SCOTUS & the pro-Prop 8 gang...

SCOTUS last week stopped a federal judge from taping and broadcasting to other judicial venues the Bois-Olson trial contesting the results of Prop 8.

one of the arguments they used agreed with the pro-Prop 8 gang that their lives could be interrupted and they could be threatened from the queer activists if their testimony were to be shown live. never mind that there is a court recorder in the room and the entire trial transcript will be available sometime in the future.

[you can follow the news and the trial at American Foundation for Equal Rights.]

on of these "testifiers", a christianist minister publicly and very loudly dropped out.

but can anyone come up with matches to these headlines regarding lgbtq people who are asking only to be treated equal to everyone else with the christianists who are not very christian?


VANDALS SLASH TIRES OF TWO DOZEN CARS AT GAY ORLANDO NIGHTCLUB

RHODE ISLAND GAY MAN'S BUSINESS TARGETED: 'FAGGOTS HAVE NO RIGHTS'


D.C. Jail guards accused of beating gay inmate

just these three are from Towleroad and DC Agenda over the last couple of days!

how many others have we seen over the years? how long did it take to pass the Matthew Shepard Act? how many more lgbtq are going to be beaten? raped? killed?

the proponents of Prop 8 have made themselves the victims when they, in fact, are the perpetrators of violence and crime and hate all in the name of a myth that clearly espouses loving your neighbor more than yourself.

i have a sense that their Jesus would now refuse to die for their sins...

weekender...

remember the old astute question, "What did you do with the money your mother gave you for singing lessons?"

well here's a better one:

These are from a book called 'Disorder in the American Courts' and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.
ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

____________________________________

ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ

____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS : Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 pm.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished

_____________________________________

ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?

_____________________________________

And the best for last:


ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law

THINK ABOUT IT!

MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE LAWYERS.....

and just why is it that we need lawyers?

just asking...

will they link this to Obama?

Chicago has had an on-going police scandal since the 1980's. It deals with members of the Chicago Police force using torture techniques as an interrogation technique and a few other spurious behaviours.

The latest barrage in the case has U.S. District Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald [yes that Patrick Fitzgerald] filing charges of perjury against retired police Commander Jon Burge since the statute of limitations has run out on the alleged crime itself. Though it's BIG headlines for the Chicago papers, and even the New York Times has a story today, most people in greater Chicagoland just shrug our shoulders. We go through this a lot. We are pretty cynical about city politics, but we also live in the City that Works. I would have to say it does.

The case had a special result in that it force a former Republican governor, who by the way is in prison for corruption right now, to suspend all capital punishment making world-wide headlines and also had the effect in some convicted murderers actually being released not only from death row but from prison.

If you read the stories and look into the scenario, you will discover that it is a conservative's and right-winger's dream. Liberals at their worst; government run amok; a victory for the bleeding hearts; and democracy being attacked. Of course, there is also the unspoken angle that the vast majority of the prisoners released were African-American.

so, i'm just wondering how long it will take the Mcpains, the Limbaugh's, and other wingers to somehow connect this all to Senator Obama? you know, like they did Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright...

i'm just asking...

what is wrong with this picture?

“Where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute,” he said. “But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”

U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey,
August 12, 2008, New York Times.

His statement is in regards to the hiring scandal in his office under the previous AG, Alberto Gonzalez, where political affiliation and beliefs were the guiding principle to join the Department. He is not going to pursue any criminal charges against those who perpetrated it.

that whirring noise you are hearing loudly all across the United States is Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Oliver Wendall Holmes and many many other spinning in their graves.

Joseph Stalin would be proud though! This administration has successfully turned the entire country into a gulag... in reverse for some cases.

quick F.I.S.A. challenge

I predicted in my post F.I.S.A. bill passed..., on Wednesday that as I wrote the post someone was preparing to take it to court.

heads up...

ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law

You can read the entire post at the ACLU website by clicking above, but here are a couple of highlights.

