. It's not getting any better. Our Congress mercilessly grilled the Big 3 CEOs about their private jet use (rightfully), and the left screamed kudos to them from the rooftops.

And now, once again this year, we're inundated with the Hollywood left-pets parading up and down the red carpet (Is it still red? I'd simply die if it wasn't) in suits and gowns and jewelry that cost more than the Gross National Product of Taiwan.

I swear, one of these years they're going to wise up and just release a list of all the winners. That way, I can watch Criminal Minds (If it's still on. I'll simply die if it isn't.), and those who care can look up the list and wonder why Hope and Faith didn't win best comedy.

What? That show got cancelled? I'm simply gonna... nevermind.

A Note on Blagojevich

2008-12-10T08:29:00.004-06:00

Just in case they ever release all of the taped conversations, I will go ahead and fess up now.

I am (or was) "Candidate Number 6,487." I know, it was surprising to me, too. I kept telling them I didn't have any money, or power, or government contacts, or corporate contacts. I even told them several times that I don't even live in Illinois. They just kept saying stuff like, "Commit now! This offer's going fast," and "Don't miss this rare opportunity to participate in history!"

I lost interest when they tried to introduce me to the nephew of a Nigerian Prince, who wanted me to give him bank account information.

UPDATE: Okay, so it's not really an update; I've just been thinking about how much the Illinois Governor's name sounds like that of a bad Bond villain.

"Ahhh, yes, Mr. Bond, I presume?"

"You know who I am, Blagojevich! As I recall, I stopped you from selling royal titles in London in 1994."

"That was, shall we say, unfortunate, Mr. Bond. Now be still while I detail my plan for world domination through influence-peddling before I allow you to escape and defeat me..."

Thoughts on the "Big 3" Bailout

2008-12-04T15:23:00.002-06:00

We all know it's coming, right? Despite the "weelllllll, maybe," protestations of some members of Congress, we all know that the Democrats never saw a Union member pleading without shedding tears of cash. By the same token, Republicans start salivating gold bullion anytime a corporate CEO shows up with hand outstretched.

So it's going to happen. The only question is: How much?

Last I saw, the breakdown looks like this:

Ford wants a bunch of cash;
GM wants a bunch of cash; and
Chrysler wants a bunch of cash.

Oh, I know the media's reporting that it's more specific than that ($9B, $18B, and $7B, respectively); but what it all boils down to is bailing out idiot businesses with borrowed money that my kids (and their kids, and their kids) will have to pay back. And my oldest daughter is 6. She doesn't even have a job yet, even though I believe she could do at least as well as, say, your average "Big 3" CEO.

So what do I think we should do, you ask? I suppose I could tell you I think we should bail them out in the interest of the economy, but I'd be lying. I think if the government wants to really help the U.S. economy, they'll line up our current crop of Congressional hand-wringers and calmly escort them to their new jobs as migrant farm workers in California.

I can't for the life of me figure out why the economically struggling citizens of this country should go deeper into debt to prop up failing businesses just so union workers and manager payscales can continue to be responsible for the high cost of low quality goods.

Let 'em tank, and let the chips fall where they may. If any of the "Big 3" rise from the ashes of their failure, good for them.

But I won't hold my breath.

A Question for Lawrence Lessig

2008-10-13T16:36:00.002-05:00

A friend of mine just emailed me a snippet of Andrew Sullivan's Blog which contained a link to an article by Lawrence Lessig.

It's a great article, and I think anyone even marginally interested in copyright, piracy, or intellectual property in general should read, and take heed.

I have a question for Professor Lessig (who has been one of my copyright heros ever since I started caring about it):

Professor,

I sometimes catch myself in my automobile singing Metallica's "Master of Puppets" at the top of my lungs. Now, most of the time the windows are rolled up, but occasionally I realize I have left one of them down. Inevitably, when that happens, I notice that someone else (in a car, on the sidewalk, etc.) is staring at me, quite obviously in awe of the balding, thirty-something white guy with the ability to death-grunt just like Hetfield (and yes, I realize that Hetfield is a likely balding forty-something white guy, but I'm just not as cool as him).

Should I be worried? Oh, goodness, I just realized I admitted to entertaining various passers-by with songs I do not own...

I'm afraid I already know the answer to my question. The recording industry has become so rabid that I'll probably have their jack-booted thugs on my doorstep when I get home today.

Anyway, read the article. Lessig is a prophet.

Thanks Congress!

2008-10-09T16:10:00.001-05:00

Thanks for saving the stock market with your brilliant "we-had-to-do-something" bailout plan.

Idiots.

You've Got to be Kidding Me?

2008-10-04T09:19:00.003-05:00

So they passed the idiot bailout bill, right?

And then what happens to the stock market? Well, wonder of wonders, it starts to tank again.

Great.

Mike Conaway said in a press release that he voted for this bailout package mainly because the stock market would tank if he didn't. I'll go ahead and quote him, for posterity's sake:

"After the vote on Monday, the stock market reacted very negatively to the defeat. Confidence in the short term lending facilities, particularly commercial paper markets and overnight lending between banks, had to be addressed."

Well, welcome to the real world, Mr. Conaway. Everybody saw the market drop on Monday. We all figured the same thing you did, at the time, that the market was reacting to the defeat of the bill. Except that it wasn't. It was obviously reacting to the possibility that this thing might pass. In fact, it recovered slightly after the bill failed to pass.

Similarly, all the MSM outlets were saying on Tuesday (when the market, ahem, rebounded nicely) that the market was responding to renewed efforts to pass a new bailout bill. They were saying this even though the market had trended down while you Congressmorons were working on the first bill.

Do you pork-barrel elites in DC really have the MSM in your back pocket, or what?

Well, now you have your answer. Congress is responsible now. I'm not blaming banks anymore, or mortgage lenders, or even the Enronization of our nation's businesses.

I'm blaming Congress. They have chosen to accept responsibility, and I for one will give it to them.

I can't believe we send these complete and total idiots to Washington to lead. I wouldn't trust them to mow my lawn.

Our Economy is Soooo Bad...

2008-10-03T14:15:00.002-05:00

How bad is it?

It's so bad that our poor manufacturers of wooden arrows for children simply must have a tax-break.

Really.

No, I'm serious. Click the link already.

They added everything including the kitchen sink to this bill, most of which had nothing whatsoever to do with any economic "bailout" or "rescue plan" or whatever the political morons are calling it right now. Read the bill, too. You'll see all the pork in there. They didn't even try to hide it.

When the economy's down, the best way to help is to start throwing money around, I guess.

You know, it was interesting to me a couple of years ago when they passed the new bankruptcy laws. You know which ones I'm talking about. The ones that told American consumers, citizens, voters, workers, etc. that if they got into financial trouble, it didn't matter. They couldn't expect any help whatsoever from Poppa Government. As a matter of fact, they made it incredibly hard for folks to even file to restructure their debt.

And now, because we've got banks involved (and because those banks are intimately tied together with members of Congress from both sides of the aisle) we simply had to do something to help. Gasp! The only idiotic comment I expected but didn't hear was that we had to do it "for the children!!"

I am incredibly disgusted with Congress' bi-partisan shellacking of the American taxpayer.

Well, I'm gonna let my vote speak. Congressman Conaway, you've just lost a vote the next time you're up. Senator Cornyn, Senator Hutchison, same goes for the two of you. As a matter of fact, you've lost not only my vote, but the votes of every Texan I can convince.

You three, along with all of your fellow Congresspeople and Senators, have turned your backs on the hardworking people of this country, and put them into hock to bail out the truly undeserving.

Shame on you.

Campaign Twists

2008-09-03T11:11:00.003-05:00

I've been mulling this post for a couple of days now, and what I keep coming back to is, "Man! I hate politics!"

Let me start by saying that I don't like the Democrat or the Republican ticket. The only person I can actually say I marginally "like" in the race right now is Joe Biden. Oh, no, don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about his positions/policies, those I disagree with vehemently. I'm talking about personally, Biden seems the kind of guy you could meet at a dinner party and actually enjoy talking to. Like he wouldn't bore the tar out of you with gladhanding or self-aggrandizement.

Sorry, Joe, that doesn't mean I'm voting for Obama/Biden.

And John, don't think that means I'm voting for McCain/Palin, either.

I haven't decided yet. I'm leaning towards Grampa McCain, if only because I'd rather have a D-congress and an R-president than have either party hold both.

What I really came here to post is an interesting turn I've noticed since Grandaddy made his VP announcement.

It seems as if Obama is now campaigning against Palin. Oh, sure, they still throw in a couple of "he's the same as Bush" (which I don't necessarily deny) here and there. But the overwhelming message coming from Obama's campaign (other than, of course, "change") is "I'm better than her."

It is just me, or does it read to anyone else as if the Obama campaign's new slogan is, "Now wait just a gosh-darn minute! I'm the only wildly inexperienced* person who should be in this race!"?

*Or "underexperienced," if you are offended by "inexperienced."

Whew! That was close!

2008-08-22T18:32:00.004-05:00

Drudge is reporting that somebody else already reported Obama's running mate will be Evan Bayh.

FLASH: Fri Aug 22 2008 17:52:03 ET /// KMBC's Micheal Mahoney reports a company in Kansas City, which specializes in political literature, has been printing Obama-Bayh material... MORE... Gill Studios, would not confirm information about the material. They would not deny it either. At least three sources close to the plant's operations reported the Obama-Bayh material was being produced. The company is in the Obama FEC reports for previous work...

I sure hope everybody finds this out from Drudge (or from me).

'Cause I've been worried that the coming mass text/email from the Obama campaign might cause massive failures of the intertubes.

UPDATE: Biden? Really? Are you sure, Barry, that he's clean and articulate enough for ya?

Sad and Glorious Day...

2008-08-04T13:10:00.002-05:00

Today my wife and I went to our daughter's new school to register her for Kindergarten.

I'm bummed.

My little 5-year-old beauty is starting school in 3 weeks at the same school I attended when I was a kid. I never had the pleasure of Kindergarten there, since I started public school in the 5th grade.

But all of this makes me look back on the last 5 years.

Our first daughter was born 2 days before first semester exams during my second year of law school. For the first week after she was born, I was spending an immense amount of time studying for tests. My wife and my mother-in-law would insulate me from the night-time crying so that I could sleep. I was afraid that the lack of initial bonding time would hamstring my relationship with my daughter.

It didn't. My wife went back to work a couple of weeks after our beauty was born, and I only worked a couple of hours a day at a law firm in Lubbock. That's where I met a great fella, fantastic attorney, and wonderful father by the name of Jo Paul Archer. He had two young daughters, and was as devoted to them as any Dad I'd ever seen before. He told me that his motto was, "I'm a Dad who happens to be a lawyer. Not a lawyer who happens to have kids." I adopted that motto as my own, and I've never looked back. Jo Paul has since passed on, and the world is the worse for it; but I can give him a bunch of credit for making me a better father in those days I worked with him.

I was starting the process of setting up interviews with all of the big Texas firms at the time. When she was born, that all changed. I thought about working long hours for really good money; only to have my daughter wonder who I was her entire life. So, I decided to go the other way, working shorter hours for less money, and being a Dad first.

For the first year of her life, while my wife worked, I got to do the "Mr. Mom" thing. It was beautiful. It was stressful. It was tough (much tougher than law school), but also enjoyable. I only wish I'd had the same opportunity with my next two beautiful daughers.

Because of it, I developed an extremely close bond with her, and I know she'll be a "Daddy's girl" for life.

Magic, I know you're not allowed on the internet yet (after all, you're only 5); but someday you may read this. I'll try to tell you every day how proud I am of you; but in case I slip from time to time, here I am telling it to the entire world.

I love you, sweetheart.

--Daddy

Barbie's Getting Some Step-Sisters

2008-07-18T13:21:00.003-05:00

No, I'm not talking about Cinderella. If I were, then Mattel wouldn't be able to rest from the round of litigation it just won against the makers of Bratz.

I'm talking about the federal jury verdict that determined the fella who came up with Bratz (or, as I call them, "Cosmetology-school dolls") did so while he was working at Mattel (insert standard IP contract terms here).

Wonderful. The Barbie Dreamhouse is going to have to build some additions.

Aside from the millions of dollars Mattel is likely to win in the next round, they'll also probably be able to form the world's first "Doll foster family." The heavily made-up Bratz dolls will descend on Barbie's white-bread utopia of a life, bringing a bit of ghetto with them. They'll teach Barbie the importance of bling. Barbie will stop driving that little corvette and get an Escalade instead. Conspicuous consumption and a steadfast reliance on the toy-cosmetics industry will be Barbie's new rule.

