Posts
-----
CNN needs to find some self-control. Soon everyone, including the obamaid drinkers, will see how epically inane their coverage of the President (and his swagga) truly is.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Defection
-----
Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats seems to have the Republicans throwing a fit over the Democrats having too much control in the Senate.
But I really don't understand why anyone really cares. The Republican's haven't lost a vote? Specter was a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He already supported the President's agenda and would have joined the Democrats against a filibuster anyway.
I figure we are finally getting some honesty from Washington as Specter finally removes the thin mask.
Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats seems to have the Republicans throwing a fit over the Democrats having too much control in the Senate.
But I really don't understand why anyone really cares. The Republican's haven't lost a vote? Specter was a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He already supported the President's agenda and would have joined the Democrats against a filibuster anyway.
I figure we are finally getting some honesty from Washington as Specter finally removes the thin mask.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Open Thread
With the way work and school have been going (it is finals time after all), I won't be making any new posts for about 2 weeks. Sorry guys.
-XKCD
-XKCD
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Open Thread
Work and Finals have interrupted any ability to update. Sorry Folks.
How about you tell me what's going on out there?
How about you tell me what's going on out there?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Janeane the Fool
-----
Not only am I a suspected terrorist, I am also a racist suffering from a neurological disorder caused by the size of my limbic brain. Oh my!
If you think I'm kidding, Janeane "the fool" Garofalo, expert on the limbic brain, mentions me by name!
"The Republican, Hyphen, [and] the Conservative movement [have] crystallized into the white power movement." ;P
Btw, I checked out Garofalo's academic history and I seem to have missed her degree in psychology/anatomy. hmmmm...
Not only am I a suspected terrorist, I am also a racist suffering from a neurological disorder caused by the size of my limbic brain. Oh my!
If you think I'm kidding, Janeane "the fool" Garofalo, expert on the limbic brain, mentions me by name!
"The Republican, Hyphen, [and] the Conservative movement [have] crystallized into the white power movement." ;P
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Btw, I checked out Garofalo's academic history and I seem to have missed her degree in psychology/anatomy. hmmmm...
Friday, April 17, 2009
Protesting the Protest 2
Chicago had its own protester protesting the Tea Party. Unfortunately, she was a CNN journalist.
I've not been schooled in the almighty arts of journalism, but she seems to be doing something wrong...
Btw, this same "journalist" referred to this
as a Bush "lookalike," when she was reporting on an Anti-Bush rally in New Orleans.
A sad state of affairs.
I've not been schooled in the almighty arts of journalism, but she seems to be doing something wrong...
Btw, this same "journalist" referred to this
as a Bush "lookalike," when she was reporting on an Anti-Bush rally in New Orleans.
A sad state of affairs.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Protesting the Protest
The Tax Day Tea Party, here in Tulsa, went pretty well. It was encouraging to see so many other Tulsans taking time out of their day to speak out against the uncontrolled spending in Congress.
There was only one protester to our protest that I noticed. He held up a sign which displayed a chart of the President's 2009 budget. The point he was trying to make, I think, is that Obama is still spending 58% of the national budget on the military, while much lower percentages of the budget are going to various other areas (which he felt were more improtant), such as health care, education, etc.
I wish I could have taken the time to inform him that the problem with the budget isn't the amount he is spending on the military, it is the amount he spending on all of the other pieces that are unnecessary (but he was heckling and there was a Sheriff standing near him and I didn't want to upset him and cause problems). The primary purpose of the federal government is national security. Our Military spending should be at least 50% of our budget at all times. It is the social projects and educational system that need to be removed from the budget all together, as these are better handled by local government and individuals.
Oh, there I go again, talking like a rightwing extremist.
There was only one protester to our protest that I noticed. He held up a sign which displayed a chart of the President's 2009 budget. The point he was trying to make, I think, is that Obama is still spending 58% of the national budget on the military, while much lower percentages of the budget are going to various other areas (which he felt were more improtant), such as health care, education, etc.