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.

The main point:

Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."

hmmm, let's see...

This means that someone in some officious [notice i didn't say official] government office or Comcast Cable cubicle may be reading this right now and notating that I am writing something that they may determine is a threat to the country's security and forwarding this to who know what other officious office or cubicle.

Oh, and they also know that you are reading this right now; so, they have just sent your IP Address along with the report or opened another report/file all about you.

SURPRISE!!!

Well, you might say, "This is all for national security."

I ask. How are you or I a threat to national security? And, what about the officious person in that officious office or cubicle who now has information on us? Who will/can guarantee that they will not use anything that they determined to be information for spurious reasons of their or the government's design? This law eviscerates the 4th Amendment.

see...

be careful, if you are a Jehovah Witness, Black, American gueer you do have a lot to worry about whether you are going to Montenegro or staying in Chattanooga...

F.I.S.A. bill passed...

Anyone with any sense of the news was aware it would happen. What was surprising to me is the vote was 69 - 28 with 3 not voting: Sessions, Kennedy and McCain. (Maybe, I shouldn't have been so surprised.)

Living in Illinois, it was a split decision. Senator Durbin was one of the 28 voting Nay. Senator Obama was part of the 69 voting Yea. Since there is no such thing as a present vote in the U.S. Senate, he only had one other choice: the not voting one.

You can go to the U.S. Senate website to see how your Senators voted: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304)



you all don't know how difficult it has been for me over the last couple of weeks, listening to the parsing that has been happening in the Obama campaign, to bite my tongue and not say, "I told you so."

trust me, this is just the beginning...

one of the hopes regarding the F.I.S.A. bill is, as you read this, someone is already making the move to have it in court the minute the Tsar signs it into law. so far, even his own Republican federal judges have held against him on things like this.

we'll see...



i'm sorry, i forgot to mention that Hillary was also one of the 28 voting Nay, as was Majority Leader Sen. Reid!

SCOTUS gun ruling results a no-brainer...

New York Times, June 26, 2008

Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights: Divided Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

It was another 5-4 decision with Scalia writing the majority opinion and Kennedy doing his usual swing vote thingy.

It's a no brainer because of the make-up of the court and because the D.C. law was incredibly restrictive. It even mandated how guns were to be stored.

The gist of the decision was that the Constitution doesn't absolutely forbid gun ownership by private citizens but does have caveats"

for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion based on historical precedent bordering on stare decisis:

A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

In effect, what the arguments boiled down to are interpretations based on a strict-constructionist view of the Constitution. Something that has been at the heart of the right's justification for their laws.

It's still a dangerous road we're on here. The Second Amendment states

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I guess we could say that Mr. Scalia has substituted the word militia with the word vigilante

The future of these 5-4 decisions are almost a foregone conclusion even with a Democrat in the White House. The only justices who would possibly retire in the near future are on the 4 side of the Court - Stevens and Ginsburg. At least for the next four years, Tsar Bush will continue doing damage to the Constitution. If McCain is elected all bets are off. The wingers will have what they've been planning since Nixon resigned.

the Tsar and his Rasputin continue the attacks...

and I'm not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. Those don't seem to work anyway.

They are attacking the "public".

In another move to take more and more away from the people they are pushing a bill up for a vote tomorrow in the Senate that would keep more of the truth from us.

The administration has proposed cutting the public broadcasting budget by 56 percent -- putting at risk vital news, educational and cultural programming that millions of Americans say they prefer to commercial media. Freepress, 23 June 2008

Built into the laws have always been a requirement to collect local viewer data, report factual materials, provide educational opportunity, and programs of public interest. A lot of the programming is also backed by both private and public grants, giving more meaning to reflecting the needs and wishes of the public. In other words, telling the truth or allowing the public to decide for ourselves.

More and more the "public" is becoming a concept rather than a reality as a result of the Bush/Cheney seven year fiasco. More and more is being done for big business and less and less for the people at our expense.