Ahhh. I just hope there aren't any gang members in the Bratz line. Barbie's likely to get shivved.

Trans-Texas Corridor Update

2008-07-16T08:41:00.002-05:00

Recently, Terri Hall of TURF (Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom) was invited to speak in Washington D.C. at the Freedom March. For those of you who may not know, TURF is an indispensible organization working tirelessly to fight the unjustice that is the TTC. Ms. Hall is the executive director of the organization.

With her permission, I have chosen to re-print her speech from the Freedom March here, in its entirety:

I think the words of a patriot of the past, Thomas Paine, that were uttered on December 23, 1776, reflect where we find ourselves again today in America.

He said:

"THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value."

Is that not so true today? Fellow Patriots, the Trans Texas Corridor and the widespread proliferation of toll roads, particularly the use of public private partnerships to exploit the eminent domain powers of govt and join it with the financial self-interest of private corporations, that is about to befall not only Texas but our country, is nothing more than an all out assault on our freedom: the freedom to travel, the freedom to own private property, the freedom from oppressive taxation and overbearing government. And that, my friends, is tyranny! Though not easily conquered, it can and must be crushed.

The NAFTA Superhighway, known as the Trans Texas Corridor to Texans and called a myth by those trying to silence the truth, is very real and even has some segments already under construction. It’s a 4,000 mile, multi-modal network of toll roads, rail lines, utilities, telecommunications, and pipelines of all sorts. It will be up to 1,200 feet wide (4 football fields wide) and will take a total of 580,000 of private land. Two foreign companies partnering with an American company have been given the rights to develop the TTC, which includes the right to build the most lucrative segments without being subjected to competitive bidding, leaving the taxpayers to subsidize the parts that aren’t toll viable.

The TTC will literally bisect whole cities and towns slicing them in two giving residents, farmers, and schoolchildren no access to the other side of this 1,200 foot wide tollway. In fact, the law states the private operator only has to build overpasses where the corridor intersects state hwys and interstates so on TTC-35 there are only 5 exits in the entire state of Texas!

So make no mistake, this nightmare called the TTC is alive and well. We’ve personally attended most all of the nearly one hundred TTC hearings since 2006. When more than 40,000 Texans have gone on record against it, politicians take notice. But instead of KILL this nightmare, they try to find new ways to put lipstick on their pig.

There was a recent announcement disguised as a victory for angry farmers and ranchers, where TxDOT said it would now expand the existing highway system to build TTC-69 instead of building a massive new corridor through rural Texas. But guess what? There’s always a catch when billions of dollars are to be made, and when multi-national corporations are chomping at the bit to get their cheap Chinese goods into the U.S. exploiting cheaper Mexican ports, Mexican trucks, and Mexican labor.

The private "partners" conducted toll viability studies and found the new corridor route wasn’t a money-maker because it bypassed all the urban areas where beleaguered commuters could be forced to pay tolls to get out of congestion. So they had to go back to the "free" roads that would have been the toll operators’ primary "competition" to their toll revenues.

So now they’re going to toll those existing roads and kill any competition. See how this isn’t free market? Oh they’ll tell you your free lanes will still be there, but they’re fixin’ to do what they’re about to do to a freeway near my home, and that is, toll the existing freeway lanes and make the only free lanes, frontage roads. Calling it highway robbery isn’t hyperbole! So it was really the private operators, not TxDOT or the politicians, that changed the route of the TTC-69 and, believe me, it’s no victory. It can still be a 1,200 wide privatized, foreign-controlled toll road with most of the profits leaving our country.

Within TWO weeks of that announcement, TxDOT signed a public private partnership contract with ACS of Spain and Zachry of San Antonio that gives them 12% guaranteed annual profits, a no bid right to cherry-pick the most lucrative segments to build, and they’re not even bringing their own money to the table since 3/4 of the construction cost will be paid for with YOUR MONEY…that’s right Texas lawmakers are stealing YOUR federal taxpayer backed bonds and loans to build the NAFTA superhighway and give all the profits to Zachry and ACS of Spain!

We’ve been brow beat with a pack of empty talking points by Reason Foundation and many libertarian think tanks, that these public-private toll deals are the silver bullet to funding infrastructure without having to raise taxes, because the private partners bring all the money to the table, not cash-strapped govt, and it’s the private partner, not the taxpayers, who carry the financial risk.

Well, all you have to do is dig into any one of the 3 contracts in TX and those in other states (Indiana, Illinois, and Virginia) to know that not one of those things is true. First of all, a toll is a tax! Second, there is no risk to the private operator when 3/4 of the construction cost is being paid by the taxpayers and when the state grants investors a non-compete agreement that prohibits any expansion of or building of free roads surrounding their tollways guaranteeing congestion on free lanes for a half century or more and indebting us for generations. One contract even gives TxDOT a financial incentive to lower the speed limit on the competing "free" interstate, I-35, to drive more traffic to the high speed Trans Texas Corridor.

Our government has become the puppet of private industry and they’ve figured out how to team-up to make billions off the public’s roadways. These highways belong to WE THE PEOPLE, not the government, not the road lobby.

They have NO right to steal our land in the name of "public use" when it’s really about private gain and big government profiteering that will relegate those who cannot afford the tolls to second class citizens. Eminent domain has always been used for roads, but now for the first time, the government can literally steal your land, pay you next to nothing for it, and give it to a private company for private profit. It’s the Kelo vs. New London case applied to roads.

In Texas, they even passed a law, called quick take, that allows the govt to vacate the landowner within 90 days of notice of condemnation whether or not your case is settled. This almost guarantees the landowner will have to take the state’s offer, because who can re-locate hundreds of head of cattle in 90 days without compensation?

There is a massive war going on in this country between the pro-privatization special interest groups and freedom loving Americans. The laws have already been dramatically altered to allow these PPPs, and this Administration and Governors like ours, Rick Perry, and Indiana’s, Mitch Daniels, have orchestrated a shift away from an affordable, gas tax funded freeway system to a new policy of prolific and oppressive toll taxation. They’re planning to toll the living daylights out of urban commuters in order to give their cronies government-sanctioned monopolies over YOUR roads that you depend for daily living.

Today we are in uncharted territory at $4 a gallon for gas, above the inflation adjusted high of 1980. The mentality inside this building is that no matter what they decide to charge us in new toll taxes, that motorists will pay it. They know we have to get to work. We won’t have real alternatives.

This is oppressive taxation on top of skyrocketing fuel costs. There’s only so much money in the family budget that can go to transportation before it takes money away from the necessities. We already see the dramatic decline of the standard of living in America in a very short period of time. It’s only going to get worse, they tell us, in order to condition us into accepting the globalists’ agenda.

So isn’t this what we’re conditioned to accept in government? We’re endlessly being asked to tighten OUR belts, while both our state and federal governments squander our gas taxes on frivolous earmarks that don’t even pertain to roads, like the bridge to nowhere?

How about TxDOT spending $9 million of taxpayer money to wage an ad campaign to advocate tolls roads and the Trans Texas Corridor? TURF filed a complaint with the Travis County District Attorney’s office immediately upon learning of this illegal use of taxpayer money. The DA’s office did nothing. So we filed a lawsuit in civil court to stop TxDOT from spending anymore of our money on taxpayer funded lobbying.

• Through our lawsuit we’ve discovered that indeed TxDOT has been engaging in illegal lobbying. They can’t say they’re not lobbying when invoices show they’ve hired 5 registered lobbyists to the tune of $100,000 a month to lobby elected officials in Washington particularly targeting local elected officials in the path of the Trans Texas Corridor.

• We found documents that show the purpose of the ad campaign is to "neutralize" toll and TTC opponents and to target counties opposed to the TTC in order to turn the tide of opposition.

• PR firm stated this in their proposal: "The political environment needs to be changed to make it less hostile to the TTC." The goal of the campaign is to define the benefits of the TTC to the majority of Texans and help inoculate it from negative attacks."

• They’ve conducted push polls on the taxpayers’ dime to garner support for the TTC.

• TxDOT was told by the Transportation Commission to show the "DOUBLE TAXATION" claim of toll opponents is untrue, which is illegally engaging in a political policy debate when state agency’s are to implement, not shape of make policy. The testimony from someone in the State Auditor’s office found TxDOT is knowingly ginning-up false gas tax numbers and funding figures in order to push toll roads!

I’m afraid this doesn’t stop in Texas. Just weeks ago, a new lobby group called Transportation Transformation or T2 announced that not only TxDOT, but 3 other state DOTs have officially teamed up with the bond investors and private toll road and corridor interests to directly lobby Congress here in Washington for more public private partnerships and toll roads.

This is a recipe for tyranny! We must demand political reform to ensure checks and balances and put the power back in the hands of the PEOPLE as the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a free people.

So I ask you, have we had enough? I cannot help but be inspired by the resolve of another patriot, Patrick Henry, who said in his famous speech that sparked a revolution:

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

We need to ask ourselves, will we allow our government to shackle us with oppressive taxation just to get to work and go about daily living? Will we allow this Administration and the state governments aiding it to carve a 1,200 ft wide swath through the heartland of America and sacrifice what vestige of private property rights we have left in the name of foreign trade and commerce? Or will we continue to fight a new revolution, a taxpayer revolt, a political movement to stop the Trans Texas Corridor, the NAFTA superhighways, to stop tolls across Texas and America, preserve private property rights, our way of life and our precious freedoms bought with a price from those who came before us?

They, those who have sold out American freedom in favor of the almighty dollar and the intoxication of power, aren’t counting on you and me and this freedom movement taking our government back. But as for me, and I think all of you here today and the hundreds of thousands who couldn’t be with us, the resounding answer is: give us liberty!

Well said, Ms. Hall. And keep up the good work.

Breyer's Dissent in Heller

2008-06-26T14:48:00.003-05:00

Well, Justice Breyer tried to do a little number.

His suggestion is that the Court should apply an "interest-balancing" standard of review in determining the Constitutionality of firearms restrictions.

He equates such a standard with the way the "strict scrutiny" standard is often applied, except that, throughout his analysis, he gives all deference to the statute (and the state's interest) instead of the right it infringes (instead of the interests of the right-holder).

He says of less-restrictive alternatives, "Here I see none." He says this, not because none were shown, but because none were asked for. Despite his insistence that "policy" judgments are better made by legislators, he goes on to determine that no alternatives exist short of complete bans. And to support this,... wait for it... he shows that other cities have instituted complete bans.

Fantastic.

I'll leave you with a sentence I think is particularly indicative of Breyer's nanny-state mentality:

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence."

Breyer apparently likes the idea of abolishing the presumption of innocence, as well.

Okay, here's more.

2008-06-26T13:43:00.002-05:00

Just started Breyer's dissent. I'm wondering if, in his and Stevens' dabblings in historical textualism, he would be interested to learn that the term "well regulated," as used in colonial times, overwhelmingly meant "in proper working order," and was not a reference to restrictions.

Re-reading the sentence above, I also wonder what his views are on run-on sentences.

Regarding Heller:

2008-06-26T13:34:00.003-05:00

I've finished reading the majority opinion and Justice Stevens' dissent.

Scalia's opinion is quite an interesting history lesson (if you haven't already read the history on the subject exhaustively). It is, quite plainly, an adequate discussion of both the structure of the Second Amendment and also the history surrounding it.

What it doesn't do (and here I agree with Justice Breyer, albeit for different reasons) is set out a Constitutional standard by which firearms restrictions may be judged. It affirms that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms unconnected with military service; but it does not yet (as it should) afford that right the same Constitutional protections as other specifically enumerated rights.

Stevens' dissent, if you focus solely upon his attempts at textualism, reads like a pretty compelling argument to overturn Roe v. Wade, which I thought was particularly ironic.

Maybe more to come, maybe not.

Heller Is Affirmed!

2008-06-26T09:56:00.002-05:00

I'm reading the opinion now, so I'll have more later, but Heller was affirmed today by the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote.

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and the Chief Justice joined.

Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer; and Justice Breyer filed a dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.

Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Heller Decision Today

2008-06-26T08:18:00.002-05:00

I must apologize in advance to all 3 of my readers. Due to a scheduled court hearing, I will not be able to blog immediately following the release of the opinion today in D.C. v. Heller.

I will, however, read the opinion as soon as I return from the Courthouse, and will have something for you then.

Four Cases Decided Today -- Heller Decision Tomorrow

2008-06-25T09:38:00.002-05:00

The Supreme Court issued four opinions today out of the 7 it had remaining.