I wish I could have taken the time to inform him that the problem with the budget isn't the amount he is spending on the military, it is the amount he spending on all of the other pieces that are unnecessary (but he was heckling and there was a Sheriff standing near him and I didn't want to upset him and cause problems). The primary purpose of the federal government is national security. Our Military spending should be at least 50% of our budget at all times. It is the social projects and educational system that need to be removed from the budget all together, as these are better handled by local government and individuals.
Oh, there I go again, talking like a rightwing extremist.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Rightwing Extremism
-----
The new threat.
The Department of Homeland Security recently released a report "to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States." This sounds like a good idea until you read the content of the report.
The first line of the report provides the basis upon which the rest of the report should be read.
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
Without specific information, the DHS, under its new leadership, Janet Napolitano, has released a report which points to Conservatives and says, "Terrorists! Racists!" I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't read the report in its entirety. Also, I found some great analysis of the "facts" presented in the report at Powerline.
*Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
But the insults don't stop with the average conservative, they continue by belittling our military and outright declaring that returning military men are susceptible to extremist beliefs and are joining hate organizations such as the KKK. See the powerline post to see how this has been stretched and manipulated.
DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
Is there any doubt that this was purposefully released and publicly leaked just before the Tax Day Tea Parties? It is beyond insulting to be linked to extremism and terrorism for my political beliefs. The report is 9 pages of unsupported libel. The lack of specificity leaves the pages purposefully open to interpretation, mongering fear of the political right. The report is filth and Janet Napolitano should seriously consider stepping down if this is what she has to provide as head of Homeland Security.
The new threat.
The Department of Homeland Security recently released a report "to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States." This sounds like a good idea until you read the content of the report.
The first line of the report provides the basis upon which the rest of the report should be read.
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
Without specific information, the DHS, under its new leadership, Janet Napolitano, has released a report which points to Conservatives and says, "Terrorists! Racists!" I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't read the report in its entirety. Also, I found some great analysis of the "facts" presented in the report at Powerline.
*Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
But the insults don't stop with the average conservative, they continue by belittling our military and outright declaring that returning military men are susceptible to extremist beliefs and are joining hate organizations such as the KKK. See the powerline post to see how this has been stretched and manipulated.
DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
Is there any doubt that this was purposefully released and publicly leaked just before the Tax Day Tea Parties? It is beyond insulting to be linked to extremism and terrorism for my political beliefs. The report is 9 pages of unsupported libel. The lack of specificity leaves the pages purposefully open to interpretation, mongering fear of the political right. The report is filth and Janet Napolitano should seriously consider stepping down if this is what she has to provide as head of Homeland Security.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Life Tenure [Corrected]
-----
Paul D. Carrington, a professor at Duke University Law School, contributed to the New York Times Op-Ed yesterday a suggestion that we "remind our mortal [Supreme Court Justices] that they have a right to serve during good behavior, not for life."
While that may sound reasonable, Carrington appears to equate old age with bad behavior.
"Article III of the Constitution says only that federal judges, both of the Supreme Court and of lower courts, can retain their offices as long as they maintain “good behavior.” This seems to imply that the justices have a duty to retire when they are no longer fit to work full time. That duty is a rule in some countries: Britain, for instance, forces judges to retire at 70."
Carrington then continues his Op-Ed by criticizing Thurgood Marshall and William Rehnquist as "seriously unfit, hav[ing] held on to their awesome power and status long beyond what was reasonable."
Is it appropriate to equate old age with bad behavior? Doesn't our society frown upon age discrimination in employment? Should the federal courts be allowed to discriminate against judges based upon their age?
I find Carrington's solution to this supposed problem scarier than the problem he has described. Carrington suggests we remove the political freedom, created by life tenure, from the Justices by having them answerable to a council embedded in politics.
"Councils may then investigate and conduct hearings in confidence, and then perhaps order that at least temporarily no further cases be assigned to the judge whose conduct is in question. A council may censure a judge either privately or by a public pronouncement, or request his retirement. If a judge rejects a council’s advice, it could issue a statement to be considered by the House of Representatives that might initiate an impeachment proceeding."
