Banned In China
Friday, March 21, 2008
Yet More Election Stuff
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Polls and Idiots
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Paragraphs
Arrraghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Speech
stupid client tricks
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Preachers
Monday, March 17, 2008
God Damn Monday
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Banks and getting fucked again
Saturday, March 15, 2008
What the hell are politics after all
Iraq again
Thursday, March 13, 2008
More Client Fun
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Governors and Senators
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Clients are I guess necessary
On the other hand the guy who was charged with assaulting a police officer because he tased the cop and himself should be entertaining.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Happy New Year
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Them Brown People Down South
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Social Security or How the Democrats Will Screw Us Again
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Global Warming or Climate Change Attitudes if you will
Friday, November 9, 2007
Just too frustrated
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Further thoughts on cowardly congressmen
That defense comes mighty close to the old German defense: "I was just following orders." I mean lets face it they were just following the president's orders right?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Cowards in Power
I received your response to my request that you vote against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
Quite frankly I am chilled by your response. When you write: "I understand your concerns regarding rewarding companies who may have acted unlawfully, but I also understand the need to protect companies who acted out of compliance with what they believed to be the best interests of our national security" you seem to ignore the great truth upon which our country is based. That truth would be that the rule of law, not of men control.
The president and the companies could have come to the congress and asked that the law be changed. They could have gone to the FISA court and ask for warrants (not a single request for warrants has ever been denied by those courts, if the reports I read are accurate). Instead they chose to break the law because they thought that they knew better. But it goes even farther then that. They thought they could do what they wanted and they did not have to ask permission.
What retroactive immunity would do is not even permit these matters to be investigated and litigated by individuals. We (you and I) are not permitted to know specifically all they did. By granting retroactive immunity you and the rest of congress would effectively close the door on any real investigation of what currently appears to be years of law breaking by this administration and these massive companies. I know that congress could, if it chose investigate, but right now that doesn't appear likely.
I am incredibly disappointed in you and your attitude towards the laws of this County. Those laws are what made our Country great and I see the Bush administration and its allies and enablers in congress breaking them down. I used to wonder how the Roman republic degenerated into the empire of the Caesars. I no longer wonder.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Wars of Peace
SCHIP
Friday, October 5, 2007
Iraq
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Still running day late and a dollar short
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Just Not Enough Time
I am fully confident that he will either not respond, or whine that it is different IOKIFYAAR. It is amazing that the Democrats seem more than willing to cut their most impassioned supporters off at the knees while getting nothing in return. I guess I could sort of grudgingly understand a politician who attacked their supporters in order to gain a larger base of support. Also, I might have a certain admiration for a politician who attacked his base because he thought that his base was simply wrong on the facts. But in the latter case I would hope that politician would step out and be honest.
But in the case of the House and Senate votes to condemn moveon.org that is simply not the case. These votes simply attack a group because they strongly call into question a general's statements. Moveon.org points out that the guy has been consistently wrong and has consistently been wrong in the same way. That is he has always been wrong in a way that benefits Chaney/Bush. Also, that his timing is more than a little suspect.
The votes, while they do not violate the First Amendment certainly show that this democratic congress has little respect for the ideal of a healthy debate on political issues. They keep throwing up (I think that would be the correct phrase) WWII, but of course that analogy simply falls away. There we were in a truly existential conflict (I've desperately wanted to use that phrase for a long time), here we are in a neo-colonial conflict and we are the neo-colonialists. We are in no danger of being over whelmed by radical Muslims. Anyone who really thinks so is simply nuts.
I simply cannot understand where we are in our country at this point. Since the end of WWII we don't seem to be able to argue the real merits of any foreign conflict, those who oppose these foreign entanglements have always been attacked as being unpatriotic and as being actively in league with those are government chooses to fight. As a poster at another web site said wishing for the destruction of our country.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Defination
Oops
There all better now.
Interesting (to me) stuff
In the last couple of days I had an interesting experience. I went to a site that had the Giuliani ad opposing the moveon ad attacking Petraus.
I pointed out that their ad was fact free and that Petraus has in fact been saying the same thing about Iraq for several years and been wrong. I was slammed because I provided no links to my claim that Petraus has been wrong. Fair enough. Although no one responded to the fact free part of my email.
I went back and found Petraus' op ed from 2004 in the Washington Post and posted a link to that. Unfortunately, the link wasn't working. That is you couldn't just click on it and it would take you there. I didn't realize that when I posted. However, you could copy it and post it in the browser and it would take you there.
I came back to the thread and they were all high fiving themselves that I had merely directed them to a newspaper article, and the link didn't work. So I tried copying it and pasting it and what do you know, there we were at the (unfortunately for him) enduring words of Petraus from 2004.
Are they just that stupid do you suppose, that they can't copy and post? I don't know. I might have made fun of my not posting a live link, but I would certainly have tried to go back to that location to make sure that factually the article was or wasn't there. Also, before I made fun of someone for citing to an article I would have been damn sure that I knew for sure what I was making fun of. And that I was right.
It was a true "fact free zone." They were so sure they were right (Right?) that they didn't need to check. Of course, their demand for a link was simply BS because they knew or should have known what Petraus had said in the past before they wrote about it. How scary.
Of course the other part of that is that no one has ever responded to my allegation that the Giuliani ad was fact free. In fact, as a sort of aside, the Giuliani ad was kind of creepy. It was saying (as I translate it) that this here guy is our "man on horseback." Essentially, it is saying that we must not criticise a general because he is a general and for no other reason.
That used to be called fascism.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
The last
A recent client is making me crazy. I do not have a problem with people committing crimes, nor do I have a problem with people who commit stupid crimes (after all if there weren't stupid criminals, who would stupid cops arrest, but I digress).
At any rate my client entered a plea to a reduced charge. She was then sentenced to a lock down rehab facility. The reason for the rehab, was that the "crime" (I put crime in quotes because I'm not sure that she was really guilty. However, the deal was so good, what could have happened to her if she went to trial and lost, so bad. That by comparison the deal was quite sweet.)
At any rate she is in a rehab facility for about a month. This is a place where she can wear her own clothes and after a short time have weekend home visits. You need to know that when she was charged, she had no home of her own, her four children were all living with other people, and she had no job. Further, although 30 she had never finished high school. Finally, she reported to me that she was doing a case of beer a day and smoking a lot of dope.
She gets to the rehab and immediately phones me and tells me that she must get out. Both her counselor and I tell her that there is only one other place she can go, that is prison. After a long discussion she seems to get the idea.
A month later I pick up the paper and read that she had climbed the fence and run away. She turned herself in probably less than 24 hours later. We appeared in court on a bond hearing yesterday and she requested that she get out on house arrest. Needless to say the judge was not amused and refused.
She will in all probability now go to prison, in addition there will probably be a new charge of felony escape filed against her and she will probably be convicted of that. I can kind of understand why she escaped, and almost understand why she turned herself in. What I cannot understand is why she seems to think that this entire episode will not nearly automatically result in her going to jail and why she thinks that she will get a different non lock down sentence.