Business needs to realize that it is the "people" that keep them going. What would they do if the "public" decided to stop paying their bills? Oh, wait, Bush/Cheney would bail business out.

Let your senators know directly by sending them an online letter via Freepress here and sign a petition they have working to make all lawmakers aware that you want public broadcasting to be fully funded and additional funding provided here.

SCOTUS 5-4 ruling on freedom rights...

The Supreme Court of the United States this afternoon defended the right of prisoners being held, most incognito, at Guantanamo and other terrorist detention centers to have their confinement questioned using U.S. the court system.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. New York Times, 12 June 2008

Of course, the Bush/Cheney Administration just thinks the world has been taken away from them and ultra-conservative anti-terrorism afficionados believe that every building over 10 stories will have a plane flown into it now.

President Bush was unhappy with the ruling. ''We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it,'' the president said during a press conference in Rome. ''It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented.''

Does this mean that he's going to ignore it? Can he do a signing statement with a SCOTUS decision?

This is the third time that the Tsar's protection plans for us have been ruled more or less unconstitutional.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

The significance of this decision is in one statement by Justice Kennedy's majority opinion.

''The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.''

No one is above the Constitution - NO ONE.

Of course, the Tsar and his minions can can just dilly-dally for the next 221 days and leave the next administration to clean up its mess.

or not...

this one couldn't wait for a weekender...

A Florida senior citizen drove his brand new Corvette convertible out of the dealership.

Taking off down the road, he pushed it to 80 mph, enjoying the wind blowing through what little hair he had left.

"Amazing," he thought as he flew down I-75, pushing the pedal even more.

Looking in his rear view mirror, he saw a Florida State Trooper, blue lights flashing and siren blaring.

He floored it to 100 mph, then 110, then 120. Suddenly he thought, "What am I doing? I'm too old for this!" and pulled over to await the trooper's arrival.


Pulling in behind him, the trooper got out of his vehicle and walked up to the Corvette. He looked at his watch, then said, "Sir, my shift ends in 30 minutes. Today is Friday. If you can give me a new reason for speeding--a reason I've never before heard--I'll let you go."

The old gentleman paused then said: "Three years ago, my wife ran off with a Florida State Trooper. I thought you were bringing her back."

"Have a good day, Sir," replied the trooper.


i was rotflmao when i read this...

Senate passes GI Bill...

75 - 22 with half of the 49 Republicans thumbing their noses at Mssrs. Bush, McCain and Cornyn. It now will go to the House for approval as part of the large War Funding bill.

Though the bill is veto proof in the Senate, Mr. Bush has promised to veto it with the extra funding for servicemembers because he believes it's too much money and will cause members to leave the service after only one tour of duty, which most do anyway.

(The Politico) The Senate has overwhelmingly passed a new GI bill and billions in new domestic spending as part of the $165 billion Iraq war funding bill pending before Congress.

In two subsequent votes, the Senate passed the war funding portion of the bill, 70-26, and rejected an amendment that contained troop withdrawal language on a 34-63 vote.

The 75-22 vote on the GI bill and domestic spending marked a resounding victory for Senate Democrats as well as Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who has battled to expand the educational benefits for soldiers who served in Iraq. The measure also included a 13 week extension of unemployment insurance, home heating assistance and other domestic spending add ons. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which will top $200 billion with the extra spending.
Politico via CBSNews

It's a step in the right direction. Now we only have to see if the House will pass it and the entire Congress will have the cajones to stand up to the nitwit Tsar George. The one thing going for this is that it is election year and the Repubs are really afraid with the last few Congressional elections they've lost.

Congratulations to VoteVets.org, WesPac, and others who have been fighting for Senator Webb's bill.

silly laws...

There are a lots of silly laws on the books all over the country. I'm sure that you can name a few in your own town.

