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!

Tom Delay -- Please Don't Argue My Side (Or Anything Remotely Like It)

One of our illustrious House Leaders from Texas has been shooting off his mouth again lately.

Tom Delay is still going hog-wild on the "Judges-as-legislators" kick.

Grand. Just what I, and every truly law-abiding member of the conservative public needs. Does anyone wonder what it does to our argument when it's being made by one of the poster-boys for federal politics in the corporate washroom? Has anyone told Mr. Delay that he just might be hurting more than he's helping?

I'm sorry. I fully agree that there's too much legislating going on in the halls of the judiciary. Delay's right on that score. But his comments (and those of many of his fellow speakers at the event) come way too close to implicating the destruction of the independent judiciary.

And I'd like to remind Mr. Delay that, though "All wisdom does not reside in nine persons in black robes," if even a little bit of wisdom resided in 435 persons in tailored suits, those nine persons in black robes would be that much less relevant.

Texas Young Lawyers Association -- Serving the Texas Public and Elsewhere

I just returned the other day from the 2005 Texas Bar Leadership Conference in The Woodlands, Texas.

I got to meet and talk with Bar leaders from around the state on a myriad of subjects, including:

1. How to clean up the erroneous perceptions people have of the legal profession. Truly, a couple of bad apples have been seen to spoil the whole bunch.
2. What the Bar can do to further educate the public on the legal system in general.
3. How we can stress to the public the importance of an independent judiciary (current Bar President Eduardo Rodriguez' pet project).

I also was able to meet people from all walks of life, who are taking an active role in the leadership of our profession here in Texas. I went as the Vice President (read:President-Elect) of my local affiliate of the Texas Young Lawyers Association.

TYLA is widely known, and highly touted, as "The Public Service Arm of the State Bar of Texas." The organization is doing some great things for the people of this state, most recently embarking on a campaign to educate the elderly regarding telephone/telemarketer scams. The campaign consists of public service announcements made by famous Texans such as Barbara Bush, former Texas Governor Ann Richards, and Freddy Fender. In the spots, they exhort senior citizens to "Just hang up."

What a great program.

That's not all.

Of interest to young (and even old) lawyers all across the country, is TYLA's "Ten Minute Mentor" program. It's a joint effort of TYLA and TexasBarCle, and consists of ten-minute spots educating lawyers, young and old, in areas of the law they might otherwise not have knowledge of. There's some fantastic resources there, and the program's been getting raves from Illinois, South Carolina, Robert Ambrogi, Jim Calloway, Al Nye, andMyShingle, among many others.

I suppose it's no secret that I'm a "young lawyer." I've yet to determine whether that gives me the right to claim that I'm still young, or just that I'm relatively new at the lawyering gig. I'm gonna go with both.

Anyway, I couldn't possibly say anything better about the Ten Minute Mentor than has already been said, and by bloggers much more widely read than I am. So I'll only say that TYLA wants more.

If you're a Texas lawyer (or a Federal practitioner), and you'd like to contribute 10 minutes of your time to help out your profession, or you've got a topic idea that you'd like to see included, please follow the "Contact Us" link on the Ten Minute Mentor website. I believe you'll be glad you did.

There's more projects and initiatives sponsored by TYLA. If you'd like to know more about them, just hit their website, www.tyla.org.


I can't say enough how proud I am of TYLA as an organization. I'm honored to be a part of it, and I hope to contribute to their already stellar record of public service.

Bloggers vs. Journalists? Or, Bloggers as Journalists?

May It Please the Court has an interesting post up recently. It's regarding a letter from the Attorney General of California, soliciting comments. Essentially, what the AG wants to know is whether bloggers are journalists.


I know I'm not the first to comment on this, but it's difficult to have a sincere discussion of blogging vs. journalism. It's difficult because the two are at the same time completely interrelated and mutually exclusive. Make sense?

Of course it doesn't.

I can blog to my heart's content, and I've got about zero chance of ever scooping a mainstream media outlet. I'll link them like crazy, but I just haven't got the resources, or the time, to devote to the gathering of original content to place here. No blogger does, really. Oh, sure, there are "professional" bloggers who, I suppose, live for nothing else, just as there are attorneys who live for their work. I fall into neither category.