Would it be any surprise that during years of a Democrat presidency, conservative Justices would find themselves faced with complaints about their "behavior"? Oh, and don't think I'm not suggesting the same will happen to progressive Justices during years of a Republican presidency. If the Supreme Court is not politicized enough for you already, just wait.
This is one can of worms, we should avoid at all costs, especially when age is the measurement of good behavior.
Paul D. Carrington, a professor at Duke University Law School, contributed to the New York Times Op-Ed yesterday a suggestion that we "remind our mortal [Supreme Court Justices] that they have a right to serve during good behavior, not for life."
While that may sound reasonable, Carrington appears to equate old age with bad behavior.
"Article III of the Constitution says only that federal judges, both of the Supreme Court and of lower courts, can retain their offices as long as they maintain “good behavior.” This seems to imply that the justices have a duty to retire when they are no longer fit to work full time. That duty is a rule in some countries: Britain, for instance, forces judges to retire at 70."
Carrington then continues his Op-Ed by criticizing Thurgood Marshall and William Rehnquist as "seriously unfit, hav[ing] held on to their awesome power and status long beyond what was reasonable."
Is it appropriate to equate old age with bad behavior? Doesn't our society frown upon age discrimination in employment? Should the federal courts be allowed to discriminate against judges based upon their age?
I find Carrington's solution to this supposed problem scarier than the problem he has described. Carrington suggests we remove the political freedom, created by life tenure, from the Justices by having them answerable to a council embedded in politics.
"Councils may then investigate and conduct hearings in confidence, and then perhaps order that at least temporarily no further cases be assigned to the judge whose conduct is in question. A council may censure a judge either privately or by a public pronouncement, or request his retirement. If a judge rejects a council’s advice, it could issue a statement to be considered by the House of Representatives that might initiate an impeachment proceeding."
Would it be any surprise that during years of a Democrat presidency, conservative Justices would find themselves faced with complaints about their "behavior"? Oh, and don't think I'm not suggesting the same will happen to progressive Justices during years of a Republican presidency. If the Supreme Court is not politicized enough for you already, just wait.
This is one can of worms, we should avoid at all costs, especially when age is the measurement of good behavior.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tea Party
It appears that Tulsa is putting on a properly organized Tea Party on April 15th. I'm excited to see individuals (especially conservatives) getting involved at the grassroots level, but is a "Tea Party" the proper event?
Most know that the original tea party was a strong statement against taxation without representation in England. Currently, the only people in the United States that can claim taxation without representation are the residents of the District of Columbia, which I've discussed before.
If we aren't upset about taxation without representation, what are we upset about? How does the symbolism of the Tea Party carry over to our current predicament?
There are some that say that say we are standing against tyranny. Really? We, the people, choose who works in Congress and the White House. It is no one's fault but our own that the federal government has become the powerful money printer it is today. If we are so upset about our current representation, then why haven't we done something to clean it up?
We don't need a revolt against the government, we need the informed involvement of the people in the government process. We need to elect representatives willing and able to stand up against the machine of politics. We need to educate everyone, including our current representation, about the choices that have been made and the direction each new choice takes our Nation.
As far as this "Tea Party" may be an opportunity to educate individuals, I will support it; and, I will attend, but I'm still not sure the imagery of revolution depicted by a tea party is proper.
Most know that the original tea party was a strong statement against taxation without representation in England. Currently, the only people in the United States that can claim taxation without representation are the residents of the District of Columbia, which I've discussed before.
If we aren't upset about taxation without representation, what are we upset about? How does the symbolism of the Tea Party carry over to our current predicament?
There are some that say that say we are standing against tyranny. Really? We, the people, choose who works in Congress and the White House. It is no one's fault but our own that the federal government has become the powerful money printer it is today. If we are so upset about our current representation, then why haven't we done something to clean it up?
We don't need a revolt against the government, we need the informed involvement of the people in the government process. We need to elect representatives willing and able to stand up against the machine of politics. We need to educate everyone, including our current representation, about the choices that have been made and the direction each new choice takes our Nation.
As far as this "Tea Party" may be an opportunity to educate individuals, I will support it; and, I will attend, but I'm still not sure the imagery of revolution depicted by a tea party is proper.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
"Grounded in Law, not Politics"
-----
Claims Eric Holder in defense of his opinion find the D.C. Voting Rights bill Constitutional.
