Has Bush become an Unlawful Combatant?

I found this over at the Populist Party, which is "a political party that seeks solutions to our problems through the establishment of a Constitutional Democracy and strict adherence to the Bill of Rights. Your liberty is our goal; governmental form is simply the method to achieving it." While I tend to agree with most of the philosophies of this party, the commentary is sometimes a bit to defamatory for my own personal taste, but they are very passionate about their cause and a good read when you have a few minutes of time.

I honestly have no idea if what is alleged below has really happened in the way detailed or not, or is this just another political bigmouth, looking for attention to spout his opinion or to sell his book or who has an ax to grind? One of the problems with today's political environment and with this concept of Web 2.0 is that anyone can say anything and if said with enough conviction than it must be true. Hell, that is what I am doing now.

What I cannot figure out about this piece is how do we convince our legislators to investigate to determine if this is true or not? How do we get the mainstream media to look for todays Deep Throat, someone who is morally opposed to what is happening in the government, to look into the dark corners and confirm or deny rumors or suspicions like this, rather than trying to report shallow entertainment related news?

Without someone in authority, who has the courage to ask the tough questions, to guide the general public to what is real, and what is fluff or spin, we will never know. Now all that happens is the pundits just blow harder in an attempt to enrage their opponents and motivate their supporters. So ultimately the message and messenger becomes more and more extreme because that is what is getting the attention from the mainstream media. This is the preferred path today, rather than engaging in an actual discussion to determine what is best for the country and working together and cooperating to actually accomplish some good. This would certainly assist us in determining whether the administration is pilfering funds, and not allowing congress to investigate because the chief executive has signed non-binding statement.

I realize that Congress could spend its entire term investigating the improprieties of the executive branch, past administrations included, but maybe that will keep the role of the president limited to their constitutional responsibilities, rather than trying to be the decider against the wishes of the people, or the guy who sells evenings at the White House to top fundraisers.

It would not be shocking if this administration is attempting to pull similar shenanigans that the Reagan administration tried in Central America in the mid to late 1980's. It also seems like a bad idea to implement another plan, which is very similar to a plan that was a public relations disaster and might not have even achieved the desired gains in the first place. For as much as I bust upon the President and Vice-President, I cannot believe they are this stupid. But maybe that is exactly what is going on, who knows?

In my humble opinion it was worth printing the whole article by Dave Lindorff, let me know what you think about it and help me decide.

It was always clear that the $21 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds, most of which disappeared into Iraq (much of it was in the form of bales of $100 bills), didn't just vanish.

Given the number of veterans of the Iran-Contra scandal operating in the Bush White House and Pentagon--many of them convicted felons or unindicted co-conspirators in that baroque criminal scandal from the Reagan presidency--it seemed obvious that such easy cash would end up being funnelled into secret wars and secret military projects, as well as other nefarious activities.

Now we learn from ace investigative reporter Sy Hersh, speaking on CNN that Bush and his criminal crew have been using this illicit, stolen cash to fund covert attacks on Iranian targets, and that much of the money has been going--get this--to Sunni jihadists linked to Al-Qaeda--the very people we're fighting in Iraq!

This is surely taking that old saw, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," to the extreme! First we let Osama Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora, and now we're funding him and his allies, supposedly to attack our new enemy, Iran. It's enough to make you queasy. Osama must be laughing all the way to the bank. First we set him up, when we wanted him to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan. Then he turned on us and attacked us. And now we're back to supporting him again.

No wonder when Congress passed a bill creating an office of inspector general to check on all that vanishing Iraq cash, Bush furtively issued one of his "signing statements" saying that the new inspector would be barred from examining any funds that involved the Pentagon--effectively nullifying the law!

Now, it should be pointed out that under anti-terrorism legislation submitted by the administration and passed into law by the Congress, providing aid to Al-Qaeda or to organizations in any way linked to terrorism is a federal crime and classifies the perpetrator as an abettor of terrorism and even as an "unlawful combatant," subject to loss of citizenship rights, and suitable for rendition to Guantanamo or some other secret torture hell-hole.

I suppose the proper thing at this point would be for some patriotic prosecutor or some general to march into the White House and haul the president off to be waterboarded until he lays out all the details of his treasonous actions. (Sure he is the president and is immune from prosecution, but if he's an "unlawful combatant," none of that applies. The president has declared this to be so.)

For make no mistake: secretly providing money to terrorist organizations that are daily attacking Americans in Iraq, in order to ignite a new war against Iran, especially at a time that the US military is stretched beyond the limit in Iraq, is nothing short of treason. Even viewed in a more minimalist way, absconding with public funds and diverting them to illegal purposes is criminal fraud.

If Congress does not jump on this immediately, its members will have betrayed their oaths and the nation.

These are dangerous times. We are being led by bloodthirsty men drunk with power and the people who are supposed to be standing up to them are afraid to lift a finger.

The time is fast approaching when the only way America's beleaguered and abused troops will be able to defend themselves will be by laying down their arms--or perhaps turning them on their demented leaders.