Two years ago, Chicago banned the sale of foie gras, a delicacy of duck and goose livers elevated to near cult status by the French, on restaurant menus. Consequently, there have been duckeasy's in the city either selling it on the qt or giving it away since the law only bans selling it. Even Mayor Daley thinks it is one of the stupidest laws passed in recent history.

Well, today, the Chicago City Council lifted the ban and are setting the ducks free. Well, letting us eat their livers, at least.

Didier Durand, chef/owner of Cyrano's Bistro on the near Northside, is leading the cheers. "Break out the champagne!" he cried.

Opponents to the delicacy, as well as to any animal-based food, were quick to cry out:

"To reverse a compassionate and admirable decision under pressure from political bullies and special interests shows a cowardly brand of cynicism unlike any we have seen in our efforts to give voice to the most vulnerable beings in our society - animals raised for food," said Julie Janovsky, director of campaigns for animal rights group Farm Sanctuary.

Pot calling the kettle burnt, you ask? PETA and Farm Sanctuary are political bullies and special interests, aren't they? I don't know of any other groups who physically attack their own species to make a point.

The nature of homo sapiens has been as hunter/gatherers for millenia. Much has been written of our current modern diet of grains and cereals and the problems they cause digestively. We are meat eaters.

I, for one, love foie gras and always have. I have had it many different ways, but the best is lightly seasoned and sautéed in butter, served with a good Sauterne.

I might be convinced that the method of force feeding the birds to produce larger, more veiny livers is harsh and, if someone could show me that a natural method of feeding produces the same flavors, I would go along with it.

but... i will stay my gross self, as some would label me, and continue to eat, not very often I might add, one of my favorite delicacies...



i'm almost drooling...

truth in advertising...

There are federal and state laws about truth in advertising in order to protect consumers. Just recently the courts ordered a company to stop pushing a product that promises to stop the common cold* or at least make its symptoms last shorter than normal to stop making claims and fined them $23 million. So the government takes these things seriously.

There is one company in particular that uses a gecko as its main spokes, umm, animal. I'm not going to mention the name of the company, but I know for certain everyone who has seen the commercials knows of which I'm speaking.

Well, here's the problem. The gecko used in the commercial is male. This gecko has an Australian or New Zealand accent. The problem is that almost ALL south Pacific geckos are female!

They reproduce asexually almost as a clone of themselves. Neat and clean. Every several generations they produce males to prevent genetic contamination and impurities. It's an automatic built-in safeguard created by evolution.

So, next time you see the company's commercial, just remember that they may not be telling the entire truth about other things either.



If you're interested in more of this, look into Joan Roughgarden's book Evolution's Rainbow. There are lots of amazing facts in her book about gender identity and sexuality in different species that blow holes into the christianist's beliefs.

Oh, by the way, Professor Roughgarden's name was originally Jonathan. She has taught at Stanford University since 1972 doing research on links between ecology with economic theory. She has also written on the relationship between Christianity and science.



*on colds, there is no cure for them. one just has to ride them out. the general thinking is that it takes three days to get the cold, three days with the cold, and three days to get rid of the cold. the only promising thing that may lessen a cold's symptoms is the use of zinc. i mean even my doctor, whom I respect greatly, has told me to use it.

why is there a cavernous gap between the American people and our elected representatives in Congress?

Deal Close on Wiretap Law, a Top Democrat Tells CNN

and it contains immunity for the telecoms.

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee hinted Sunday that a battle over an expired eavesdropping law might be moving toward a conclusion that gave phone companies the retroactive legal protections long sought by President Bush.

New York Times, 3 March 2008

Is it because the telecoms have stopped making campaign contributions? or, at the least, may be threatening to do so?

just asking...

"La menace de récession se précise aux Etats-Unis"...

This is the banner headline in today's edition of Le Monde, the French newspaper.

The literal translation of the headline is, "The threat of recession is specified in the United States."