The proponent's argument appears to be a "history provides a gloss" argument:
"Supporters note that courts have often treated the District as if it were a state, addressing, for example, questions of whether D.C. residents are subject to laws governing federal taxation, interstate commerce and the right to a jury trial." -Washington Post
I find this argument extremely weak. This is an argument that admits that this bill is unconstitutional, but because the District has been treated like a State in these circumstances, it is a State and the bill can not be found unconstitutional. Past treatment of the District as a State is not a strong argument, because it does not erase the fact that the district is a federal territory. Treating it as a State does not make it a State. This seems pretty clear cut.
If they do hold that the District is equal to a State in this arena, will the NRA be able to use Heller as holding applicable to States? That may be the only good that would come of it.
Claims Eric Holder in defense of his opinion find the D.C. Voting Rights bill Constitutional.
The proponent's argument appears to be a "history provides a gloss" argument:
"Supporters note that courts have often treated the District as if it were a state, addressing, for example, questions of whether D.C. residents are subject to laws governing federal taxation, interstate commerce and the right to a jury trial." -Washington Post
I find this argument extremely weak. This is an argument that admits that this bill is unconstitutional, but because the District has been treated like a State in these circumstances, it is a State and the bill can not be found unconstitutional. Past treatment of the District as a State is not a strong argument, because it does not erase the fact that the district is a federal territory. Treating it as a State does not make it a State. This seems pretty clear cut.
If they do hold that the District is equal to a State in this arena, will the NRA be able to use Heller as holding applicable to States? That may be the only good that would come of it.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Disgrace
-----
As a future lawyer, it is disheartening to see how the profession has become a mockery. Here and here are some recent examples from Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.
Did these attorney's start law school with the thought that could easily swindle new clients? Did these attorney's begin their law school education with great morals and ethics, only to worn down by the cynicism of law professors and older, more experienced attorneys? Is it the education, or the practice of this profession that corrupts so many? Or are the corrupt simply drawn to the money and power that can come with being an attorney?
Am I simply bringing disgrace to my name by adopting this profession as my own?
I am only one man, but I certainly hope and pray that I will be provided the opportunity and the God-given strength to bring to this profession the honor and respect it deserves.
As a future lawyer, it is disheartening to see how the profession has become a mockery. Here and here are some recent examples from Wall Street Journal's Law Blog.
Did these attorney's start law school with the thought that could easily swindle new clients? Did these attorney's begin their law school education with great morals and ethics, only to worn down by the cynicism of law professors and older, more experienced attorneys? Is it the education, or the practice of this profession that corrupts so many? Or are the corrupt simply drawn to the money and power that can come with being an attorney?
Am I simply bringing disgrace to my name by adopting this profession as my own?
I am only one man, but I certainly hope and pray that I will be provided the opportunity and the God-given strength to bring to this profession the honor and respect it deserves.
Friday, April 3, 2009
To Bow, or Not To Bow
-----
That is the question of the morning.
The attacks on Barak Obama's bow to the King of Saudi Arabia appears to be quite out of proportion. When I first heard the story, and before I saw the video, I was thinking he bent a knee - Now that would be a sign of submission.
I do agree that Barak Obama's bow was inappropriate as a slight bow of the head is enough to show respect, but I'm not going to say that Obama was plainly out of place to bow in greeting. It is not simply a sign of submission. In many cultures it is also a sign of respect. Whether or not President Obama should be showing such deferential respect to the King of Saudi Arabia is a completely separate issue.
As for those distinguishing this bow from his greeting of the Queen of England: The Queen of England is a symbolic monarch with little to no power in the game of politics, whereas the King of Saudi Arabia has real political power and is an equal to the President's international stature.
Plus, can you even imagine any American bowing to a monarch of England?
That is the question of the morning.
The attacks on Barak Obama's bow to the King of Saudi Arabia appears to be quite out of proportion. When I first heard the story, and before I saw the video, I was thinking he bent a knee - Now that would be a sign of submission.