If this is true then the mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves since they are clearly not doing the jobs. Being a member of the mainstream media means that you are responsible to the citizens of the country to investigate and report on wrong doing. You need to be a bulldog and not except a sound bite for an answer. You need to keep asking questions until you get relevant and valid answers. And you need to find additional sources who will provide information, because activities like the described above will most definitely leave a money trail. Someone will talk eventually, they always do, but only if the right questions are ask in the right manner at the right time. That means asking the same question multiple ways that cannot be misinterpreted or misconstrued by a lawyer. Too much time and money is spent on Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears and Posh Spice since that is what the masses want.

I am unable to ask those questions to people that matter beyond my elected officials, one of which is already known as a lying sack while another is off gallivanting around the country in an attempt to convince the country that he should be president. I am only able to sit here and question what is really happening, and how is this in my best interest as a citizen of this country? Even if it is not true, how is it possible that 21 billion dollars can just go missing? There are too many open ended questions here not to continue to pursue an answer. Even if we as a country don't like the answer. Even if some of the presidents supports agree with this tactic, the question of the constitutionality of these allegations remain unanswered and we the people deserve an answer. But hey, that is just me.

Help Make the Web Safer for Children

So over the weekend I got tagged by Carol at My View of It and by Romesho. For those who aren’t familiar with tagging, it is a way to spread an idea, hoping to gain attention for a particular cause or idea. In this case the cause is to Help Make the Web Safer for Children. It was begun by John Harmon and Mihaela Lica, and here is the message they would like to spread from Brave Humans:

Please require a password-protected login before allowing even free access to explicit adult content. We understand that selling porn is your business and
we respect your right to make a legal living. But understand our legitimate concerns and work with us. You already have the “warning adult content” on your websites. Yet kids, who are not legal customers of your product, ignore the warning. So to prevent them from having direct access to explicit images, texts and sounds, the simplest way is to have a password-protected login. No more “free tours” before a visitor supplies basic information.

To further quote Romesho

Just to make things clear: this is not a campaign against pornography as a whole, this is not about restricting legitimate free speech and legal commerce this is a common sense request to all the “adult site” webmasters: password-protected login on porn sites for all the explicit materials, no more “free clips”, “free tours”, “free pics” without login!The initiators of the project are Jon Harmon, founder of Force for Good, and Mihaela Lica of Pamil Visions. We are bloggers and PR officers.

Read our“Open Letter to Bloggers Around the World: Help Make the Web Safer for Children” to understand the motivation behind the project. How can you help?

If you are a blogger, post the common sense request to all the “adult site” webmasters on your site. You can either write your own article about it, or simply copy-paste our letter:

Please require a password-protected login before allowing even free access to explicit adult content. We understand that selling porn is your business and we respect your right to make a legal living. But understand our legitimate concerns and work with us. You already have the “warning adult content” on your websites. Yet kids, who are not legal customers of your product, ignore the warning. So to prevent them from having direct access to explicit images, texts and sounds, the simplest way is to have a password-protected login. No more “free tours” before a visitor supplies basic information.

When you are done, write a short email to bloggerpower@yahoo.com and supply the exact link to that entry. We will link to you from the BLOGGERS page. You don’t need to link to us if you don’t want to! But we need to make a list of all those entries at the end of this call to action. We need to do it to show it to the offline media how far the blogging community is ready to go to protect the interest of the children. We need to do it to show it to the politicians that the public opinion requests measures.If you are not a blogger, or you simply don’t want to write an entry about this, but you want to support the campaign, the COMMENTS page is the right place for you.

If you are an artist and you’d like to show support by creating a special artwork for this cause, we have a special page for you too: ARTWORK.You are welcome to place the official logo on your website to show your support as well.For any questions, contact us at bloggerpower@yahoo.com Thanks for your support!

Since I seem to be unable to formulate my own opinion on this subject and find myself in general agreement with Brian at Brave Humans so I will let him speak for me :

But here’s the thing: It won’t work. Every single webmaster on the planet could adhere to this noble cause, and almost nothing would change.

In an age in which pornography could only be accessed by purchasing it through strict filters and had to be transported physically I had ample access to pornography. And here’s the important thing to note: The filters didn’t impede my access in the slightest. I didn’t need to gain access by shoplifting or purchasing it with a fake ID because there was plenty of access just between friends. Fast forward to today, where megabyte files can be copied and transferred in seconds, and can be stored as a hidden folder on your ipod. Children today can file-share movies and music right under the nose of a film and music industry desperate to prevent piracy. Purveyors of adult content face the same challenge.

Despite my pessimism, I do think the cause is a good one. I just think it is a cause that deserves better than a simple meme or lobbying congress to make it into law. It merits serious discussion.

I agree this is a good cause, but I doubt it will work or have the intended effect. The reality is kids will be able to get porn regardless. They are very clever and able to find what they want whether it is illegal or not. Think drugs or alcohol or porn. The more difficult it becomes to obtain, the more children want to obtain it. Don't get me wrong I am certainly not advocating giving kids porn, especially not hard-core stuff. What I am saying is that it is my responsibility as a parent to teach both my children about sexuality and let them decide how and when they wish to view pornography. This way they are able to make informed and educated decisions, not decisions based upon ignorance or pure curiosity.

As a strict libertarian, I also don't think the government should mandate any additional laws at this point in time on this subject. Porn, like any other form of speech is protected under the 1st Amendment and to make it more difficult for law abiding adults to legally obtain pornography is a waste of time and would probably not pass through the courts anyway.