Links go to SCOTUSWiki

Giles v. California (Justice Scalia writing for a 6-3 majority)

Exxon v. Baker (Justice Souter writing for a 8-0 Court, Alito took no part)

Kennedy v. Lousiana (Justice Kennedy writing for a 5-4 majority)

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle (Chief Justice Roberts writing for a 5-4 majority)

For the best commentary on the decisions above, keep a close eye on SCOTUSBlog and SCOTUSWiki.

And, tune in tomorrow to SCOTUSBlog's live blog coverage as the Supreme Court issues its opinion in D.C. v. Heller.

Obama's Birth Certificate -- Shocking Revelation!

2008-06-16T12:49:00.004-05:00

Okay, by now you've all seen that Barack Obama has released his birth certificate in response to the rumor floating around about him not being an American citizen. He did so on his "fight the smears" website, which he started for the purpose of, well, fighting smears.

Here's a picture of the document I got from DailyKos:

Aside from the fact that it's obviously not genuine (I mean, c'mon. Look at the black bar next to "Certificate no." Mine doesn't have that bar.), I have more news regarding this obvious sham that I'd like to discuss...

Here it comes...

Prepare yourselves...

It's a fake.

I personally spoke with my next-door neighbor the other day. He told me that his cousin's girlfriend's best-friend's half-brother said that Barack Obama is...

An alien.

Yes, you heard me right. I said an alien. And I don't mean your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill undocumented immigrant, either.

No, Barack Obama is really from the planet Zoltar (hang a right at Alpha Centauri, and straight on till morning).

I know. Shocking, isn't it? See, my next door neighbor's cousin's girlfriend's best friend's half-brother said that he himself is also from Zoltar (his name is Kragnor, btw). Kragnor said that he grew up with Barack (real name: Baracknor), and that they were actually squeezed from the same bio-pod.

So, by our reckoning, Kragnor and Baracknor are actually brothers, although they don't reckon biological relationships the same way we do here.

Since this information has come to light, there are some "hard questions" I'd like Baracknor to answer:

1. Why wouldn't you embrace your heritage instead of trying to pass off an obviously fraudulent birth certificate? You could have simply given us your Men-In-Black issued alien identification documents, and we'd have called it a day. Shame on you, Mr. Senator (or Senatnor).

2. Now that this information is public, are you going to own up, or will you continue to assert that you were born in "Hawaii," which we all know is a made-up place anyway?

and

3. If you are elected President, will you do whatever is within your considerable Superman-like powers to make sure our lives are made easier through the application of alien technologies?

Thank you in advance, Baracknor, for just answering the questions instead of putting my post on your "fight the smears" website. It'll be refreshing to hear a presidential candidate actually address the concerns of the earth-born public, even if he's not technically one of them.

FLDS Mandamus Granted

2008-05-22T15:18:00.002-05:00

Well, folks. The Texas Court of Appeals in Austin has decided what any critically-thinking person could see all along...

Texas' CPS did not meet their burden of proving that there was immediate danger to the physical health or safety of those kids on the Eldorado ranch.

PDF Opinion issued today.

Shame on CPS. Either way now, they've doomed those children.

Either CPS was right all along about the abuse but, because they didn't even attempt to substantiate it, they've hamstrung their own department's ability to ever get to the bottom of things; or

They were wrong all along, and despite their attempts to pump their case in the media, they've now opened the State to the possibility of litigation.

I'd like to see some serious reform of Texas' Department of Family and Protective Services over this.

Sadly, though, to judge from the public's reactions so far, the rule of law will likely be made less strict so that, in the future, CPS can do what they did in this case without fear of reprisal.

That's been our legislature's answer in the past. Problems at CPS? Give 'em more money and a broader brush with which to paint!

We'll see.

Which Is It?

2008-04-29T18:03:00.003-05:00

Is Wright right? Or not?

'Cause you Democrats out there need to decide. First it was, "You're taking Wright out of context!!"

Now it's, "He belongs in the right wing!"

Sheesh! Make up your minds, already.

Barack Obama has now disowned his pastor. Really, this time. Oh Discordia! But does it confuse anyone else that the Obama campaign obviously believed Wright would simply shut up after the last foofaraw?

He's a fiery preacher, for heaven's sake (no pun intended). It's what he does.

I'm sorry, but I'm starting to believe Wright is right, at least about Obama being your average, everyday, run-of-the-mill politician.

[[gasp!]]

Now I'll just sit back and wait for the recriminations from Obama supporters (or adherents, or disciples, or acolytes, or whatever you consider yourselves now).

Happy Birthday To You

2008-04-29T16:42:00.003-05:00

I'm beginning to think I should re-name this blog "VolokhWatch."

Guest-blogger Robert Brauneis has an interesting post about the copyright status of the words-and-melody to "Happy Birthday To You," currently "owned" by Warner Music Group.

The post discusses the possibility that copyright protection for this song may extend to the year 2030. Yuck! So I've got to endure 22 more years of restaurants making up their own idiotic birthday songs to keep from paying fees to WMG?

I wonder if anyone's copyrighted, "Happy birthday to you. You live in a zoo. You look like a monkey, and you smell like one too."

Maybe I can get some cash out of that.

BarBri Parody Video

2008-04-23T13:52:00.002-05:00

I needed a laugh today.

Thanks to Volokh for the link:

Trans-Texas Corridor Update

2008-04-23T08:52:00.003-05:00

Well, folks, Governor Perry is still gunnin' for your land.

CorridorWatch.org just sent me an email update containing the entire speech Rick Perry made to TxDOT's Transportation Forum yesterday. I went to Corridor Watch's website, and they haven't yet posted the remarks there, but I'm sure they will soon, so keep checking.

Here's a couple of snippets I'd like to comment on:

If anything, those challenges have grown larger, and this moment in time finds us at a crossroads. Our population continues to grow by roughly 1,500 people per day. For you Aggies in the audience, that means we could fill Kyle Field up with newcomers every 55 days, or fill it up 66 times in the next ten years.

That's a whole lot of people with a whole lot of needs, but that's not the only factor in play. We're also dealing with a funding crisis brought on by a less-than-reliable federal gas tax system. inflation at the national level for everything from materials to labor, and the fact that the bonds passed in 2003 have been spent. As of right now, TxDOT construction lettings are projected to be half of what they were in 2005.

That is not what I call progress. It's what I call a problem.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I travel around Texas and the country, one of the things I enjoy the most is bragging about the Texas economy. Texas is leading the nation in job growth and has been voted the top state in the nation to do business. Just yesterday, I read where we are now the leading state in the nation for corporate headquarters, recently surpassing New York.
Companies are moving to Texas in droves, creating thousands of new jobs for our people and investing billions in our economy. If we can't find a way to move their goods, services and workers around this state, they will leave just as fast.

The simple truth is: When it comes to roads, we need more of them.
Because I'm sure as heck not going to stop inviting companies to relocate their operations to our state. Those jobs mean income for Texas families, tax revenues for local communities, and a continually rising economic tide. And good roads mean a better quality of life for our citizens.

Unfortunately, folks on the various sides of this issue have lost sight of these simple facts. Too often, we have seen the issue of road construction driven by emotion, rather than reason. When this happens, honest debate is stifled, and solutions are sacrificed at the altar of politics.

Those "challenges" our illustrious governor speaks of are the challenges of ramrodding through a plan that the people of Texas overwhelmingly do not want. And yes, he seems committed to overcoming them.

He doesn't even pay lip service to the possibility that, with such a robust and growing economy, the increases in tax revenues alone should be more than adequate to keep our roads Texan-owned and Texan-operated. Sure, there's emotion involved. Texans care deeply about autonomy. We care deeply about our land and our rights. And most importantly of all, we care deeply that we should be able to rely on our elected officials to represent Texas, and not the interests of corporations and profits.

What he says he wants is:

...we need to innovate. We need to thoughtfully debate. And we need to bring all ideas to the table to tackle the overwhelming need our state faces. And we already have some pretty innovative ideas on the table.

I'm sorry, Mr. Governor, but your actions on this matter so far (and those of your appointees) have shown that you do not care about "thoughtful debate." You don't care about bringing "all ideas to the table." Because you've got your "innovative ideas," and you've shown so far your absolute disregard for not only the voices of the regular citizens of this great State, but also the voices of those folks in Austin elected to represent us. You've disregarded our voices solely so that you can force this corporate boondoggle, this monumental land-grab down our throats, and we're not going to be silent just because you're not listening.

A good portion of our legislators are listening, Mr. Governor. And it is my sincere hope that they keep their ears open. That they hear the concerns of ranchers who will have their lands split by a quarter-mile-wide monstrosity with no access points. That they hear the concerns of small communities that will be swallowed up and turned into ghost towns. That they hear the concerns of Texans who have paid for our highways all these years and don't want to turn them over to a corporation.

In closing, Mr. Governor, I'll leave you with the words of a song I learned as a small child. I think they're particularly appropriate:

The eyes of Texas are upon you,

All the live long day.

The eyes of Texas are upon you,

You can not get away.

Do not think you can escape them,

At night, or early in the 'morn.

The eyes of Texas are upon you,

'Til Gabriel blows his horn.

Eldorado Bombshell

2008-04-18T17:07:00.003-05:00

*************************************************

Maybe that little voice I was talking about in my last post wasn't far off the mark.

From DenverChannel.com (link)

DENVER -- A Colorado Springs woman was arrested on charges of false reporting to authorities and is being investigated in connection with her alleged involvement in the call that tipped authorities off to possible abuse at a Texas polygamist compound.

Police said they arrested 33-year-old Rozita Swinton at her home on Wednesday.
The Texas Rangers were in Colorado Springs Wednesday as part of their investigation involving the compound in Texas. They left and have not filed any charges on Swinton, said Colorado Springs police spokesman Lt. Skip Arms.

If you read the entire article, it looks like Jessop's hotline has been recording calls from "Sarah" for two weeks (at the Texas Rangers' urging). It was two weeks ago that the first affidavits were filed in the case affirmatively stating that the girl was calling from inside the ranch.

And those calls were traced by the Texas Rangers to Colorado Springs.

When were they traced there?

I wonder about the other calls allegedly made to the San Angelo shelter and to CPS. While they may not have "caller ID" hookups (in order to protect privacy), that doesn't mean they can't, at very short notice, get usage logs from the phone company showing the numbers people are calling from.

So the question I have for my fellow lawyers out there...

What does (or should) happen to CPS' case if it's proven the original warrants were based upon a fraud?

I've been monitoring the play-by-play from the hearing in San Angelo, and I can't find where anyone's mentioned this. The story was just released about 2 hours ago, so maybe they're too busy and don't know about it yet.

Although the CPS reps down there probably do. And the Texas Rangers down there certainly do.

My Take on Eldorado

2008-04-17T16:00:00.002-05:00

Yes, I'm an attorney in West Texas. So let me start off by saying that I am not one of the 350-odd attorneys serving as volunteer ad litems in the case. I say that only to let everyone know that I know nothing more about the case than the national and local media are saying, along with a bit of West Texas gossip thrown in for good measure.

I don't place much stock in the gossip. You can't really believe most of it anyway, so I'm not going to dwell on it here. I also won't be providing any links to news stories. There's too many of them, and I wouldn't want to pick and choose which ones to include and which ones to leave out.

I will provide a link to a page where you may find the affidavits (in the green box on the left-hand side) filed in the case, but only because a newspaper has already done so.

I'm a lawyer, but I'm also a plain ol' average everyday human being. My first reaction to the "raid" was probably the same as most others'. That anyone could force a child into a "spiritual union" is abhorrent to me. If what they're saying is true, and we've been given no clear reason to doubt that it is, then the State was pretty clearly justified in taking most, if not all, of those kids into custody.

But that depends on a bunch of stuff that the State, I believe, will have a hard time proving.

See, they received some phone calls from a 16-year-old girl who says she was forced into a "spiritual union" with a much older man. She apparently gave birth to one child (at 15) and, at the time of the calls, was pregnant with another.

This was the basis for the initial warrant.

They have yet to locate the girl, and the man she named apparently is on probation in Arizona. His probation officer says he hasn't left the state.

Now for my lawyer side to come out.

The natural thing, at least if you've ever been exposed to Texas CPS, is to have a tiny little annoying voice buzzing in the back of your head. That voice is saying,"Surely they didn't make that girl up just to get inside?" If not, where is she? Where's the phone records showing the number she called from? Was there a recording of the calls themselves?

