Trans-Texas Corridor Update

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

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

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

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

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?

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...

1

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.

2

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

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?

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

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

This is phenomenal.

Obama: "Yes We Can" Mortgage Our Future

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

Here's a list of links to all the briefs filed thus far in D.C. v. Heller. (Thanks to ABAnet)


District of Columbia v. Heller, Docket No. 07-290
Questions Presented
THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C. CODE §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES? CERT. GRANTED 11/20/2007QUESTIONS PRESENTED: Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.


Merits briefs
Brief of Petitioners District of Columbia and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia
Brief of Respondent Dick Anthony Heller


Amicus briefs
Brief for Violence Policy Center and the Police Chiefs for the Cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Major American Cities, the United State Conference of Mayors and Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Jack N. Rakove, Saul Cornell, David T. Konig, William J. Novak, Lois G. Schwoerer et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Law Professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Adam Winkler, as in Support of Petitoner
Brief for American Public Health Association, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Trauma Society, and American Association of Suicidology in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials in Support of Petitoner
Brief for Professors of Criminal Justice in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the City of Chicago and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in Support of Petitioner (reprint)
Brief for DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, D.C. Chamber of Commerce, D.C. for Democracy, D.C. League of Women Voters, Federal City Council of Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the Childrens Defense Fund, Women Against Gun Violence, and Youth Alive! in Support of Petitioner
Brief for District Attorneys in Support of Petitioner (reprint)
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Support of Petitioners
Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, National Black Police Association, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, School Safety Advocacy Council, and the Police Executive Research Forum in Support of Petitioner
Brief for New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English Dennis E. Baron, Ph. D, Richard W. Bailey, Ph. D, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the the American Jewish Committee et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. in Support of Petitioner
Brief for American Legislative Exchange in Support of Respondent
Brief for GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Congress of Racial Equality in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, National Council for Investigationand Security Services, Ohio Association of Private Detective Agencies, Inc., DBA Ohio Association of Security and Investigation Services (OASIS), Michigan Council of Private Investigators, Indiana Association of Professional Investigators, and Kentucky Professional Investigators Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense and Kestra Childers in Support of Respondent
Brief for Criminologists, Social Scientists, Other Distinguished Scholars, and the Claremont Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Foundation for Free Expression in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Alaska Outdoor Council, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fund, SITKA Sportsman's Association, the Juneau Rifle and Pistol Club, the Juneau Gun Club, and Alaska Territorial Sportsmen, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., Lieutenant General Charles E. Dominy, Lieutenant General Tom Fields, Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner, General Ronald H. Griffith, General William H. Hartzog, Lieutenant General Ronald V. Hite, Major General John. G. Meyer, Jr., Honorable Joe R. Reeder, Lieutenant General Dutch Shoffner, General John Tilelli, and The American Hunters and Shooters Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Rifle Association and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Grass Roots of South Carolina, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Libertarian National Committee in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for 55 Members of the United States Senate, the President of the U.S. Senate, and 250 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Support of Respondent
Brief for 126 Women State Legislatures and Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Virginia1774.org in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for Paragon Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the CATO Institute and History Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm in Support of Respondent
Brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, California Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, the National Police Defense Foundation, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and the Independence Institute in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washignton, West Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership in Support of Respondent
Brief for Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations Commonly Deployed by Opponents of an Individual-Right-Based Interpretation of the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania Joseph B. Scarnati, III in Support of Respondent
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Institute for Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Former Senior Officials of the Department of Justice in Support of Respondent
Brief for Foundation for Moral Law in Support of Respondent
Brief for Gun Owners of America, Inc., the Gun Owners Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Inc., the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of California, Inc., the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for State Firearm Associations in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc., Second Amendment Sisters, Inc., Women Against Gun Control, 60 Plus Association, Inc., Robert B. Smith, J.D., Christie Davies, M.A., Ph. D. Joe Michael Cobb, and Mrs. Minnie Lee Faulkner in Support of Respondent
Brief for Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, D.C. and the Liberty Legal Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics in Support of Respondent
Brief for Academics for the Second Amendment in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Center for Individual Freedom in Support of Respondent
Brief for Retired Military Officers in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Heartland Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., in Support of Respondent
Brief for Goldwater Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for American Civil Rights Union in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Support of Respondent (reprint)
Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund in Support of Respondent
Brief for Jeanette M. Moll et al. in Support of Respondent
Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Reversal


That's 66 Amicus Briefs. By my count, 47 of them are in favor of Heller's arguments.


I haven't read them all, but I'm going to.

Clinton in Odessa

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?

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!

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?

I'm Officially in Mourning

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

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.

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!

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!

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

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."