From my perspective, kiddie porn is illegal and should remain so. Anyone caught trafficking these pictures whether by print or Internet, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Beyond that adults or even children with parental supervision should be able to view whatever they deem appropriate. It is not my place or the governments place to regulate what my neighbor deems decent. But hey, that is just me.

Playing Possum

So my lovely and beautiful wife went away this past weekend for what has become our annual February weekend getaway without the kiddies. This year, as with most, we dumped the two rugrats and the dog off with the in-laws. The in-laws have been very great to us, considering they live about 2.5 miles away, so we use them some regularly to watch the kiddies but try not to take advantage of them.

They are also very good about not calling when we are away, unless there is a real emergency or problem. For example we went away a few years before ago, before our daughter was born, and left our son with them for the weekend. When we returned, we found the boy on their couch looking like something the cat had dragged in. As can happen with little kids, he had caught a pretty bad cold over the weekend with a bit of a fever, and aside from him being a bit miserable, there was not a lot we could have done from where we were, and there was absolutely no reason for us to come home early to take care of him. So we never knew he was under the weather until we got home.

Now, fast forward to this weekend. We are out to dinner about 1.5 hours after we left and the cell phone rings. Uh oh.

Ok, so when we were leaving the dog was in the back yard barking, and we did not pay attention since dogs bark all the time, we are off the clock, not our problem. We figured we would not worry about. Apparently Sasha continued to bark quite aggressively for at least an hour, and refused to come when my father in law called her name. Not terribly surprising, since she is not a well trained dog (my fault), but he finally goes outside to investigate what is going on. Sasha had cornered a possum in the yard, the possum is showing teeth and the dog is barking so neither is willing to give any ground in this standoff, both being rather unintelligent animals.

My father-in-law then goes and retrieves a broom in an effort to shoo the possum away and break up the stand-off. Sure enough the possum starts to run after sufficient provocation from the broom. Before my father-in-law can do anything, Sasha, who is part lab, part husky jumps, springs, pounces onto the Possum and apparently breaks it neck, since it is now laying dead in the yard. It is odd, since there is no blood, but you figure a 50 pound dog who has some hunting traits might know how to kill instinctively. They pick up the possum with a shovel, put him in a plastic bag, and put a piece of wood on the bag so other critters would not get at the carcass. Finally, the in-laws call animal control to have the possum picked up in the morning and tested for rabies, then call it a night. Ultimately no harm no foul. The dog appears to be fine, so my wife hangs up and we finish our dinner and continue on our weekend getaway.

So Saturday morning, we receive a call from my mother-in-law saying that the mystery continues, and please call her back, which we obviously do.

Well it seems the possum was, well, playing possum.

When they woke up and went outside to check on the situation, the possum was gone. There was no bite marks on the bag, apparently it pretended to be dead or wounded to get itself out of the situation, and when everyone finally left it alone, it simply moved the log off the bag and went on his merry way.

Needless to say we got a good laugh out of it for the rest of the weekend, and hopefully so did you.

Great One Liners

Energizer Bunny arrested - charged with battery.

A pessimist's blood type is always b-negative.

Practice safe eating - always use condiments.

A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.

Shotgun wedding: A case of wife or death.

I used to work in a blanket factory, but it folded.

A hangover is the wrath of grapes.

Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Without geometry, life is pointless.

Dijon vu - the same mustard as before.

When two egotists meet, it's an I for an I.

What's the definition of a will? (Come on, it's a dead giveaway!)

A backwards poet writes inverse.

In democracy your vote counts. In feudalism, your count votes.

If you don't pay your exorcist, you get repossessed

With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.

The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.

A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum Blownapart.

You feel stuck with your debt if you can't budge it.

He had a photographic memory that was never developed.

The short fortuneteller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.

Once you've seen one shopping center, you've seen a mall.

Those who jump off a Paris bridge are in Seine.

Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses.

Why the Chinese kick our ass in academics

University of Shanghai Class Photo:
















University of Colorado Class Photo:

Stabbing at Leia's 22nd Birthday

Warning, Language, Lightsabers and Hilarity, don't play at work

Chris Dodd running 4th in CT Presidential Polls

So in my attempt to prove that Senator Chris Dodd has no right throwing his hat into the 2008 presidential ring, I bring you the results of a Quinnipiac Poll from the Hartford Courtant showing Dodd in 4th place getting just 8% of the vote in his own state of Connecticut. He is running behind Hilary Clinton, Obama Barack and Al Gore. The ironic part of this result is that Al Gore is not even a declared candidate. How sad is it that you are running 4th in your own state, which re-elected you to the Senate in 2004 with 66% of the vote, this further shows that no in the Nutmeg state is taking you seriously. Time to for you to stop wasting time and money and get your ass back to Washington and continue representing my ass.

One positive thing that candidate Dodd has brought is the idea of "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007." From The Nation:

He is choosing to make his commitment to addressing the damage done by the Bush administration to basic civil liberties central to his campaign -- talking about the issue in his campaign swings through early primary and caucus states, featuring his commitment at the top of his campaign website and launching a separate http://www.restore-habeas.org/ site that highlights a video of the candidate discussing the roots of America's commitment to the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law, as well as a set of tools for involving citizens in the fight to restore the Constitution.