I think what they are actually saying is recession is no longer a "question" but, in fact, a reality in the U.S.

The first paragraph puts their thinking succinctly:

Fall of the market indexes, record losses for banks, tensions on the foreign exchange market and interest rates, the rise of oil prices, all signs of recession in the United States: the economic situation and international financial picture is degrading quickly.

The banner headline in the Chicago Sun-Times today: Chicago's Olympic Price Tag; RING IT UP. [the price tag $2 Billion! How's that for dealing with a recession problem, especially when public transportation may stop after 1/31/08 if it doesn't get a bailout from the state government.]

Most every other U.S. paper led with headlines about George Romney's win in Michigan and that, "He's Backkkkkkk." A few focused on other aspects of the primary races.

Only one other paper, and it's not actually a U.S. paper, did I find a headline, not just a mention, of the financial problems of the U.S. and the world - The International Herald Tribune - "Signs Growing that 'Recession' May Apply to U.S."

So, we're reading about a "popularity contest" that rivals "Miss America" while the rest of the world handles issues that the contestants in our popularity contest should be addressing in detail.

Maybe it's time that the "contestants" of all our popularity contests, from Representative, to Senator, to Judiciary, to President deal with a law that limits the amount of time the popularity contest can go on. Other countries have done it, often limiting it all to a period of 3-6 months before the election.

A lot of the candidates are in office right now - not doing their jobs. And others? They need to get a job...

more Bush transparency...

Two new examples of the Bush/Cheney administration's dedication to providing an open and transparent government...

White House Visitor Logs Are Public, Judge Rules, NYT, 12/17/07.

A federal judge ruled Monday that White House visitor logs were public records and ordered the Bush administration to stop withholding them from scrutiny by outside groups.

The Tsarist response:

Spokesmen for the White House and the Justice Department withheld comment on Judge Lamberth’s ruling and whether it would be appealed.

“As these issues remain in litigation, we will not comment further at this time,” said a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto.

Administration officials signaled, however, that the White House was almost certain to appeal. It has repeatedly tangled with Judge Lamberth, who has issued decisions in several cases that challenged the administration’s theories of executive power.

Translation - Not on your f****** life!

and...

Mukasey rejects congressional request on CIA probe, Reuters, 12/14/07

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Friday rejected a congressional request for information about a Justice Department probe into the CIA's destruction of videotapes of harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists.

Tsarist response:

In refusing to release information that federal investigators have dug up so far, Mukasey wrote: "The department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide non-public information about pending matters."

"This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence," Mukasey added in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's ranking Republican.

Translation: I've got it and you want it. Only, I'm not going to let you have it, because I'm not supposed to have it.

confused? aren't we all?

half the FISA battle won...

well, at least it's on hold.

Majority Leader Sen. Reid pulled the FISA bill from the floor late this afternoon handing Sen. Dodd a temporary victory in his filibuster fight to delete telecom retroactive immunity.

Harry Reid just announced on the floor that he intends to table debate on the FISA overhaul legislation until January.

This is an important development and will hopefully allow the opposition to telco amnesty to convince enough Senators that providing blanket immunity to these companies who broke the law really doesn't do much to keep us safe.
FISA Bill Tabled Until After The New Year from Paddy over at Cliff Schecter's Bravenewfilms.org.

Senator Dodd means to continue his action if the immunity is not removed by the time it's reintroduced in January.

This is a case of one man, with a lot of support, making a difference. It's an example of the Constitution's checks and balances at work and a fight for the return of transparency.

This idea of retroactive immunity bothers me. How can you just say that something that was done when it was illegal can't be punished? I guess the most outrageous example would be something like Jeffrey Dahmer being convicted of 17 murders in 1992 or H.H. Holmes being hung in 1896 for killing 27 people, Congress passing a law that murder is not against the law, and making it retroactive all the way back to 1789!