I do agree that Barak Obama's bow was inappropriate as a slight bow of the head is enough to show respect, but I'm not going to say that Obama was plainly out of place to bow in greeting. It is not simply a sign of submission. In many cultures it is also a sign of respect. Whether or not President Obama should be showing such deferential respect to the King of Saudi Arabia is a completely separate issue.
As for those distinguishing this bow from his greeting of the Queen of England: The Queen of England is a symbolic monarch with little to no power in the game of politics, whereas the King of Saudi Arabia has real political power and is an equal to the President's international stature.
Plus, can you even imagine any American bowing to a monarch of England?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
A Broken Campaign Promise
-----
that the blind masses might notice?
Obama's failure to bring change we can believe in is only quite apparent to those who refused to drink the Obamaid. Is there some hope that the masses of blind followers will begin to wake up, now that Obama has directly affected their daily lives in a way that is financially harmful?
"I can make a firm pledge," [Obama] said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." -AP (emphasis added)
"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax." -AP (emphasis added)
Unfortunately for President Obama, a tax on cigarettes will disproportionately affect the "poor"; you know, the ones making less than $250,000.
"A Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers." -AP
However, the Obamaid is powerful stuff. It may take several more attacks before the masses wake up from their drunken stupor.
that the blind masses might notice?
Obama's failure to bring change we can believe in is only quite apparent to those who refused to drink the Obamaid. Is there some hope that the masses of blind followers will begin to wake up, now that Obama has directly affected their daily lives in a way that is financially harmful?
"I can make a firm pledge," [Obama] said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." -AP (emphasis added)
"No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax." -AP (emphasis added)
Unfortunately for President Obama, a tax on cigarettes will disproportionately affect the "poor"; you know, the ones making less than $250,000.
"A Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year fleshed out that conclusion. It found that 34 percent of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers, and the smoking rate consistently declined among people of higher income. Only 13 percent of people earning $90,000 or more were smokers." -AP
However, the Obamaid is powerful stuff. It may take several more attacks before the masses wake up from their drunken stupor.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Negotiations
-----
The most important aspect of negotiations is the balance of rights and power. For example, if one party has all of the legal rights to enforce their claim and they have all the money, the other party will find it in their best interest to settle the during negotiations.
"In the case of Chrysler, Obama said the company must have a partner to stay in business. He gave Chrysler 30 days to reach a merger agreement with Fiat, which has agreed to build fuel-efficient cars in the United States and repay U.S. taxpayers for new investments made before Fiat assumes majority ownership, he said." -npr
This shotgun merger is not helping Chrysler is any way. Fiat now has every reason to hold out for exactly what they want. President Obama has handed the Italian company all the power they need to eliminate any legal rights Chrysler may have had. Yay globalization!
My recommendation: Chrysler management needs to suck it up and make the hard decision is file a chapter 11 bankruptcy. It is understandable that they fear for their jobs, but if they have any sense of loyalty to the company itself, they should buck up and make the hard decisions.
I can only imagine how satisfied Ford must be with themselves for turning down the TARP money. It may have been the best decision they ever made.
The most important aspect of negotiations is the balance of rights and power. For example, if one party has all of the legal rights to enforce their claim and they have all the money, the other party will find it in their best interest to settle the during negotiations.
"In the case of Chrysler, Obama said the company must have a partner to stay in business. He gave Chrysler 30 days to reach a merger agreement with Fiat, which has agreed to build fuel-efficient cars in the United States and repay U.S. taxpayers for new investments made before Fiat assumes majority ownership, he said." -npr
This shotgun merger is not helping Chrysler is any way. Fiat now has every reason to hold out for exactly what they want. President Obama has handed the Italian company all the power they need to eliminate any legal rights Chrysler may have had. Yay globalization!
My recommendation: Chrysler management needs to suck it up and make the hard decision is file a chapter 11 bankruptcy. It is understandable that they fear for their jobs, but if they have any sense of loyalty to the company itself, they should buck up and make the hard decisions.
I can only imagine how satisfied Ford must be with themselves for turning down the TARP money. It may have been the best decision they ever made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)