Dodd's proactive approach to Constitutional matters that often get short shrift in presidential contests -- particularly Democratic primary races -- distinguishes him from the field. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, has signed on as a co-sponsor. So has the chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who it should be noted has a better record as a defender of civil liberties than anyone in the Senate, including Dodd. But neither Clinton nor Obama has yet done so.

Every presidential candidate chooses his or her issues with an eye toward enhancing their electoral appeal, and Dodd's effort is no different. Dodd is well aware that grassroots Democratic activists have been especially, and appropriately, concerned by the Bush administration's assaults on the rule of law. But even if there is a measure of political calculation in his timing and his focus, it is meaningful that a senior senator, who will be a key participant in all the pre-primary debates, has chosen to put the defense of the Constitution at the top of the agenda.

No matter how he fares in the caucuses and primaries, Dodd's initiative is consequential. An essential element of any presidential campaign season involves the defining of issues, and the 2OO8 race offers an opportunity to remind Americans that they do not have to sacrifice liberty for security. As Dodd says, "I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists. But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It's clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country's Constitution, we're taking away our own moral compass, as well."

George Bush and his allies have made the Constitution an issue in the 2OO8 race. Chris Dodd deserves credit for recognizing that fact and addressing it legislatively and politically.

Kudos to Dodd for bringing this issue to the front of his campaign. I hope he is able to make enough noise on this subject that whoever winds up being the standard bearer next year, keeps this issue at the fore front of the campaign. This seems to be a solid issue which I whole-heartily support this initiative and the Democrats might be able to use this issue to beat their opponents into the ground next summer. But more than likely this issue will be dropped like a bad habit when Dodd finally comes to his senses when he wakes up and realizes he won't be the next POTUS.

Links of the Day - February 21, 2007

Rough week, not enough posts or links, followed up by a day or evening where I go crazy posting in order to catch up. Hope your week is going well

The Future of TV on the internet - Why your cable bill could be a think of the past soon

Our Libertarian President - No not the current sitting president!

Jet Blue says Flight Problems to hurt earnings - Really? That is not surprising

Why Hillary Can't Win - Great Analysis on the uphill battle Mrs. Clinton faces

Bush Hails UK Pullout (of Iraq) as Success - Say What????

Perry's staff discussed vaccine on day Merck donated to campaign

From the Houston Chronicle:

Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff met with key aides about the human papillomavirus vaccine the same day its manufacturer donated money to his campaign, documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

Chief of staff Deirdre Delisi's calendar shows she met with the governor's budget director and three members of his office for an "HPV Vaccine for Children Briefing" on Oct. 16.

That day, New Jersey-based Merck & Co.'s political action committee donated $5,000 to Perry, $2,500 to comptroller candidate Susan Combs and $2,000 to four state lawmakers.

The calendar and other documents obtained by the AP show Perry's office began meeting with Merck lobbyists about the vaccine as early as mid-August, months before social conservatives — who are now those most outraged by the order — helped re-elect him in November.

Perry spokesman Robert Black said the timing of the meeting and the donation was a coincidence. He said Delisi had asked budget director Mike Morrissey to update her on the cost of providing the newly FDA-approved HPV vaccine free to young women on Medicaid.

"There was no discussion of any kind of mandates," Black said.

The order the governor issued earlier this month directed the Texas Health and Human Services to adopt rules requiring the shots for girls entering sixth grade as of September 2008. The vaccine protects girls and women against the HPV strains that cause most cases of cervical cancer.

It seems like a pretty odd coincidence that these events just happened to transpire on the same day. Call me a cynic, but it just does not seem possible. The good news it seems is that democracy and balance of power, might actually work, even in Texas:

On Wednesday, the House public health committee voted 6-to-3 in favor of a bill that would override Perry's mandate by barring state officials from requiring the vaccine for school attendance. Ninety-one state representatives — or nearly two-thirds of the House — are co-sponsoring the bill, which now can be considered by the full House.

This also can open a potential can of worms for those around the govenor who seems to have ramrodded this mandate down the pipe:

The documents obtained Wednesday by The AP under Texas' open records law provide new detail about the relationship between the governor's office and Merck, which makes the only HPV vaccine on the market.

Critics had previously questioned Perry's ties to the company. Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff and Delisi's predecessor, lobbies for the drug company. And the governor accepted a total of $6,000 from Merck during his re-election campaign, including $1,000 in December 2005.

According to Delisi's calendar, she met with Toomey three times in the sixth months before the order was issued. One meeting happened in August, on the same day two other Perry staffers met with a different Merck lobbyist for a "Merck HPV Vaccine update." The other meetings came just after the November election and just before the legislative session began in January.

Black said he did not know what the two discussed. He said the pair have been friends for years and pointed out that Toomey has many clients other than Merck. He also insisted that the governor did not decide to issue the mandate until well after the election.

Toomey could not be immediately reached for comment.

Cathie Adams, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, said Black's explanation of the timing of the campaign contribution didn't wash.

"We have too many coincidences," she said. "I think that the voters of Texas would find that very hard to swallow."

It is hard to believe I am in agreement with the Texas conservatives, but I agree this deal stinks like yesterdays sushi. I can only hope that this come backs to bite these arrogant politcians who tried to leverage lobbyists money into the re-election plans and now have to answer to those citizens who elected them, asking them where their priorities are.