I know that the Texas Family Code provides for "post-deprivation" procedures (essentially, the adversary hearing they're having today) when a child is seized in the absence of probable cause, and that those procedures have been deemed sufficient to protect the Due Process rights of families.

But, I can't get past the fact that they had one unsubstantiated allegation of abuse. One. And that entitles them to take all of the children from the entire ranch?

Yes, I know, the Family Code allows them to remove the subject child and others "similarly situated." That, however, has normally meant other children in the same home. Are there possibly families in this sect who haven't engaged in polygamous and pedophilic pursuits? Doesn't the law entitle them to that presumption until there's something to rebut it?

I think it does.

I've got to close by stating my clearly held opinion that anyone who harms a child should have the full force of the law brought to bear on them. That law, however, must be tempered by the protections of the Constitution. These people must be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves without being prejudged.

To those of you who would accuse me of condoning pedophilia, I can only say that's not what I'm doing. I'm merely defending the rights of accused persons in this State to have their cases fairly heard.

Scalia-Stevens Smackdown in Baze v. Rees

2008-04-17T15:03:00.004-05:00

Saw this on Volokh (Paul Cassell).

Scalia, writing about Stevens' separately written opinion says:

Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of Justice Stevens' experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress-who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment-is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” Ante, at 8. The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. Ante, at 10, n. 13. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” Ante, at 11. It is Justice Stevens' experience that reigns over all.

Beautiful!

Orin Kerr, apparently, concurs:

The Stevens concurring opinion is certainly a throwback to an earlier age. I think Scalia's response was devastating, as the Stevens opinion does seem remarkably uninterested in distinguishing good policy from what the Constitution demands. Perhaps the most puzzling line in Stevens' concurrence was his statement that the Supreme Court's decisions "retain[ing] the death penalty as a part of our law" have been "the product of habit and inattention." The Supreme Court is inattentive to the death penalty like college guys are inattentive to women and beer.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
I guess that's why I just linked it.

Bitter?

2008-04-14T18:04:00.002-05:00

Okay, so I'm going to weigh in on the Obama "bitter" comments.

First of all, I don't care what Obama says about voters in Pennsylvania. What I think voters in Pennsylvania are most "bitter" about is that the Eagles can't win the Superbowl.

But let's look at the argument from both sides...

Those against Obama (Hillary, McCain, the right wing, half of the Democratic Party, and one or two media folks who haven't "gotten the memo") are saying his comments were "elitist." They point out the utter gall it takes to presume to speak for the feelings of such a large group of people. They point out also that it's pretty demeaning to suggest that just because government hasn't accomplished anything economically worthwhile in oh, about 6 decades, voters are going to become single(or double, or triple)-issue automatons so disaffected with the whole shebang that all they care about anymore is their guns. Or their church. Or their Klan buddies. Or their national isolationism. Or their economic isolationism.

Well, certainly some folks are bitter. And certainly some folks are bitter because the government (or lack thereof) has led to them being so.

But saying what he's said has effectively marginalized those issues he brought up. We'll leave out the comment about "people who aren't like them," since it's a cleverly worded play of the race card (good show, old chap!). Is he actually suggesting that people who value their faith would just give it up if an "economic Messiah" came along? Or that people who value their 2nd Amendment rights will be first in the "gun buyback line" if a factory's coming back to town?

Not bloody likely. And when you elevate economy above faith in one of your speeches, you've attempted to elevate yourself above that faith, as well.

Those who are for Obama (everybody else) say that his words are "the truth." Well of course they are. Especially when there's no way for them to be objectively proven. I've seen them actually referred to as "'unartful,' but not inaccurate." (Donna Brazile said that, and she'd know all about unartful comments and inaccurate ones).

Obama's response to the wave of criticism was essentially to say that he meant what he said, just not exactly the way he said it.

Huh?

He said he apologizes to those who were offended by what he said. Great.

But does it bother anyone but me where he chose to say it? A closed fund-raiser in that last bastion of the liberal "we-know-better-than-you" elite?

That's right, folks. San Francisco.

I can't for the life of me figure out why he chose to address his comments not to the downtrodden, rural voters of Pennsylvania, but to the upscale $500-a-plate crowds in S.F. I'd really like to hear an explanation of that part of it.

Wouldn't you?

P.S. -- Obama supporters, please stop posting youtube videos of rural Pennsylvania voters saying, "You're darn tootin' I'm bitter." It proves nothing.

'Cause we all know by now that if Obama had stood on stage and said, "All those rural Pennsylvania voters want is a ham sandwich! And I intend to give 'em one!" You'd all be falling all over yourselves to video rural Pennsylvania voters saying, "Boy, I sure could go for a ham sandwich right now."

Trans Texas Corridor Update

2008-04-02T18:06:00.002-05:00

Some have said it's dead. But, to borrow a line from Stephen King...

Sometimes they come back.

Now, apparently, TxDOT is lying about funding problems, saying they have to scrap current projects, even though State Senator Troy Fraser has said they have plenty of money for the current projects.

Now, do they honestly want to threaten like this? Are they trying to make transportation problems worse, in order to bring Average Joe Texan on board with their idiotic TTC boondoggle?

Governor Perry, stop serving corporate interests and start serving the people of this State. You weren't elected to shill for foreign corporations, and the people of Texas aren't interested in your land-grab.

Archiving is Fair Use?

2008-03-31T18:04:00.002-05:00

Rebecca Tushnet has an interesting blog post about a recent federal court decision. A group of students sued a company called iParadigm, L.L.C. over that company's archiving of their term papers in a database.

Apparently, iParadigm does this via a service called "Turnitin," so that they can authenticate the originality of a student's submitted paper.

The school districts these students attend have contracted with this company to provide this service.

From Tushnet's post:

Turnitin is a plagiarism-detection service. Schools using Turnitin require students to submit papers through Turnitin’s system, which compares their papers to Turnitin’s database and, if there’s a suspicious match, generates a report for the relevant teacher. Schools can also choose to allow their students’ papers to be added to the database to improve Turnitin’s ability to detect among-student cheating. Plaintiffs objected to Turnitin’s approach and sued for copyright infringement based on papers they’d been required to submit as a condition of receiving school credit.

The plaintiffs were, understandably, miffed at a company being able to use their works to generate a profit.

Well, the court found that the Plaintiffs' claims were without merit. Apparently, a contract of adhesion (I'm sorry, a "clickwrap license") is only a bad thing if you're not signing it at the insistence of a third party.

The court said that iParadigm's use of the papers is "fair use" under copyright law, mainly because they're not using the papers for anything but plagiarism detection...

So, for those of you out there who care...

That huge library of unlicensed songs you've got on your computer is no longer a "library." It's a "database of songs for use in determining if there's anything new under the sun."

Hope that helps.

Medellin Decision Handed Down

2008-03-25T15:58:00.002-05:00

The Supreme Court has handed down its opinion in the case of Medellin v. Texas.

Here's a link to the opinion (89 page pdf).

I haven't read the entire opinion yet, but here's the holding from the syllabus:

"Held: Neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive habeas petitions."

Johnathan Adler at Volokh writes:

"Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which held that neither a judgment of the International court of Justice nor the President's executive order directing state courts to follow the ICJ's judgment constituted federal law that pre-empts a state's pre-existing bar on the litigation of subsequent habeas petitions. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, while Justice Breyer wrote a dissent on behalf of himself and Justices Souter and Ginsburg."

There's some great links from that Volokh page, too.

Cactus Cuties

2008-03-15T16:17:00.000-05:00

This is phenomenal.

Obama: "Yes We Can" Mortgage Our Future

2008-02-28T10:05:00.002-06:00

U.S. News is reporting on Obama's let's-help-the-poor-of-other-countries-and-dance-to-the-U.N.'s-irrelevant-tune bill that's on its way to the Senate for consideration.

Good grief! Does this seem like biting off more than we can chew? With the Democrats constantly harping about how our economy is tanking, should we really be even discussing the possibility of increasing foreign aid?

I was really hoping against hope that the candidates for President would do something to rein in the out-of-control spending we've been saddled with by the Bush Administration.

Obama's not one of them.

Heller Briefs

2008-02-26T11:12:00.002-06:00

Clinton in Odessa

2008-02-21T10:46:00.002-06:00

Former President Bill Clinton is in Odessa today, stumping for the wife.

Just goes to show how hotly contested the Texas Democratic primary is, considering the lack of voters turning out for our most recent elections.

I thought about going, but I figured this would be such a big day for all 20 or so Odessa Democrats, I didn't want to rain on their parade.

Clinton or Obama?

2008-02-20T16:49:00.002-06:00

I don't understand the Democratic Party. Bunch of fickle wierdos, if you ask me.

I've listened to my liberal friends (yes, it's possible to have some) for 7 years now whine about how much better it would have been to keep Bill Clinton in office...

And now,... Ummm. They're doing everything they can think of to keep Bill Clinton out of the Whitehouse.

Okay, so he's not actually running again, but does it seem strange to anyone but me?

I mean, as early as 6 months ago all we heard from the left was that Hillary was a genius. "Smartest Woman Alive." Couldn't do better for the country than elect her to the Presidency. Right?

Has Barack Obama done anything but talk for the last 6 months? What's changed? Is Hillary not smart anymore? Does this mean I can stop listening to how "maverick" she is? Or how she's "broken down barriers?"

Probably not. The Democrats just decided they'd try breaking down a different barrier this time, I guess.

My head hurts.

To Infinity... and Beyond!

2008-02-04T12:47:00.000-06:00

This guy's a regular Buzz Lightyear.

Who's with me in thinking his next Youtube video is gonna be of him getting blown to smithereens?

Okay, I've Made the Switch

2008-01-23T15:26:00.001-06:00

I know I've posted before about Ron Paul and how I don't think he's got much chance of winning the Presidency. I still don't think so, but I do have some measure of "Hope for America."

I have decided (since Fred won't) to officially endorse Ron Paul as the Republican Nominee for President of the United States; and I have made the appropriate changes to this site's layout.

You know, seeing as how I was Fred's former hand-picked Attorney General nominee (or Humor-land Security Nominee), I figure I could get him a bunch of votes.

I am a little bit disappointed, though. As a long-time "Friend of Fred," I was kind of hoping there'd be a "Pals of Paul," or something similar.

I'm Officially in Mourning

2008-01-22T16:27:00.000-06:00

Fred's dead. (Link goes to Volokh Conspiracy)

No, not really dead. He's dropped out of the race for President.

Okay, so I realize his poll numbers were abysmal not too long after the post-announcement honeymoon. But now I can't vote for him. My choices now apparently have been reduced to Rudy Bolonioniagni, the Romneybot, and Great-Great-Great-Great Grandpa McCain.

I just don't know what to do now. I've been a "Friend of Fred" since September 12 of last year, and now I'm a ship without a rudder. A sailboat without wind. A dinghy without an oar. A canoe without a paddle.

I didn't even get a break-up email. I don't know why. I'm on the mailing list, along with all of Fred's other Friends, and he didn't even have the common courtesy to call me first. I would have convinced him not to quit.

Seriously, if my vote now is to be a protest vote, shouldn't I be able to cast it for a conservative candidate instead of Pollyanny, Romneybot, or John-Jacob-Jingleheimer-McCain?

And don't get me started on Huckabee. I've had quite enough of allowing Arkansas to determine the future of the nation, thank you very much.

And so, with great reluctance, I will remove the "Fred '08" widget from this page. I will add in its place a similarly widgety widget for Ron Paul, if I can find one.

If not, oh well. Maybe I'll vote for a Democrat. It'd be the same as voting for a Republican now, anyway.

Bands of Fury

2008-01-17T09:10:00.000-06:00

I can't resist re-posting this. The link was sent to me in an email.

Some fella in the UK decided the world needed a "rubber band mini-gun."

To that I say: Amen, my brother.

It makes me happy just looking at it.

Solidarity.

2007-11-30T13:46:00.000-06:00

That's what it's all about, folks. Solidarity.

Stand firm and unite against the oppressive regimes who won't give us our well-deserved slice of the pie.

It doesn't matter if we don't really know what the pie is worth.

It also doesn't matter if, in the course of our protests, nobody else in the industry gets to work, either. And that includes folks who work on TV programs who are a lot less well-paid than the writers are, doesn't it?

How long are the janitors, assistants, latte-gofers, cameramen, set-builders, grips and gaffers (I must admit I don't even know what the last two do) going to have to remain out-of-work so that the WGA can secure an extra 10% or so in compensation?