Now, a sincere discussion of bloggers as journalists, that's a different story entirely.

First, let's define "journalist."

Three results appear when you hit Google and search "define:journalist."

Princeton University defines "journalist" both as "a writer for newspapers and magazines," and also "diarist: someone who keeps a diary or journal." Do we get some help there? Not really. As I pointed out above, inherently interrelated and mutually exclusive, right?

San Diego State University, in a glossary of journalism terms, defines "journalist" as "Someone who works in the news gathering business, such as a photographer, editor or reporter." That definition is a little more helpful I suppose, although it still (coming from a school of journalism) needs to be taken with a grain of salt, no?

And finally, we have the singularly helpful definition provided by Wikipedia, stating that "journalist" means "A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people." Thanks.


But let's go with good ol' Merriam-Webster. A "journalist" is "1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience 2 : a person who keeps a journal "

Kinda wraps all the other definitions up in a nice little package, doesn't it?

The conclusion to be reached from this cursory examination of the term is that, yes, bloggers are journalists. At least, each and every blogger is a journalist in one sense of the word or another. Take me, for example. I am definitely "a person who keeps a journal," and "a writer who aims at a mass audience." Granted, I fall terribly short of the mass audience, but that's beside the point. What I do here, I do because I hope that someone, somewhere, will learn something from me that they otherwise might not learn. My efforts similarly fall under the category of "gathering and dissemination of information," etc. All blogs are like that, really. The only difference between blogs is readership. We're reminded constantly that something is "newsworthy" only if the public is interested in hearing it. Jokes about the obvious (due to my sitemeter) non-newsworthiness of this particular blog aside, I believe we're left with the threshhold question. That is, should we (bloggers) be recognized as journalists, regardless of any lack of formal training in conventional journalism? Should we have access to the rights and privileges afforded to members of the conventional journalism community?

In answer, I'm going to leave you with one particularly applicable statement from the link on May It Please The Court, referencing an essay by Jay Rosen on PressThink:

"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."


Thank you, Mr. Rosen.

Now, where's my fedora?

Chinese Hegemony: Are We Getting the Message?

Intense debate surrounds China's current bid to take over Unocal. I'll just add my voice to the massive number of people who understand that allowing a Chinese-government-owned company to buy a hugely powerful American oil company is simply a bad idea.

Were that alone not enough, with all of China's posturing, and the possible raising of bids, they're discouraging even the smallest amount of foreign involvement in their country. They've even forbidden Chinese media from associating with foreign companies.

So, are we getting the message? We can't afford a round of "Do as we say, not as we do." As good at that as America itself is, we simply can't match the ability of the Chinese government to divert funds for direct economic take-over of American companies.

If they won't let a privately owned enterprise make deals with their local media outlets, why in blazes should we extend them the courtesy of, for heaven's sake, owning an American oil company? It makes no sense.

Makes me wish I owned a substantial number of shares of Unocal, though. I'd be voting to nix China's bid.

As it stands, all I can do is hope Unocal's shareholders make the right decision. If they make the wrong one, though, what can we do?

Small Firms, Unite! Or... Wait. Don't...

What I mean is, unite in your resolve to remain insulated from the mentality of the big lawfirm.

I was just alerted to a great blog-post on MyShingle.com, entitled "Starting a Firm May Be the Only Escape from Biglaw Culture."

All I can say is, "Amen!"

While I was in law school, I began the process of fighting with my classmates over the few big-firm associate positions. I was all set, sadly, to give my life to one of them, and likely sacrifice my wife's affection in the pursuit of a bunch of dollars. Then something happened to me.

My wife gave birth to our first child while I was a 2L. She was born 3 days before fall-semester finals. I looked at her once, and immediately decided to take my Dad up on his offer of an office. We're now a 2-lawyer firm, and I (with another daughter born early this year) am well on my way to being remembered as a Father-who-happens-to-be-a-lawyer rather than a Lawyer-who-happens-to-have-kids.

It means less money, but hey, I've already proven I'm the richest man on earth.

To Londoners:

My heart goes out to you all.

You are, and will remain, in my prayers.