Merck to end Lobbying States for Gardasil

Here is an update to something I wrote about last month, regarding vaccinating 6th grade girls against HPV. Thanks Suzanne for sending this my way, it is appreciated. From Reuters

Drugmaker Merck & Co. said on Tuesday it would stop lobbying state legislatures to make it mandatory for schoolgirls to be inoculated with its new cervical cancer vaccine.

The company said it made the decision after re-evaluating its lobbying program, which has generated fierce debate with some religious organizations saying it could encourage promiscuity and parents groups questioning the need for such a widespread vaccination program.

Merck's Gardasil is the first and only vaccine against cervical cancer. Approved in 2006 for females aged 9 to 26, it works against strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases....

About 20 U.S. states had been considering mandating the vaccine, many for girls before they entered the sixth grade.

Well at least we know now that this really was an attempt at marketing of a pharmaceutical product gone incredibly wrong. I just find it astonishing that 20 states, or 40% of the country, is capable of falling for a marketing scam put on by alleged health care marketers and lobbyists and Texas has already made the Lone Star Mistake of mandating it already, by executive order (what is about Texas governors that make them think they can decide anything without a legislative branch?).

The only health care Merck was pushing for was their own corporate health. This looks like a case of over zealous marketing of a drug, which could be a great solution to a minor problem, but rather they pushed it like it would cure all cancer. Now Merck winds up with a ton of yolk on their face for trying to market their product too hard and to the wrong audience; getting the government to force it down our throats, rather that convincing doctors that this is the right solution for their patients ills.

Don't get me wrong, if I thought this was a legitimate cure for cancer, with no long term side effects, then I would be jumping for joy and agreeing that every single person in this country and across the globe should receive this vaccine. But when those facts are not clear, and the long term effects are unknown it is not a good idea to mandate it especially when we are agreeing to stick millions of our grade school aged daughters. But hey that is just me.

In spite of my libertarian leaning, I think the government needs to restrict the big pharmaceutical companies from marketing prescription drugs directly to the consumer. Unless you have a medical degree, it is impossible to determine what drug is right for your condition and has the temptation to push every person becoming a massive hypochondriac. In theory, your doctor has gone to medical school, has been an intern and resident and learned a little something about the different products out there, and can help you make a decision on what is right for you. Some say, that if the consumer becomes aware of a product than that could spark a conversation between the patient and doctor.

XM and Sirrius to join forces

I found this post over at Pardon My French regarding the proposed merger between the two satellite radio companies.

Now, if the FCC doesn't let them merge because of competition or what's best for the consumer, I think I'll vomit. Found on the Powell video was a screen shot from the LA Times that showed that there are 80 million FM/AM users and 14 million satellite radio owners. If that doesn't prove that there is competition than I don't know what will.

How can the FCC approve SBC to buy AT&T and then Bell South and stand behind that as good for the consumer? XM-Sirius doesn't have pricing power because, well AM/FM is free and access to those waves are free - this is the direct opposite of telecommunications and net neutrality. The RBOCs have pricing power which is what scares people on net neutrality; they also own the pipe (with cable companies) while radio does not.

According to the 1997 FCC report and order, the FCC wrote "in the Notice, we pointed out that satellite DARS will face competition from terrestrial radio services, CD players in automobiles and homes and audio services delivered as part of cable and satellite services and asked whether these delivery media, coupled with fewer than four DARS providers, could ensure an effectively competitive audio services market." I don't understand why 2 is competitive but 1 is not when you compete with the services the FCC wrote about way back in 1997.

As a big user of satellite, I think this is great for consumers and will simplify their choices and provide even more content. Unlike the telecommunications world, I don't see how this harms consumers....

Great point of comparing this deal and the Baby Bell's trying to rebuild the mothership 25 years after their birth.

I also agree that the merging of these two companies is both the right decision from the business perspective and for the consumer. I have honestly held off committing to one or the other because I was unsure of who would prevail. I did not want to own a beta tape at the end of the day.

The FCC seems to be a self serving, load of crap who only really seems interested in own self-perpetuation or pandering to the political party in control. You are correct that the true competition for satellite is FM radio, not other satellite stations. And if it was any other way, then they should allow Clear Channel, and CBS and other major station owners to purchase a satellite license, though I am guessing the terrestrial owners would find a way to screw it up. Once again it seems like an over-extension of the governments arm into the private sector and trying to act on the public's behalf.

Added 2/21/2007 8:45 PM - Here is the Liberty Papers take on this issue

2 CT Convictions

There were recently two court cases held here in Connecticut which have kind of struck me as either an absence of justice or misguided prosecutors. A case of two woman prosecuted for two different crimes with the same outcome, both guilty, neither of which feel right to me.

In the first case, a substitute teacher in Norwich CT was convicted of 4 counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child. She now faces up to 40 years in prison for this offense. So what is her crime? Was she convicted of improperly touching a child? No! Was she convicted of having an affair with a student? Using her power to coerce a child? No! She was the victim of an endless cycle of pornographic pop-up ads on an outdated school computer, with explicit instructions not to shut the computer off. 10 students were exposed to these pop ads, and they apparently had explicit content.