It makes you wonder: How many people standing there on the picket lines are actually in support of the writers? If I'm a cameraman, for example -- whose work apparently would not entitle me to compensation in perpetuity -- and the writers go on strike, I can exert no force to resume my job except by standing next to the writers, right? Oh, sure, me and my camera-colleagues could protest the work stoppage, effectively starting a three-way strike; but what good would that really do?

Let's look one step further. Say I'm a writer, and I've got 6 or 7 mouths to feed. I need my job. Sure, I'd like to get paid for internet broadcasts too; but it pales in comparison to the importance of feeding the starving chicks back at the nest. As it is now, I can't cross the picket lines to write decidedly un-funny jokes for Jay Leno; because if I do, I'll be ostracized completely. So therefore, even though the money from internet broadcasts isn't all that important to me, I'm forced to join the lines instead of what's really important to me (i.e., survival).

I know. The studios are greedy. Much more greedy than the writers. I get it. We all do. It's impossible to argue otherwise.

But it seems to me that it'd be easier to negotiate from a position of power if the WGA simply said, "Give us the extra money or we'll go back to turning out stuff like Hope and Faith."

--shiver--

UPDATE:

I am a prophet.

Writers' Strike May Go Too Far -- Say It Ain't So!

2007-11-15T11:15:00.000-06:00

I've just learned something that has shaken me to my very core. This type of world-shattering news comes along only once in a lifetime, and I now believe I will never be the same again.

The writers' strike may have an adverse effect on...

Wait for it...

Awards shows? GASP!

I've started wearing a black armband now, just in case this actually happens. I'm trying to find a suitable-colored lapel ribbon, but all the good ones are already taken. Maybe I'll just use white, and have somebody print the Bic logo on it for me.

To think that, this year, I may have to go without surfing past Hollywood's annual parades of nobody-really-cares! It's horrible. I haven't eaten in over 12 hours. Wait... I had a peppermint candy a couple of minutes ago, but it's only 11:00a.m. and I don't eat breakfast. But I promise, right here and now, that I absolutely refuse to have an extra taco with my lunch. Solidarity is important to me, you know.

If there's no awards shows this year, how will we regular people ever find out about the goodie bags? Or who's drunk on stage? Or which rushed-to-production anti-Iraq-war movie is going to get the thumbs-up from the Hollywood paragons of hypocritic virtue? Oh the humanity!

On a related note, we here at CreTIN are working furiously (by which I mean doing virtually nothing) to see that this strike ends quickly. To show support for our fellow Knights-of-the-Word-Processor, we have been refusing to write anything. Anything at all.

As a matter of fact, I didn't even write this post.

I ain't no scab.

Pencil-Pushers, Unite!

2007-11-07T10:29:00.000-06:00

I'd like to say a little something about the current television & film writers' strike.

Upon hearing the writers would be striking to protest their lack-of-compensation for shows offered on the internet, my initial reaction was, "Of course they should be paid for that. They did the work, they should be fairly compensated."

I was going to leave it at that. Really. I promise...

But the media wouldn't leave it alone, so I actually thought about it some more.

And I started to switch sides a bit. Now, it's no secret that I'm generally anti-union. I get a little hot-under-the-collar every time I pay $500 for an airplane ticket, knowing that I'd be paying markedly less if the airline didn't have to pay a bunch of guys $25/hour to lose my bags.

Even so, I have family who are in the entertainment industry, and they've done film and television work before. They are intensely pro-union (especially, of course, SAG & WGA). I look at the time and effort they put into their jobs, and I'm astounded that someone could so devote themselves to a craft that, Cruise/Hanks etc. aside, is not terribly well-paid. And that's just the actors. So, when it comes to a situation like this, I firmly stamp down on my anti-union bent, and try to look at it in an unbiased manner.

And where my head keeps meeting the wall is: These folks are creating a product. Sure, it's not really tangible, and it's pretty much nothing until someone else runs with it, but it is a product. Scripts can be bought and sold just as any other tangible thing.

So should, for example, manufacturers of movie seats get a portion of ticket sales? They spent their time, effort, and money creating those foldy beauties, so that we might enjoy a movie now and again, right? Those movie seats are arguably as integral to the movie business as the movies themselves, right? I mean, c'mon, nobody's going to pay box-office price if they've got to stand up while they watch Brokeback Mountain, are they?

Of course they wouldn't. But why should we scoff at a movie-seat-manufacturers-union? This argument is about the right to do work, and keep getting paid for it loooooooong after that work is done.

Nobody else gets to do that. If I set up a corporation for someone -- drafting articles, bylaws, and all the other documents as well as providing education to the person in control -- should I get to demand a portion of all proceeds from that corporation, in perpetuity?...

Hey...

On third thought, I've re-switched sides. I'm all for the writers again. I'm going to form a Creative Thought Incorporation Network (CreTIN, for short), to unite all attorneys who set up businesses so that we may stand in solidarity with our ink-stained brothers and sisters. We'll demand equal rights for all keyboard-jockeys, no matter where they roam!

Pencil-Pushers, Unite!

NY Set to Ban Nooses

2007-10-25T14:44:00.000-05:00

I thought they already did that?

Oohhhhh, I get it. They're going to pass legislation to treat nooses as a hate crime. And drawings of nooses. And paintings of nooses. Presumably, they're going to ban any noose in any form.

No noose is good noose?

I know, that was stupid, but not as stupid as the New York legislature, apparently. Once again, a lawmaking body has tasked itself with whittling away at our Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Just remember:

First they came for the nooses, and I said nothing, because I'm not a KKK moron.

Next, they came for the swastikas, and I said nothing, because I'm not, well, a KKK moron.

Next, they came for other things someone might find offensive, so Dancing With the Stars was removed from the air, and I said nothing, for I am not a brainless twit.

Finally, they came for bloggers...

Supreme Court Will Hear Medellin Case

2007-10-09T13:46:00.000-05:00

I'm not talking about the notorious Medellin drug cartel. I'm talking about Jose Medellin, the gang member sentenced to death for his confessed role in the gang-rape and murder of two Houston teenage girls in 1993.

I'm in the middle of reading Medellin's brief to the Supreme Court right now, and I just wanted to throw out something that may very well be answered later:

Medellin's brief is discussing, at length, the "International Court of Justice," and its ruling which supposedly mandates American courts' review of the trials and sentences of 51 Mexican nationals. The brief seems to state that, because it was started by treaty, it is entitled to "supreme law of the land" status.

Fine. Okay.

But it can't supercede the Constitution. Because treaties are on a par with "acts of Congress," that means they are subject to the same standard of judicial review as those acts.

Which brings me to my point:

Isn't the ICJ, as it applies to the American court system, completely and utterly void based upon the fact that it seeks to set up a court which is higher in stature than (and thus able to review the decisions of) our own Supreme Court?

Something to think about.

UPDATE:

I address the following to our Supreme Court:

Regarding the argument that the President's Directive was merely an attempt to "faithfully execute the laws," I would remind you that a President's Directive that any member of the Judicial Branch do anything, without following proper channels, is a blatant and terrible violation of our Constitution's separation of powers.

UPDATE #2:

From the Respondent's (Texas) Brief:

"...the Presidential Memorandum surely reflects the President’s genuine desire to "reaffirm[ ] the United States commitment to the international rule of law.” U.S. Br., at 4. However, a laudable goal does not give the President unlimited power to act beyond his constitutional authority. As the Court has recognized, “the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 187 (1992)."

Good stuff.

RIAA Wins Lawsuit in Minnesota

2007-10-05T14:04:00.000-05:00

Here.

A jury awarded $222,000.00 to the RIAA from a woman who allegedly shared music online.

You know, I can't begin to express how unfair I believe this is. First of all, I'd really like to see a transcript of the trial, to see how the RIAA proved this woman was really doing the infringement claimed. The article says they got some folks from the woman's ISP to testify that the address belonged to her. I guess that's it, then. Throw the book at this lowlife scum. Put her in the poorhouse for the rest of her life over a grand total of roughly $1,200 in lost revenue. Great idea. And while we're at it, let's hop on down to the schoolyard and pop those kids who are sharing a pair of earbuds from an iPod.

The recording industry is waaayy behind the curve on this one. Their idea of "damage control," instead of embracing new technologies, is to make the "little guy" lick your boots. They're producing cookie-cutter music at increasingly low overhead, and yet prices are still going up.

I'm not saying people should be allowed to indiscriminately share copyrighted material. I mean, the mixed-tapes I made in the 80's without a doubt cost the recording industry all of twenty or thirty bucks, and I feel bad about that. I really do. And I fully admit that I dubbed songs off the radio as late as 1987. I cry myself to sleep on a regular basis that, because of my actions, some recording industry executive couldn't afford one ten-trillionth of his mortgage payment. Just imagining the poor fella, sobbing in his Bentley, wondering how he'll make it to his next paycheck...

Sorry. I got choked up for a minute there.

Piracy is wrong. It always has been. But it's not a case of raving marauders attacking, pillaging and plundering the high seas, killing all in their quest for gold.

It is, overwhelmingly, a case of people who love music, and are tired of the recording industry being able to dictate the entirety of the marketplace's terms.

I suppose it's clear I'm conflicted on the issue. I haven't downloaded anything illegally, although I know folks who have. I don't associate with them anymore, because I don't want that oily taint to rub off on me. I have better things to do with my life than register on bittorrent sites like The Pirate Bay and search and download torrents of hundreds of songs (or even one, for that matter). It doesn't mean that I want those who do so to be treated as if they've caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to the RIAA. They haven't.

Hey RIAA! Let's stop treating these folks like criminals and find a happy medium, shall we? I know, it sounds like extortion, but until your heavy-handed tactics stop, it's not going to get better for you. Remember the old saying:

"You catch more flies with honey than you do by putting them through intense trials and subjecting them to massive fines that are waaaay out of proportion to the amount of damages you have suffered."

Remember, Robin Hood was cool back in the day. But I imagine it wasn't so much that Robin Hood was cool, as it was that the Sheriff of Nottingham was a complete tyrant.

I leave you all with some serious words of advice.

Hilarity-Care

2007-09-18T15:37:00.000-05:00

Yahoo News

Mandatory health care coverage?

Hilary says, "...a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care..."

The article tells us,"Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it."

I have a question. Who's gonna define "those who can't afford it?" I'm a practicing attorney, and right now I "can't afford it." I buy health insurance for my family anyway, simply because I don't like the odds of us continuing to live our safe, happy lives in relative health. Especially with a two year-old who still likes to eat anything she finds on the floor.

Seriously, folks, I'm really not a cynic. But I can't help worrying about how Hilary-Care will drive prices even higher for those of us the government believes are able to afford it.

Understandably, no one's worried about the rich. They can afford to buy health insurance no matter what. Heck, some of 'em could probably buy an insurance company, if they wanted to. By contrast, everybody's worried about the poor. I don't guess I can argue with that, but wouldn't some serious Medicare reform help bring costs down, without hiking prices for the middle class?

We're being set up. When we're subsidizing private insurance for poor people instead of (or probably in addition to) Medicare, and driving the price of insurance sky-high, is anybody gonna cry for my kids?

Probably nobody but me.

UPDATE

She stole it? John Edwards' wife is yelling that Hilary's plan is a carbon-copy of her hubby's.

For shame, Hilary. For shame.

"Don't Taze Me, Bro."

2007-09-18T11:12:00.000-05:00

Wow.

All over the internet now, there's a buzz about this fella, Andrew Meyer, who got tazed at a Q&A session with John Kerry at the University of Florida. (link: WaPo)

I know this'll be used against Kerry. Heck, it's already being used against him. Fact is, though, he acknowledged the "importance" of Meyer's question regarding the 2004 election. My question is: Could he have done something to call off the dogs?

Well, the answer to that is obviously, "Yes." Do I fault him for not doing anything? Not really.

I come down squarely in the middle of the road in this situation. Let's look at both sides.

1.) Here you've got a fella who starts out with a somewhat legitimate question about the 2004 election. This dude proceeds then into a rant about impeachment-as-preemptive-strike, and then waltzes into a shrill question about secret societies at Yale. Those cops have got to be thinking, "Nut job! Nut job! The last thing we need is for John Freakin' Kerry to get attacked on our fair campus." Can you really fault them for that?

2.) Here you've got a fella who takes time out of his schedule to come down to a forum. He asks his question(s) into the mic. Sure, he gets a little wild-eyed about them, but hey, it's politics. I've seen folks get rabid about city ordinances. I'm not going to fault a guy for getting a little upset over "stolen elections," or Iran. And that's not even mentioning Yale's secret societies <> ;-)

My simple point is that he quite obviously didn't need to be tazered. Folks are yammering about how he threw a temper tantrum, and that's fine, but there were certainly better ways of defusing any danger to the audience or their illustrious guest than wrestling Mr. Meyer to the ground and frying his circuits even more.