Like I said it's an outrageous example, but what is the difference? What happens to the rule of law? Especially since even with adding it to the wiretapping bill, it's still illegal at the basis of FISA. The bill still calls for FISA approval of wiretapping but infers that it's okay to do it without the approval.

Now, if Obama, Clinton, and others had been where they belonged since they said they supported Mr. Dodd's stand, it would have shown more than lip-service.

wow, Bush/Cheney administration really cares about....

what?

The people of the United States? Our security? Our well-being? Our children? It's not quite a toss-up.

DailyKos has a post up today that lists the things that Bush/Cheney has NOT done for us: Bush veto death march: the saga continues . It includes a list of the 53 bills that the Tsar is threatening to veto in addition to the seven that he has done since January. Before that, he only vetoed one other bill in his six years in office. Check this list out:

1. Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act - H.R. 4, and the Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act - S. 3
2. Employee Free Choice Act - H.R. 800
3. Improving America's Security Act - S. 4
4. Water Quality Financing Act - H.R. 720
5. Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - H.R. 985
6. Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 - H.R. 1255
7. United States Policy in Iraq Resolution - S.J.Res. 9
8. U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act - H.R. 1591, S. 965, H.R. 2206
9. D.C. Voting Rights Act – H.R. 1433, S. 1257
10. Rail and Public Transportation Security Act - H.R. 1401
11. Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - S. 5
12. Intelligence Authorization Act - S. 372, H.R. 2082
13. Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act - S. 1082
14. Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act – H.R. 1592
15. Redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq - H.R. 2237
16. Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act - H.R. 1684
17. Agricultural Disaster Assistance and Western States Emergency Unfinished Business Appropriations Act - H.R. 2207
18. National Defense Authorization Act - H.R. 1585, S. 1547
19. No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act - H.R. 2264
20. Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act – H.R. 1252
21. Human Cloning Prohibition Act - H.R. 2560
22. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act - H.R. 2638, S. 1644
23. Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act/Energy 25. Independence and Security Act - H.R. 6
24. State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act - H.R. 2764
25. Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act - H.R. 2643
26, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act - H.R. 2829
27. College Cost Reduction Act - H.R. 2669
28. Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act - H.R. 2956
29. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act - H.R. 3074, S. 1789
30. Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act - H.R. 3093, S. 1745
31. Farm, Nutrition and Bioengery Act/Food and Energy Security Act - H.R. 2419
32. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - H.R. 2831
33. Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act(SCHIP)- S. 1893, H.R. 3162, H.R. 976, H.R. 3963
34. Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act - H.R. 3161
35. Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act - H.R. 3159
36. Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act - H.R. 2776
37. New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act - H.R. 3221
38. Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act - H.R. 2761
39. FAA Reauthorization Act - H.R. 2881
40. Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act - H.R. 3121
41. Improving Government Accountability Act - H.R. 928
42. Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act - H.R. 3246
43. National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act - H.R. 2895
44. Tax Collection Responsibility Act - H.R. 3056
45. Free Flow of Information Act - H.R. 2102
46. Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective (RESTORE) Act - H.R. 3773
47. Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act - H.R. 505
48. Employment Non-Discrimination Act - H.R. 3685
49. Trade and Globalization Assistance Act - H.R. 3920
50. Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act - H.R. 2262
51. Homeowner's Defense Act - H.R. 3355
52. Temporary Tax Relief Act (AMT) - H.R. 3996
53. Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act - H.R. 4156

This list is unbelievable. It contains things that are absolutely necessary. Take #40 - Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act - H.R. 3121. I don't know to what the bill specifically pertains, but given the Bush/Cheney fiasco known as Hurricane Katrina, I sure I can guess what's behind the bill. Of course, the ones on Medicare, children's health insurance, job and housing protection, and affordable housing seem just by name to be concerning the welfare of the vast majority of Americans.

why exactly do we have a government, and why do we have the form of government established by the Constitution in 1789?