For any of you who have used the Internet for a while will probably remember those types of early porno ads, which kept cascading across your computer. They would not go away until you shut your computer off. My question was how effective was this tactic? I found them more annoying and would be less likely to actually patronize any site that was that intrusive into my web experience, but hey that was me and back then. So now, this poor woman, who seems to be a victim of an outdated computer, with outdated firewalls, (I hope that my son's school has a sufficient firewall, but honestly I have no idea) with incomplete instructions on what to do with the computer now faces more prison time than many hardened criminals who have been convicted of much more heinous crimes. It is a good thing that we are going to incarcerate this woman until she is 80, because obviously she is a porn queen who gets off showing obscene pop-up ads to minors. How ridiculous!!

The second issue is less crazy, but something about the case just fells wrong. A 33 year old, mother of 3 and former teacher was recently convicted of 2nd degree vehicular man slaughter, which means she was drunk, and faces 45 years in prison; 15 years for each person killed in the accident. She has a marijuana cigarette and a Percocet pill in the car, so it does not seem that this woman is a saint.

However, the passengers in the other car were riding in a convertible with the top down and not wearing their seat belts. This information was not allowed to be introduced into the trial, because anything that was done legal or illegal in another car hit by a drunk driver is inadmissible. But this just begs the question if they were belted in would they have been killed? I know I was not on the jury, I did not see any of the evidence, but something just does not feel right about this conviction and the possible punishment.

Don't get me wrong, if you drive drunk you deserve to go to jail. This woman is guilty and should go to jail, but how much should the other driver and passengers be negligent for their own death, considering they were violating CT law by not wearing their seat belts. The family of the victims said she deserves 45 years, that is obviously an emotional outburst. How much is reasonable? I don't know, but 45 years seems a bit excessive to me. Buy hey, that is just me.

What do you think?

Links of the Day - February 14, 2007

Happy Valentines Day - Work is a busy so not much time for postings, but here are some good reads:

The Future of Personal Computer by Mark Cuban

Holocaust Video from 60 Minutes, (thanks Barbara)

UK and US at bottom of 21 industrialized countries of failing our children

Today is a Great Day

This was orignially posted last year on 2/16/06, and still seems appropriate:

Today is a great day!!

Today is the first day of the new baseball season when Pitchers and Catchers report. It is almost like the you can feel the winter coming to an end (in spite of todays snowy forecast) and a warm breeze blowing in your face. It is the smell in the air, and the pop as a ball hits a mitt.

Pitchers and Catchers reporting has a magically sound to the ears. Like birds singing this morning in the back yard, since they too must know that spring is almost sprung. All teams start today with an equal chance, a clean record, last year removed from memory, and just like spring itself, they are ready to bloom anew.

Everything is fresh and clean, with no scent of scandal. No steroids, no contraction, no fire-sales, no more salary arbitration. The winter olympics are being played in Italy, and it doesn't matter. Pitchers and Catchers report today and everything is going to be alright again since baseball is now back.

Today is a great day!!

New House Bill to take away Internet Privacy

I am totally shocked and happy that World Golf has decided to run an editorial on privacy and why the government should stay the hell out of trying to legislate what

We all have our dirty little Internet secrets. For some, it's enjoying the blogs at Worldgolf.com and Travelgolf.com. For others, it's racier fare, like say, taking a look at the latest offering from CaddyChick.com. There's even some that enjoy the truly nasty and disturbing areas of the Internet, like Chris Baldwin's blog, for
example.

But seriously, we all have our secrets. Unless, of course, Texas lawmaker Lamar Smith gets his way. Because if Smith's "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act (SAFETY) of 2007" gets through, you'll never have any privacy on the Internet again.

The bill would require that ISPs record and maintain all Web activity of all users. That includes, well, everything. IM conversations, E-mails and Web surfing will all be recorded and maintained, lest the ISP face penalties of up to a year in prison.

You know, for the children.

Basically, if you don't mind having the government keep track of your every online movement ... forever, then this is just the bill for you. Because even if you're 100 percent sure in your heart of hearts that the Internet breeds pedophiliac vampires that will stop at nothing to get your child, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with keeping children safe. After all, the last major legislation passed to protect children was pushed through by Mark Foley, who believed the best thing he could do for a child was to try and sleep with him.

This has nothing to do with protecting children. It has nothing to do with stopping the terrorists. It's about taking your privacy. And oddly enough, no one makes the case better than Smith himself:

"This invasion of privacy can adversely affect Americans’ lives. These records can reveal details of our medical or financial life. The records can identify our occupation or physical location – a serious concern for undercover police officers and victims of
stalking or domestic violence," said Smith earlier this year when his "Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act" was signed into law. Last month.
If Smith believes phone privacy is so vital, why is it that Internet activity needs to be monitored?

Don't let it happen.

Read the full bill here.

How Quickly We Forget, How True

I read this article at the Populist Party and wanted to comment, since I am basically appalled at the comparison between Nazi Warsaw Ghetto policy to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Now, as a general rule I have been trying to avoid this particular subject here in this space, since I understand that this situation is a quagmire, and has been for centuries and milleniums.

I have given this conflict a fair amount of thought, and have not been able to formulate any solid conclusions on how to bring a peaceful resolution. I figure I could win the Nobel Peace Prize if I can formulate that equation. It seems that a lot of very smart people, presumably much smarter than I, have failed at this as well much more publicly, so I don't feel too bad. Anywho, I decided to write an email to Mr. Steve Osborn explaining my problem with his analogy. I figured I would share it here as well.