Is Betamax Buried?

The Supreme Court has ruled. Internet file-sharing companies may be sued if they encourage illegal activity. Necessarily, such a finding of encouragement is a question of fact for a jury to decide.

"'We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties,' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court."


It is a great victory for Hollywood, but it's not a total victory. The question now becomes whether or not the RIAA et. al., can drive all of the P2P providers out of business. There are packages that exist which are extremely hard to police (ICQ and mIRC come to mind). And those packages are completely neutral as to advertising and/or content. It makes me wonder where this will all go.


As soon as I've read the opinion, I'll have more comment.


UPDATE:

From the opinion:

"Evidence of active steps . . . taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe, and a showing that infringement was encouraged overcomes the law's reluctance to find liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use..."


Soooo. Even though there was similar evidence in the Betamax case (the Court even discusses Sony's trumpeting the virtues of building "your own library of your favorite shows") SCOTUS declines to draw the parallels.

They have dealt a blow to innovation this day.




Thanks to Ernest Miller for links to the bench opinion.



UPDATE #2:

I forgot to answer my title question: Is Betamax Buried?

Answer: No, but the hole's been dug, it's teetering on the edge, and lots of corporations are set for a big push.

Home is Where the Home Depot Is

Well, folks, the Supreme Court announced today that there's nothing stopping your local government from taking your property and shuffling it off to a private developer for the purpose of bolstering the economy and increasing tax revenues.

I haven't seen the opinion yet, since the slip opinion hasn't been posted and won't until later in the day.


Let me just say that I'm disgusted by this ruling. The takings clause has traditionally been interpreted to mean that private property may only be "taken" for public use. Five members of our Supreme Court have apparently determined that, even if the "use" is private, it's still okay as long as there's some demonstrable benefit to the community.

Ooooh how I wish I were on the City Council of the town in which John Paul Stevens lives. I'd "pave paradise, and put up a parking lot," quicker than you can say, "Get off the Court you old fascist!"


More later.

UPDATE:

I've read the opinion, and here's my take.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."

--John Paul Stevens

Essentially, what they're saying is that because the City of New London "carefully considered" its economic development plan, and because we don't quite know yet which corporate giants will be benefitting from it, they can take whatever they want to as long as it fits into that plan.

They continue the idiotic assumption that "public use" means "public purpose," which is contrary to the ideals upon which our conception of private property is based.

Accordingly, they reject the argument that the government must show a "reasonable certainty that the expected public benefits will actually accrue." Meaning, if your city says that they want to take your property for "economic development," they may do so without even being required to show a likelihood that a developer will even be interested in the property.

"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power." Actually, their opinion gives government the moon, the stars, and the kitchen sink, unless they themselves choose to limit that right.

Start lobbying your state legislatures, people, 'cause that's the only way to stop this wholesale theft and corporate welfare.



From the dissent:

"Today the court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power [that government may not take property from A to give it to B]. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded -- i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public -- in the process."

"To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

" [W]ere the political branches the sole arbiters of the public-private distinction, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff."

-- Justice O'Connor

What else can be said? Nobody's property is safe anymore.



UPDATE #2:

"This is not a prank."

I certainly hope that the above-linked individual didn't get his idea from me. What am I saying? Of course I hope he read it here first. Still, I must admit that my comment about Justice Stevens' house was tongue-in-cheek.

The reason being that, in the Kelo opinion, there is plenty of discussion of the illegality of the use of the eminent domain power (enough "of"'s already!), when it's being used vindictively against a specific person or group of people. Such as, a case of the City of Weare, New Hampshire attempting to oust a Supreme Court Justice from his home.

Further, the opinion discusses the comparable illegality involved when the private party to be benefited by the taking is already known. Such as, a case where a private developer actively petitions the Council for the use of eminent domain.

Both of those things above apply to Freestar Media, L.L.C.'s attempt.

That's why, in my original post here, I stated my wish that I were a member of the City Council of Stevens' hometown. In that case, I could "carefully develop" a plan for "economic development" that just happened to include Stevens' house, and the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to second-guess me.



A brilliant plan, and a fond wish, but then some yahoo from New Hampshire had to go and ruin it.