NY Set to Ban Nooses

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

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

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

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."

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

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

"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

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

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:

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

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

Kill the Bill

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

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.

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

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.

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?!

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

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

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)

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

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.

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

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!!!!

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

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"

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.

Blawg Review Guest Map

Found this at The Common Scold, via Legal Blog Watch.

Blawg Review has set up a guest map so that blawgers can show their locations in the United States (and even around the world).

I've added my site (look for little ol' Odessa, Texas). Here's hoping this thing takes off!