Here is how he begins after a good historical perspective of the creation of the Warsaw Ghetto:

I bring up this "ancient" history because, unfortunately, I see the same thing
going on in Israel today. In1947, the UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN
Partition Plan dividing the territory of Palestine into two states, with the
Jewish area having roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%.
Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to
avoid conflict over its status.

When the partition took place, Palestine was broken into two countries, Jordan (or Transjordan at the time) and Israel. The Palestinian people, those who had resided in Palestine during the post WW1 British protectorate, or within the Ottoman Empire prior to 1918, would be divided into these two new countries with a new nationality; Jordanians and Israelis. Palestinians would cease to exist in a perfect UN mandated world. Those who still consider themselves to be Palestinian today, are wrong, Palestine ceased to exist in 1947.

The UN mandate was set up to provide a sovereign nation for the Arab population, Jordan as well as a state for the Jewish population, Israel. The Arab population could have moved, think India/Pakistan at the same time (not a peaceful transition, but hey the world is not perfect) or if they chose not to move and remain in their respective new country, then they should have agreed to live within the laws set up in that new country. As an ethnic minority within the Jewish state of Israel they might have had an opportunity to press for peace, but that was something that those Arab Palestinians were never willing to do and are still not willing to do. Instead they made further demands that Israel be further partitioned to make room for yet another neighboring enemy, in spite of the original UN mandate.

If they admitted or acknowledged or recognized that Israel is a real country, neigh their country and that they could have voted in election to bring Arab politicians into the Knesset and could have brought a larger voice to the political process, then we would not be where we are now? Instead the Arabs living under Jewish rule chose to use violence and terrorism to achieve their means and continue to do so. Comparing this situation to the Warsaw Ghetto is simply not a similar or fair comparison. Jews were forced into the Ghetto from their homes, it is not like they lived there before 1940. The Jews were oppressed and unable to vote or have any say in what was happening around them. The Palestinians or the Israeli Arabs, have made a conscious choice not to participate in the Israeli government, not the other way around.

The fact is that Israel has needed to defend their homeland from insurgents and terrorists who have never accepted the UN mandate of 1947. This would be like Lincoln freeing the slaves in 1863, and having the former slaves refuse to accept that they are citizens of the United States demanding their own state and using terrorist tactics into at least the 1920's.

Don't get me wrong, I am in full support of your efforts to promote World Peace. I am all in favor of that initative. I would like nothing more than for the conflict in the Middle East and all conflict to be resolved peacefully without another life being wasted, without another suicide bomber blowing himself and city blocks to bits, without the hatred that has existed between man for centuries. However placing blame on citizens and governments of Israel who are simply trying to defend their home land, (which is exactly what we should be focusing on, rather than trying to push our views and ways onto those who don't want us there) and comparing them to the Nazi's is outrageous and wrong.

I agree that what is happening in the world and the way we are dealing with it, is not working. Greed and Terror are not part of my libertarian ideals. We are certainly not even following our own laws, let alone the laws of other sovereign countries. But rather trying to blame a government that has been like Switzerland, living in a bad neighborhood, but also worse, where everyone in your neighborhood hates you and is constantly trying to encroach on your property from the outside and the inside, how much can you really acheive by talking? Someone needs to talk to their neighbors and ask them question of how to resolve this issue without violence and terrorism. Once that occurs, I have to believe that Israel will be happy to come to the negotiating table, but until then something stronger is necessary.

What would you do if some group decided that they wanted your home and land and was willing to destroy your family and themselves in order to acheive your goal. At some point in time, perhaps as a last resort, but you must defend yourself, and that is what Israel is trying to do. For as much of a pacifist I believe myself to be, if my home or family were under attack, you better believe that I would do everything in my place to keep them safe, and if talking doesn't work then you have to resort more drastic means. But hey, maybe that is just me.

Privacy and Security Needs Proper Balance

From the Journal Times and the LA Times an excellent summation of my current frustration with the current administration's policy on this subject:

SLOWLY BUT surely, the National Security Agency's eavesdropping on Americans suspected of ties with foreign terrorists is being brought under the rule of law. But the Bush administration still owes not just Congress but the country some straight answers about the program.

Last week, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales agreed to provide Congress details of the program's new arrangement for being monitored by a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Gonzales' latest concession comes a few weeks after the administration abruptly reversed itself and said that it could, after all, conduct surveillance of international calls and e-mails under the court's supervision.

But the administration has still refused to spell out whether the court will approve individual requests for wiretapping authority — as it traditionally has done — or just sign off on more general requests. This is the crucial question.

A Justice Department official said last month that the new court orders are not "cookie-cutter" and were more specific than an "advisory opinion" on the overall program. That sounds encouraging, but the public deserves to know whether the administration is providing the court with probable cause about specific U.S. citizens.

Perhaps the answer to that question is in the documents Gonzales is turning over to Congress. If so, it should be shared with the public.

No one suggests that investigators should publicize the names or locations of people under suspicion or the technology being used to capture their communications. But it shouldn't be a state secret whether the NSA is getting case-by-case approval for surveillance of Americans or engaging in some less discriminate "data mining."