I guess the lesson we should all learn from this is:

Florida's messed up.

Right?

Friends of Fred

2007-09-12T15:09:00.000-05:00

I know, it's kind of cheeseball, but I've just become a "Friend of Fred."

No, he's not coming to my house for dinner or anyth... wait. I didn't read all of the stuff about what it means to be a "Friend of Fred." Maybe it does mean he's coming for dinner.

Ohmigosh, ohmigosh, ohmigosh... What am I gonna do?

...

Okay, before I start cleaning my house up in anticipation of a possible distinguished visitor who might or might not want me to be his Attorney General, let me say this:

I do not donate money to political campaigns. I will put a bumper sticker on my car, but only if I don't have to pay for it.*

No, my efforts for Fred's campaign will lean more towards calmly engaging people in conversation about the state of our nation, and asking them to check out Fred's website. And by "calmly," I most certainly do not mean "in a drunken rage." Similarly, by "asking," I do not mean "browbeating."

Now, in all seriousness (I actually like "seriousity" better, but I'm told it's not an actual word), I write the following personal note to Fred (everybody else, please turn away now):

Fred,

Thank you for FINALLY joining the race, I look forward to your official nomination as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. Congratulations, by the way, on your current poll honeymoon, and here's to a continued widening of the gap between you and Giiuuiuuiilliiiani (or "Pollyanni," as I like to call him). I would also like to express my sincere hope that you haven't taken offense to any of my attempts at humor. I find it very hard to take much of politics too seriously, but you'll find that when I'm your Attorney General, I will be a great way to lighten the mood during long cabinet meetings. As a matter of fact, if you decide I'd be too much trouble as A.G., you could create a new post. Something like "Secretary of Humor-Land Security." I could take my oath of office on a copy of a really great book of pickle jokes I had when I was 6.

Okay everybody, you can turn back now.

Vote Fred in '08!

*and only if it doesn't say "Friend of Fred" on it. Here in the South, people are as apt to think I'm a big fan of Fred Flinstone as a supporter of Fred Thompson. Come to think of it, it can't say anything like "Thompson for President" either. I've made clear that I can't have anyone mistaking me for a Tommy Thompson supporter. What the bumper sticker should say is:

"Fred (not Tommy) Thompson (not Flintstone) for President in aught-eight."

John Edwards Won't Shut Up

2007-07-27T15:41:00.000-05:00

"They want to shut me up!" yells John Edwards.

Heeheehee.

Are "they" the same people who want to limit some Democratic candidates' access to debates?
'Cause John, that would make "they," "you."

Moron.

La Entrada & the Trans-Texas Corridor

2007-07-27T11:28:00.000-05:00

Why must we continue to give away our land?

We've got the Trans-Texas Corridor, a giveaway to foreign corporations that Governor "Goodhair" Perry thinks will be the answer to our transportation woes. I've got a question for all of you: How many governors does it take to screw Texans?

Just one, apparently.

It's bad enough that TTC is going to take State-owned roads and gift them to a Spanish corporation to charge tolls. What makes it even worse is that our elected officials are, at the same time, attempting to turn our Greate State into a pass-through for interstate (and international) commerce. Small towns will be chewed up and spit out by this lumbering monster, and some of our Texas heritage is going to fall into obscurity.

Can we stand by and let it happen? I'm not. Go to www.corridorwatch.org, and do something, anything to show your displeasure with the way our Governor is giving our roads away.

In the meantime, go check out www.stopthetrucks.org as well. It's an organization started by concerned citizens in the Big Bend region who are attempting to make their voices heard. See, La Entrada (not officially the same as TTC, but bad enough) will make the tourist destinations around Big Bend into waypoints. Nothing more than milemarkers for cut-rate Mexican truckers to judge how much farther they have to go before they get to Dallas, or Kansas City, or Chicago, or wherever their uninspected, unsafe semis happen to be taking them.

The pollution, crime, and loss of tourism dollars will literally kill these beautiful little towns. Rick Perry's not going to Alpine anytime soon. Heck, he's probably never even been there. What do the fatcats in Austin care about little ol' West Texas anyway? Not a bit.

And they're not going to, either, until those of us who do care start screaming at the top of our lungs.

Fred Thompson, Take Me to the Prom

2007-06-28T16:34:00.001-05:00

Wow, man. I gotta tell you I'm impressed with your polling lately.

I'm seeing you pretty consistently beating Rudy "9/11" Giuiiuiliaiani. If we could just get the two of you in a cage-match, I'm pretty sure you could finish him off.

So, announce, already. I'd love to see you mopping the floor in a debate with the current cast of muppets. And by "mopping the floor," I mean winning. And by "muppets," I mean no offense to Kermit.

Seriously, how much longer are you going to wait? 'Cause the American people, collectively, are like that hot girl you're just dying to ask to the prom. If you wait too long, she's gonna end up going to the prom with somebody superficial, like the Romneybot. Or somebody who'll whisper exactly what they want to hear, like the Rudster (9/11). Or somebody older and more sophisticated, like Grandpa's favorite, McCain. It's because they're asking, already.

See, she knows you want to take her. But she's too shy to ask you, so you've got to take the first step. Here's what you do:

Stop sending your friends to tell her you like her, do it yourself.
Write a pretty poem or something, it'll make you seem more sensitive.
Whatever you do, don't ask her if you can bring along your buddy Newt (she might go with you, and leave with him).
Be nice, but not too nice.
Be confident, but not too confident. And, finally...
Pay for dinner.

And ask one of her friends (Me) to be your Attorney General.

Kill the Bill

2007-06-26T13:11:00.000-05:00

I can't stand the current "immigration reform" bill that's, as of today, moving forward for amendments in the Senate. I suppose that means I'll be labeled as a racist, since everyone who's against the bill pretty much already has.

I'm just tired of the "$4 head of lettuce" arguments I'm hearing all the time. I don't care for rewarding those who break our laws, period, and that's what this bill does. It is against the law to enter this country without proper documentation. We're going to now, in the apparent interest of political expediency and corporate cronyism, tell the millions of undocumented workers that even though they have broken our law, they're going to get a free pass.

I know how hard it is to obtain legal status as an immigrant in this country. I've heard all the stories, some from the people themselves, about the procedural hurdles involved.

Those stories, about people who are doing everything they can to legally come here, are the ones we should be listening to.

As it is, those stories will be forgotten in favor of millions of law-breakers and a cheap Caesar Salad.

Contact your Senators in a hurry, please. Don't let them disregard those who have been waiting (sometimes for years) in favor of those with no respect for the law.

Letters From Aggle

2007-06-01T18:44:00.000-05:00

Been awhile, huh?

I can't believe I haven't posted anything in here since January. It's gonna take me a while to dust off the blogging chops (if I ever really had any to begin with). To do so, I'm going to write some letters to people who will likely never read them.

Let's see, where should I start?

Politics? Sure, why not.

__________________________________________________
Fred Thompson,

Gimme somethin' big chief. I like your style, truly I do. But what's your problem? Why'd you wait so long to formally declare that you're gonna formally declare sometime in the near future? I think you've got a no-nonsense attitude that would serve the American people well after 8 years of pure and utter nonsense.

My real question is, have you hamstrung yourself by waiting? Is it really just an elaborate trial balloon for 2012? 'Cause you're not getting any younger, fella. And your star-power won't counteract the creepy soap-opera looks of the Romneybot forever, you know.

We all know that running for President is all about the money, no matter how much Senator McCain wants people to think he thinks it shouldn't be. (-- Despite the seeming unintelligibility of that last sentence, I'm quite proud of it --) Can you possibly get enough? I know it might seem like I'm making fun, but I'm not. I think you're the best choice of all the Republican candidates out there, really, unless Rudy "PollyAnny" Giuliani grows a pair and becomes an actual conservative.

No, I don't think that'll happen. Let me tell you this: I'm not willing to see you have just strong enough a showing to make a Giuliani-Thompson ticket. In my eyes, that'd be like paying for prime rib, and instead getting a plate of bologna (or Giuliogna, if you will. Man, is his name fun to make fun of!).

Since I haven't really gone anywhere with this letter, I'll go ahead and wrap it up. My last question is, if you somehow overcome the severe latecomer handicap and become the Republican nominee; and then overcome the handicap of not possessing any of the qualities that have made Barack and Hilary cause waves of ecstasy to course through the Democratic Party (and by that I obviously mean the drug, not the emotion)...

Can I be your Attorney General?

Love, your BFF,

Aggle

__________________________________________________

Rudy Giuliani,

Forget what I said to Fred up there, I was just trying to make him feel better about the trampling he's gonna get under your wishy-washy pseudo-liberal-but-I-hate-liberals-even-though-I-share-most-of-their-views-on-just-about-every-issue machine, brutha!

Fight the conservative power is what I always say. I've only got three questions for you, my friend (with maybe a sub-question or two attached to each).

1. Does your bathroom mirror actually show both of your faces in the morning?
a. If so, which one do you shave?

2. Do you consider yourself a hero after 9/11?
a. If so, is it a pastrami hero, or a Giuliogna hero? (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

3. Can I be your Attorney General?
a. If not, why not?

Your friend-even-though-I'm-not-your-friend-because-I-disagree-with-you-on-just-about-every-issue,

Aggle

__________________________________________________

Mitt Romneybot,

Okay, I get the whole "looking Presidential" thing, 'cause man, do you look Presidential. Truth be told, I think you ought to team up with Fred Thompson. You could be the face of the Presidency, and he could do all the actual work. That way, you'd get to develop some mad Ashlee-Simpson-style lip syncing skills, (because let's face it, Fred's got the better voice) and you wouldn't have to dirty up your soul with all the coffee and soft-drinks a President must drink each and every day to stay coherent (Bush must have sworn off caffeine when he left Austin). And Fred wouldn't scare small children during public appearances, because he'd be secure in a bunker under the White House typing his words into the Romneybot3000 Interface Control Apparatus (which I'm relatively confident is now housed somewhere in a basement on the BYU campus).

Okay, so maybe I was kinda sorta kidding about the whole Interface Control thing. Still, its existence has not been disproven, so I can't entirely rule it out.

Clank on, Romneybot!

Oh, and can I be your Attorney General? No? How about your official hair-gel valet?

Aggle
__________________________________________________

John McCain,

I can't find a place in my life for a guy from Arizona. I know, you've lived everywhere and all, but Arizona is where you chose to hang your political hat. For some reason, many of the people in the party I've grown to love to hate, really love to love you. Is it because you're so gosh-darn honest? Or is it because you're not but they believe you are?

I can't figure it out. The "straight-talk Express" might get me all excited, if it said anything remotely resembling something I want to hear. You seem to be able to tell people what they want to hear on a regular basis, Johnny, so come on. Tell me I can be your Attorney General or something. I promise I won't fire anyone I'm not specifically told to fire by your political masterminds. And I won't tell anyone about it, either. I don't even own a Blackberry, and the RNC email server is waaay too uncool to host my jaws.

No, seriously, some people say they could never vote for a Mormon (although the Romneybot will find them and crush their hearts in his iron grip). I could never vote for someone who hails from a state where the official state drink is prune juice (excuse me, "dried plum juice"). You Baby Boomers have done enough damage to this country already. It's time for a younger, hipper state to put forth a candidate. Like Tennessee.

Unless it's Al Gore, or, as I like to call him, "LiberalRomneybot Prototype X1."

Your Constituents' Great-great-great Grandson,

Aggle
__________________________________________________

A quick note to some other Republican hopefuls:

Tommy Thompson,

You must withdraw immediately. I can't have you accidentally siphoning votes from Fred just because you have the same last name and most Southern Republicans can't read all that well. If you choose to stay in, be careful, because if Fred and the Romneybot join forces, well, let's just say the Romneybot'll be comin' for ya.

Tom Tancredo,

Did you know, that if you hum different notes, you can make a song sometimes? Think about it.

Ron Paul,

As much as I loooooove many of your Libertarian ideals, Ronnie, you've got about as much chance of winning as Freddy Irwin "Messiah" Sitnick. I know, say it ain't so. Drop out now and beg the Fred-Romneybot camp to make you their VP. I'd love to see you causing havoc in the Senate. You could replace the gavel with a great-big pair of gold forceps.

Sweet.