There is a part of the post at DailyKos that refers to the irony of all this:

Every Congress has to deal with the realities of the check against the legislature represented by the veto power. But recalling the president's, let's say "unconventional," use of his powers in the August FISA debate, there is a very real and very troubling prospect looming. A president willing to veto nearly everything the Congress produces and even to threaten to hold them in extended session until they produce what he dictates threatens the legislative branch's very reason for being.

The fears of Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots of the imperial presidency are very real, and I'm no longer certain, given both the GOP and Dem candidates running, that there is any real hope passed January 20, 2009.

i'm a natural cynic...

public schools and prayer...

There is a lot of talk about religion in government lately. Well, more than usual with Romney and Giuliani. In Illinois the state legislature passed a law entitled The Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. I will state up front that I am totally opposed to this kind of law as set out in the US Constitution

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The courts have repeatedly struck down any law passed as being construed to foster religion. It's called playing it safe.

I want to take a different tack. I have been a teacher, administrator and educator my entire adult life. From the standpoint of a teacher, we would, in any circumstance, love to have moments of silence in our classrooms. When you have up to 30 kids in a single room there are points in the day when sanity comes into question. When you work with the youngest, sanity is in question most all day.

I can see a built-in excuse for teachers to enforce some silence from time to time during the day by telling the kids, "Hey! It's the LAW. [Sometimes, though rarely, they believe anything.]

So, from that viewpoint, I could go along with the law - just asking for silence. What the child does with the silence is totally up to him/her. Most kids, from my experience, would read.

Here's where the idiots in the Illinois Legislature made their mistake, and most other legislatures do the same thing. Read the title carefully - The Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act

duh!!!!!!!! Put the courts on notice by using the word in the title of the act - Prayer!

If the legislators had backed it up with an explanation of time to refocus on instruction or let's catch our breaths or GIVE me a break you're driving me NUTS! there wouldn't be a problem.

If the parents, who are so inclined, want to tell their children, "You know when you have to be silent during the day? Would you do me a favor? Say a little prayer for...." Who'll be the wiser? Of course, the parent better tell their children not to tell anyone they are doing it. Kids are notorious for being cruel to each other. [Um, that's an understatement.] I saw kids every day bow their heads, mumble some words, or cross themselves silently, to themselves with no attention. No one bothered to notice. You can pray anyplace you want. It's your business.

Just don't tell me that I HAVE to sanction and set aside a time for it to happen as prayer. And the silent reflection thing? Honey, that's just another word for prayer.

My personal rule is - you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt me physically or emotionally. BUT... you have to do the same for me. It is my choice not to believe or not to pray or to dance on the desk or be silent, as long as I don't do anything that can hurt you physically or emotionally - and don't tell me that my not praying hurts you emotionally. If you're that fragile, you need help.

Deal?

SCOTUS to return to detainee question...

This is a little surprising, at least to the administration. They thought that the Supreme Court was finished with questions concerning the Guantanamo detainees and law when it ruled against the administration with Rasul v. Bush in 2004. In that case, SCOTUS pulled the rug out from underneath them saying that the courts could review the legality of the detentions.

Now, the Court is going to hear arguments as to whether the courts have jurisdiction to hear cases by detainees. Though it seems that this is almost the same case, it's much more important than the first.

The Court is addressing a constitutional issue with this case. The administration says that the president alone can determine the fate of the detainees. This time the process of government is being put into the limelight. The Court and the Congress are charged with checks and balances by the Constitution. It seems like the court, by merely hearing the case, is saying it has a sense of that process.

My personal view is that the four rightist judges are fuming. Justice Kennedy must be playing a role in saying, "We need to hear this case." Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas must be having a fit. They have handed everything they can to the administration with Kennedy's help because he must have an inherent sense of fairness in law. This may just bear witness to it.

Whatever the outcome, and I have a suspicion what that will be, the fact that the process will be at work is tantamount.

we can only hope...