Duncan Hunter,

Seriously, dude. Are you really a Republican? A trial lawyer? From California? It'd be kind of funny if you weren't the Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on Bowhunting. 'Cause really. I'm not laughing at you. Really. I hear arrows hurt.

And last, but not least,

Mildred T. "Millie" Howard,

Keep the faith, ma'am. You're nothing if not persistent.

__________________________________________________

Maybe I'll post something later about the Democrats' field. Maybe I'll wait another 6 months.

Later.

NC NAACP Now says be fair.

2007-01-19T15:39:00.000-06:00

The North Carolina chapter of the NAACP is calling for silence. They want both sides in the Duke rape scandal to stop speaking publicly about the case while the Attorney General investigates.

'Cause they were all about fairness and letting justice silently run its course when the allegations first came out.

Despicable. Now that the evidence is pointing to the accuser lying, now they're asking for restraint.

Barack Obama

2007-01-19T15:31:00.000-06:00

Is it just me, or did his announcement the other day sound a bit too, "Ehh, okaay. I guess I'll run already"?

I think he's passion-less. For all his talk about changing things, he just doesn't strike me as anything more than a panty-waist. I see no force in his speeches. No fire in his eyes.

Look, I'm not saying we need a fire-and-brimstone-style speaker up there, but c'mon, Barack. Make me feel like I'm watching something other than a touchy-feely don't-do-drugs PSA.

Wow! It's been a long time.

2007-01-19T15:14:00.000-06:00

I feel bad for my readers, really. I can't believe I've let this slide since September!

I was inspired today to post again after reading about Rosie O'Donnell blasting the judges of American Idol.

I am hereby calling for Rosie's resignation from The View. My reason for this is that bush babies are adorable. I don't see why Rosie couldn't have taken Simon's comments for what they were. An honest assessment of the guy's lack of talent, but then a soft-hearted compliment in telling him he looked cute, fuzzy, and unbelievably huggable.

For shame, Rosie. For shame.

Oh, and really, what's wrong with Paula having a drink or two? I'm not saying she was, but c'mon, people. Listening to 10,000 (mostly) horrible singers in the same day would be enough to make me get my drink on before 9:00a.m. Admit it, Rosie, sometimes you need a snort or two before Joy is palatable. Or Barbara, even.

What I'm most excited about right now, though, is Donald's threat to file a slander lawsuit against Rosie. Stand with me, America! Let's have an open, Court-TV saturated courtroom full of the best reality show ever! Oh my goodness, would that be an amazing, ratings extravaganza or what?

Donald: "You're fired"
Judge: "You can't fire me, comb-over, I'm the judge. And I'll thank you to sit quietly before I cite you for contempt."
Rosie: "That was mean, your Honor. You shouldn't use your millionaire position to make fun of peoples' hair. Is this what America's courtrooms are coming to?"
Donald & Judge: "Shut it, slob."

Ooooh. I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it.

Cease and Desist -- What?!

2006-09-20T10:48:00.000-05:00

I am not running for President. Not now, not (well, maybe not) ever.

Just figured I'd get that out of the way here early, just in case an overzealous fan (yeah, right) decides to start an "Aggle08" website.

Some dude in Missouri, Patrick Crowe, decided that he'd start a campaign to draft a certain daytime talk-show hostess for a Presidential run in '08. (Smoking Gun).

Great, right?

Wrong. Ms. Winfrey's all in a tizzy, apparently. Okay, maybe she's not. Maybe she thinks it's funny, finds it flattering, and secretly owns a t-shirt or two. If you read the link to Smoking Gun, though, you'll see that at least her corporate persona is up in arms. They've demanded that this gentleman Cease And Desist all uses of her name (it's a corporate trademark, you know), pictures, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.

My question:

Why?

I mean, c'mon. Anybody who gives two flying rats' behinds about her pretty much watches her show on a daily basis, anyway. Sure, she's incredibly popular, but it's not like her fan-base is growing, or anything, is it? Her lawyers are worried about dilution of her trademarks. Mmmm, okay. So instead of strong-arming some poor schlub out of his stalker-site, why don't they bring him on the show?

She could thank him for his work, assure him she would refuse to serve, and give him a makeover for his trouble. Or a car. Or an all-expenses-paid week at the luxurious Omni Hotel.

Heck, I'll bet if she called him and asked him nicely, he'd take down the website, turn over all copies of his book (which he should be able to sell, anyway), and go on to live a perfectly satisfied life knowing he'd actually gotten to speak with his chosen President.

It'd sure go a long way towards preserving her down-home, personal presence the world (or at least the female half) has grown to know and love.

Does no one at her studio have an ounce of PR experience? It's not rocket science. Announce publicly on your show that you have no intention of ever running for President, and that you'd prefer any websites devoted to such a run are taken down. The millions of rabid fans will immediately (judging from the "Book Club") buy filter software and blot the offending sites from their collective hive-memory forever.

Problem solved.

I noticed the site's still up. Wonder how long it'll remain?

I made it through that entire post without using the name Oprah. Oops, now I've done it. Disclaimer to follow:

I hereby solemnly swear and/or affirm that my use of the name is in no way intended to induce readers to believe that the owner of the name either endorses my beliefs or even cares what I write in any way. I operate this blog without hope of ever profiting in any way from it.

This is not a commercial endeavor.

Please don't send me a Cease and Desi...

China's Got Too Much Money

2006-08-29T14:56:00.000-05:00

According to MSNBC/Newsweek (hat tip to Fark.com for the link), China's "dollar hoard" is expected to pass one TRILLION dollars in the next couple of weeks.

This is worrying on so many levels.

Not the least of which being the fact that our country is in debt out the wazoo to China, of all countries.

The article, though, says it's worrying China, too. Worrying? Having a huge pile of cash and making the most powerful nation on earth beholden to you for more?

Seriously, I feel bad for the Chinese. They're talking about having to raise the valuation of Chinese money now, which the Chinese are afraid will cause bankruptcies.

My solution:

I will, as soon as I hear from the Chinese government, open an account in Switzerland, into which they may place as much money as they wish. Oh, there'll have to be a minimum. Let's make it one month's worth of revenues, or $17 Billion dollars. Granted, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what they're looking at, but the more they give me, the fewer their worries, right?

I've got to add that I have no intentions of spying on America in exchange for the money. I don't even have any access to classified information, anyway. So, I can't give them that, and I wouldn't if I could.

What I'm proposing is to bridge the gap between our cultures. They give me money, and I in turn tell everyone I meet how great China is.

It's a win-win situation.

Really.

Spam, AT&T and An Old Man From Alaska

2006-08-02T18:17:00.000-05:00

I recently switched over to Google mail (Gmail). I love the layout, and the amount of storage is great. I promise this isn't setting up a commercial for GMail.

I still have a Yahoo account that I use as well, but my main email address is now on Gmail, and I hope I never have to go back to the world of switch-my-address-as-often-as-I-switch-my-ISP.

But the spam!

I'd really like to find the jerk who figured out how to get around spam-filters by making the message into a picture file (thus bypassing the filters' text analyzers), and force-feed him about a ton of the other kind of spam in roughly 2 minutes. With a white-hot branding iron to use as a fork.

Am I angry? Sure. Who wouldn't be angry? Think of it like this:

You buy a house, and move in all of your possessions. A salesman comes knocking on the door. You politely tell him that you're not interested, and he leaves.

But he keeps coming back. Every day.

You take active steps to discourage his return. You get surveillance gear, "No Trespassing" signs, vicious dogs, etc. And still, he comes up with ways around these measures every time.

Now here's the question:

Why in Heaven's name would anyone believe for one second that bothering someone in this way is going to get that person to buy your product?!!?!???!!!???!?!??!!!??!?!!???!?!?!!!??!?!!

I don't even know what they're selling anymore, since the subject line no longer says anything like "Ćăńąďĩāņ PĥăŕmąčŶ" or "V*I*A*G*R*A."

Now the subject line is invariably something cryptic, like a couple of randomly selected words. It makes me wonder if it's supposed to grab my attention.

ME: "Oooh, someone sent me an email about tire heart. I love tire heart! I think I'll read it and follow any link/business advice/pharmaceutical nonsense it may or may not contain."

Nope. It just makes me angry.

Kinda makes me wish Senator Ted Stevens (R-Idiot) would do something about the spammers clogging my intertubes.

If it's so all-fired important that AT&T is able to tier the "internets" (I love politicians, thanks GW) because one of our senators thinks the internet is a series of interconnected tubes, why can't we get them to pass a law requiring forced castration of spammers?

C'mon, Ted! May I call you Ted? No? Okay.

C'mon you shortsighted, uninformed moron! Stop kowtowing to corporate cronies (who are doing just fine financially, btw) and start representing the people who were smooth-brained enough to elect you to your exalted office.

And nooooo, I'm not talking about bridges to nowhere, or helping sonny-boy catch fish either (if you know what I mean).

Wait. Seriously, everybody. Why is this guy still allowed to have a hand in the policy of our country?

It's mind-boggling.

I'll settle with all you Alaskans out there. I'll quietly give in, and pay my share of the billions you apparently need to build bridges to islands nobody lives on, if you'll vote this tube-head out of office.

Deal?

I thought not.

No Fear, Kiwis. EBay Is On The Case!! (w/Rivalries Question)

2006-05-15T10:59:00.000-05:00

Heh heh.

Some fellow down in Australia decided he'd post an auction on eBay, attempting to sell New Zealand to the highest bidder. (Findlaw Link)

An eBay spokesman levelled the understatement-of-the-day, when he said, "Clearly, New Zealand is not for sale."

Intrigued, I had to look into this a bit more.

I've read where the articles on the subject say there's an intense rivalry between the Aussies and the Kiwis (mainly based on football), but it makes me wonder if it's anywhere near as intense as, say, Texas' rivalry with Oklahoma (mainly based on, well, the good kind of football). A tried-and-true joke told around here: Why doesn't Texas fall into the Gulf of Mexico? Answer: Because Oklahoma sucks.

Texas also has not so much a rivalry as an intense hatred of New Mexico, and vice-versa (based not upon sports, but upon everything else). It's common knowledge that, if a Texan needs to drive in New Mexico, he'd better make sure of a couple of things first. 1.) Make sure his car is in good working order, because if he breaks down, he's not getting any help from the locals; and 2.) Make sure he budgets enough time to drive at least 5 mph under the speed limit, because NM cops have itchy ticket-hands when they see Texas plates. Hey, New Mexico's got to get money from somewhere, right?

But all of this made me wonder if there's more rivalries in the states. I've lived in Texas all of my life, so I can't say. I've touched on OK and NM, and the only other state with any real border on Texas is Louisiana. Our attitude towards them? Well, they're like the cousins you love to party with, but you feel a little leery of living next door to them. ;-)

So, chime in with your rivalries. If any of my three readers live anywhere other than Texas, we should have, well, let's see, precisely three replies.

In the meantime, I'm going to set up a seller's account on eBay and see what I can get for New Mexico.

Illegal Immigration -- Clearing Up a Misconception

2006-05-05T14:04:00.000-05:00

Yes, I am coming out of my almost 5-month dry spell. I've been pretty busy lately, and that's both a good thing and a bad thing. Good, because if I'm working, then there's work to do. Bad, because if I'm not posting to my blog, all 3 of my readers have to find something else to do with their 5 free minutes.

What brings me back, you ask?

Headline on FindLaw today:

"Many nations harsher than U.S. on illegal immigrants, study says"

To that I say, "Nooo, really?"

Let's take a closer look and see if the article tells us something we don't already know...

I'm sure almost everyone by now has seen the Mexican government's position on illegal immigrants in their country. Deport! What's interesting to note is that there's some waffling and misinformation as to whether or not illegally entering this country is a criminal offense.

The article quotes Rep. James Sensenbrenner thusly:

"With all the blustery rhetoric coming from opponents about a 'harsh' and 'draconian' House bill ..., I note that five out of the six countries studied - including Mexico - make illegal entry and unlawful presence a criminal offense."

The article then proceeds to contradict the spirit of Sensenbrenner's quote, when it points out that illegal entry into the U.S. is a midemeanor. The last line of the article, however, notes that "Illegal presence in the U.S. is now a civil offense."

Shall we clear all this up, once and for all?

While it is considered a civil offense to be in this country without proper documentation, such a distinction is only relevant for those who entered the country legally, and who obtained proper documentation upon entering. See, those documents invariably include a time period in which the holder is legally entitled to remain in the country. When that time period expires, and the party has taken no action to extend the time period or leave, that person may then be held to the civil penalties that come from "Illegal presence in the U.S."

Those who do not have, and have never had, proper documentation for being in the U.S. have de facto entered this country illegally. Illegal entry is when someone enters the country at any time, in any place, or any manner other than those determined by our immigration service. If they enter legally, there is a record somewhere of their presence, and they may be kept track of.

If they enter illegally, however, they have violated criminal law and are subject to imprisonment. Sure it's only 6 months for a first offense (after that it becomes a felony), but it's still a criminal penalty, not a civil one.

Okay, so now we discuss the problem.

We're not enforcing the law already. If we pass Sensenbrenner's bill, and make it a felony to enter the country illegally, will we suddenly start to? I doubt it.

What's really disgusting about the whole situation is that we're devaluing all of our laws by not enforcing this one. Not to mention the damage we're doing by having our elected officials imply that it's not against the law to enter this country without passing through a border checkpoint.

I've heard all the sob stories about how these people are only here because they've got nothing else. They don't have any choice. If they want to live, they've got to be here working.

I'm not buying it any more. If they want to break laws to bring a change in those laws, I suggest they do so in Mexico. It's not a poor country, just poorly run. Let's dispense with the crocodile tears for people who can't afford to stay in their own countries, but can somehow afford to gamble with their futures by walking off the job here. Let's toss out the window any sympathy for people who come here illegally, forcing those who are willing to follow the law to take a backseat.

I've heard talk that the recent "boycotts" is starting to cause a backlash. Well, pardon my saying so, but "Duh." The American people are tired of paying for illegal immigrants with our jobs, our benefits, our health care money, our law enforcement money, our insurance money, and otherwise.

I'm tired of it, too. It's illegal for someone to enter the country without proper documentation. No more amnesty talk. Build a wall, round them up, and send them back.

Now that, I'd spend my money on.

This Post Is Not About Samuel Alito's Nomination. I'm Just Concerned.

2006-01-18T15:03:00.000-06:00

I promise. No links, either, so if you're looking for a portal to interesting reading on a variety of subjects, you might look elsewhere. All I've got right now are opinions.

I just wanted to drop in and say that I'm concerned. What about, you ask? Everything.

I'm concerned about why I can't reconcile my distaste for President Bush's wire-tapping practices on the one hand with my almost fervent desire that we catch terrorists in this country on the other.

I'm concerned about my inability to center in my mind a position regarding "torture" of prisoners of war. What's the definition of "torture," anyway? Certainly it's important to have a solid definition of "torture" before a debate on whether or not it should be allowed, right? Maybe not. Maybe the word itself is bad enough. Must be.

But that's not all I'm concerned about.

I'm concerned that a fella (James Frey) who writes a book, ostensibly about his life, and is then called on the carpet for making much of it up, can continue to gain the support of our reigning Queen of the talk shows. Oprah, in case you were wondering.

I'm concerned that the Supreme Court has decided not to decide, yet again, a "controversial abortion case" regarding a New Hampshire law. I'm reminded of a line from a Rush song. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." So, I guess I'm concerned that they made the same choice as usual. Oh well.

On a related note, I'm still concerned regarding why, if we have the right to privacy (which includes a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body), I can't sell one of my kidneys to someone in order to send my kids to college. Bad comparison? Maybe so, but it's worth thinking about. And I'll pre-emptively defuse all the possible comments by agreeing that selling my brain may be a better deal for me (but not the other guy).

I'm concerned that, since Hollywood has suffered tremendous flops at the box-office over the past year, they're no longer going to make movies for regular folks any more. Instead, we'll get movies about transsexuals (Transamerica) and gay cowboys (Brokeback Mountain). It's great, I suppose, if you're a transsexual or a gay cowboy. I'm neither, so the only movies I've gotten to watch lately were the mind-numbing remake of War of the Worlds and the impossibly rushed 4th installment of the Harry Potter series. Hollywood's making movies for Hollywood now. I don't necessarily begrudge them the (yet to be adjudicated) Constitutional right to choose what incredibly boring subject they will film. Just take the awards shows off the air so I can watch more reality TV.

Boy, that last one was long. Shorter now:

I'm concerned that the "Culture of Corruption" will decide that I'm a likely target for corrupting, or exercising corruption against.

I'm concerned that the House of Representatives will expand their "Plantation"-like way of governing into the public sphere. I've no desire to serve at some old white guy's table.

I'm concerned that a large portion of the residents of Houston ("America's Fattest City") will think Ray Nagin wasn't kidding when he promised that New Orleans would be a chocolate city.

I'm concerned that someday the supermarket check-out line won't have anything colorful to say about Brad, Jen, Angelina, etc. (There you go, Brent)

I'm concerned that this year's Superbowl will witness the first halftime fall-and-break-a-bone, as Mick Jagger shakes his last with the hips God (or whatever deity he professes faith in) gave him.

Not concerned about the Alito nomination, though. No, sir.

After all, if the Democrats really wanted him out bad enough, they'd just have Teddy invite him to lunch.

"C'mon, Sam. I'm drivin'"

Cornyn's Folly -- Hunter/Gatherer Journalists

2005-10-26T09:03:00.000-05:00

Thanks to May it Please the Court and Lauren Gelman for being the first to speak out.

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) along with several others, are sponsoring the Free Flow of Information Act, a law that sets out some pretty detailed requirements that must be present before a court can compel disclosure of material from the media, or "covered person."

John Cornyn's interpretation of "covered person" doesn't include bloggers.

The bill's text clearly does, though, which begs the question of whether or not it will be changed. Certainly if Mr. Cornyn has his way, it will be.

I quoted Jay Rosen in a previous post, and I believe it's worth posting again:

"Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, and blogging means practically anyone can own one. That is the Number One reason why weblogs matter."

What is it, really, about bloggers that makes so many people so nervous? Is it "Big Media" leading the charge? Is it that our elected officials are afraid of bloggers and what they can do?

Certainly not. The possibility for inaccuracy and bias that exists in the blogosphere exists in traditional media, as well. Just ask the New York Times. The simple fact of the matter is that bloggers are journalists, and they're not. Not really so simple, I know. I realize that there are bloggers who actively cover stories, hitting the streets with their cell-phones and laptops, but most of the blogosphere is a collection of editorializers, passively accepting reported news and commenting on it.

We're gatherers, not hunters.

The question is, should the hunters among us be considered journalists?

My answer is, absolutely. I seek no protection for myself, at least not right now, other than my freedom of speech. I consider myself a journalist only in so far as I am a "disseminator" of information, to a certain extent. I don't actively cover stories. My practice suffers enough from the small amount of time I spend editorializing. I'll certainly never (well, maybe never) have a confidential source whose identity I need to protect. But does that mean those gatherers like myself are doomed to sit in a journalistic limbo, forced to atone for our lack of editors, fact-checkers, and proofreaders by rolling over on our similarly situated hunter brethren?

I think not. Besides, hunters are hunters for a reason. I don't fancy my head on a virtual wall.

Everybody Get Down!!!! It's a... Cookie!!!!

2005-10-25T16:13:00.000-05:00

From the You've-Got-To-Be-Kidding-Me Department, San Diego evacuated AN ENTIRE AIRPORT after the x-ray genius thought he saw bomb making material in a carry-on bag.

Apparently, children's toys and cookies, when placed in the same bag, look suspiciously like improvised explosive devices.

They evacuated the airport at 7:45a.m., and here's the kicker. They apparently didn't figure out it was a cookie until sometime around 9:20a.m., when they opened the doors to let passengers back into the building.

My questions are as follows:

1. What kind of toy was it?
2. What kind of cookie was it?
3. What kind of carry-on bag was it?

I know, they seem like silly questions, but hey, how are we supposed to protect ourselves from the evils of toys and baked goods if we don't know which ones to watch out for?

I'd also like to know how the owner of that carry-on bag felt, when the TSA employee raised the alarm.

I've got an idea to fix the problem, though. We can add another step to the airport security gauntlet, in which we force everyone to empty their carry-on bags onto a table, so the x-ray dude doesn't blow a gasket and shut the place down for an hour and a half.

Or, we could simply outlaw toys and cookies which, when taken together, are a dangerous combination. We can now add Chips Ahoy to the list of items too dangerous to be taken on an airplane.

So leave 'em at home, folks. Right next to your fingernail clippers and your breast milk.

The "Benevolence" of Insurance Companies

2005-09-26T08:34:00.000-05:00

The ramp-up has started. Insurance companies, most notably Allstate, have begun airing television commercials telling us of their disaster-response teams. Allstate is even telling us how important it is that they hand out teddy bears to small children who have lost everything.

How nice.

What's interesting to me is how important it must be to people that the insurance company bring them ice for their insulin. My question is, how long are they gonna keep bringing that ice, while you're living under a bridge somewhere?

Look, everybody, insurance companies (individual employee attitudes notwithstanding) don't care if you survive the disaster. They're dressing up their couple-of-thousand-dollars-a-year efforts at "disaster-response" for one purpose and one purpose only. To make you think they care. Why don't we ask them how many claims they expect to pay out as a result of Hurricane Katrina & Hurricane Rita. Go on, ask them.

May It Please The Court is discussing how the courts will determine the legal cause of damages for the purposes of the insurance contracts. So, we'll get hundreds, if not thousands, of homeless people with their future tied up in court, attempting to get the ever-so-caring insurance industry to pony up.

The industry is going to fight. They always do. After all, as everyone with a brain knows, they're not in the business of paying claims. It disrupts their bottom line.

The Red Cross, United Way, a host of private charities, churches, and the government are doing everything they can in order to help those displaced by the hurricanes get immediate needs met. We don't need a "disaster-response" team from an insurance company. Let's tell them to use that money to pay the victims back a little for the windfall profits they've brought in.

Otherwise, we're left with this:

Disaster Responder -- "Hello little girl. I'm from the Ol' Granddad Insurance Company. Your parents have paid us thousands of dollars over the years, to gain peace of mind."

Little Girl -- "Our house just blowed away."

D.R. -- "I know, and I'm sorry about that. Here, have a teddy bear."

L.G. -- "But what about our house?"

D.R. -- "Check your policy. We'll be in touch."

Yeah. Right.

Roberts and "Drawing the Line"

2005-09-16T08:44:00.000-05:00

I watched some of the confirmation hearings on Chief Justice nominee John Roberts last night, and I was struck by one exchange in particular.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), brought up the fact that Judge Roberts had said, regarding one of the cases he had argued before the Supreme Court, that he would have taken the other side's case if they had approached him first.

Durbin went on to ask Judge Roberts where he would "draw the line." He specifically asked about the Colorado case in which Roberts had provided advice to a gay/lesbian group that was seeking to overturn a Colorado law. He asked Roberts if he would have taken the State's case if they had approached him first.

Roberts replied that he would, and referenced the words carved above the door of the Supreme Court.

Equal Justice Under the Law.

I just don't think he explained adequately.

The reason you, as a lawyer, take the state of Colorado's case (if approached by them) is simple.

If both sides of a case are not argued ably, and to their fullest extent, then what you wind up with is wishy-washy precedent, or worse, no precedent in a win by default. If you don't have an advocate who is able to put aside their personal views, and argue the merits of a case based upon the rule of law as it applies to your client, then you essentially, completely, and without fail reduce the argument to a moral one. Since Justice is Blind, then both sides of a case must have equal opportunity to have their case presented in a way which clearly and expertly outlines their view of the law.

After all, that's what courts are for. Roberts said that, when sworn in to the Supreme Court Bar, you are welcomed as "an officer of the Court," and in doing so he merely touched on the bigger picture. That being that "Equal Justice Under The Law," means equal opportunities for representation, consideration, support, and fair judgment; not just by the Judges or Justices deciding a case, but also by the attorneys arguing it.

Imagine, if you will, a time where the societal norms regard a certain group of people as less-deserving of certain rights. Those people are attempting to obtain access to the courts. Imagine, then, that everyone has done as Senator Dick Durbin would, and "draw the line" by not taking cases which are outside of society's generally accepted principles.

Would our system of justice mean anything at all to those people? I think not.

Now, I know, it sounds like I'm comparing Colorado's arguments with the plight of American black people after reconstruction. Truth is, I am, and I'm not. There's certainly no philosophical parallel between a state arguably wishing to deny someone's rights, and a group of people whose rights have been denied. But what we've got to do is recognize that their arguments must be given equal footing, equal opportunity to be heard.

If we don't do that, then we're allowing someone's subjective judgment to whip the blindfold from Justice's eyes. Dick Durbin might think that's a good thing, but if he thinks he's going to be the one who gets to do it, he'd probably find there are many, many groups in line ahead of him.