Two realities strengthen the hand of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and other lawmakers who want to bring oversight to the program: the new Democratic-controlled Congress and a lawsuit that reached a federal appeals court in Cincinnati last week. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who succeeded Specter as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is threatening new legislation if the documents suggest the administration hasn't achieved the "proper balance" between privacy and security. Last week, two of three judges on a panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reacted skeptically to the suggestion that a legal challenge to the original program was moot.

The attacks of 9/11 changed a lot of things in the United States — but not the meaning of the 4th Amendment or the need for congressional oversight of the executive branch. The administration can show its respect for these principles by being more forthcoming with the American people about its activities.

Abraham Lincoln and a Preemptive War

This comes from Andrew Sullivan and is a letter from Abraham Lincoln on why the President is not authorized to start a pre-emptive War, or invade another country without Congressional approve.

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — 'I see no probability of the British invading us;' but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood," - Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, Feb. 15, 1848.

(Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, had written him arguing that the president as commander-in-chief possessed the right to initiate a war against Mexico without specific Congressional authorization. Photograph by Gardner, Alexander, 1821-1882, taken five days before Lincoln was assassinated.)

Talk about a president who understands his role in the government as the founding fathers had inteneded. What a refreshing (if not 150 years too late) view from a sitting president.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

No better way to honor the man on his 189th birthday, the to print his most memorable and probably shortest, most poignant speeches:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

I found this at the Liberty Papers

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

Something to think about

Chris Dodd to Unite Korea if elected

According to the Daily Show, the Democratic National Committee Winter Meetings took place last weekend. They skewered most of the candidates pretty well. They finished off a clip from Chris Dodd who said "I am going to finish the job that Harry Truman started in 1948."

Does anyone have any idea what Dodd was talking about?

Am I the only one that does not think Jason Jones is funny? I want him to be funny, he is married to Samatha Bee who is funny, but almost every single piece that Jones does just does not strike me as funny. What do you think?

A-Rod Soft Shoe Begins Today

So I open up the Stamford Advocate this morning and see this article about how Alex Rodriguez is already side-stepping the issue of whether he will opt out of his record breaking $252 million contract at the end of this season. This is the same out clause that JD Drew and Scott Boras (Arod's agent too) used to get out of Los Angeles and hit pay dirt in Boston this winter. Regardless of whether you think that Arod stay in pinstripes was successful or not, why would he stay and quite frankly, who can blame him if he opts out.

Let me just state for the record, that I am sure he will opt-out of his contract at the end of this year. Why because he and Boras have already proved that they are all about the money and winning means practically nothing to them when he signed with Texas in 2000. I have already ranted about this particular Arod hypocrisy back in Dec 2003 here and here.

Lets also figure he has a better chance of signing a 5 year contract when he is 32 next year, rather than getting a 2-3 year contract of equal value when he is 35 at the end of the current contract. This is especially true after seeing the amount of money flung at mediocre players this past off-season.

Here are some various scenarios and how they will play out in his favor.

1) If he has a great year, and a great playoffs he will use that as leverage to show he still is one of the leagues top players and someone is going to sign and pay for that . I am guessing a 7 year deal.

2) If he has a poor year by his standards, and still above average compared to the rest of the league, and with a mediocre performance in the playoffs, he will parlay that into a new 5 year contract since he would still be considered a top, if not maybe elite player and get to prove that he just could not excel in New York.

Either way it is a win/win for him if he is just interested in money. I don't ever want to hear him say that he is all about winning again, if he opts out and signs with some perennially crappy team for a huge salary next year. His will then have zero credibility with me, not that he has much now anyways.

So back to the side-stepping soft shoe last night. I cannot really blame him for not speaking of the situation and only wanting to discussing the coming year. He was after all, appearing at a charity event, he has not scheduled to report to Spring Training for at least another week or two, and already the questioning about 2008 has begun. Arod responded with all the correct rote answers about focusing on this year, and how the team has improved, etc.

I know that ARod bashing is considered good sport here in the New York Metropolitan area, but come on already. Lets give this guy a chance to play this year, focus on his relationship with manager Joe Torre who batted him 8th in the playoffs last year. At least that is relative to the upcoming season. If the Yankees go in the tank, or if ARod goes into the tank, then we can begin discussing 2008, but right now everyone is still 0-0 and the focus should be on spring and rebirth, and wiping the slate clean. But hey, maybe that is just me.

Turner to Pay for Boston Stupidity and Hysteria

One thing is for sure, Turner and Aqua Teen Hunger Force certainly is getting a lot of publicity out of this guerilla marketing campaign, and now it seems they are paying a little more for it as well, in the form of fines to the fine folks up in Boston MA, for completely blowing this situation out of proportion. From E! Online:

Apparently, you can put a price on this kind of publicity.

Turner Broadcasting and Interference Inc., the ad agency responsible for placing 38
electronic promotions-turned-bomb scares around Boston last Wednesday, have agreed to pony up $2 million to make amends for a Lite-Brite-esque Aqua Teen Hunger Force publicity campaign that effectively shut down the city.

This is one time when I think that perpetrator of this PR stunt did nothing wrong, and should not have to pay for the stupidity and overreaction of one cities overzealous police, mayor and congressional representatives. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is spewing left and right about how he wants to go after those responsible, well according to August J. Pollack:

Menino is going on TV and insisting he's going to send a 27-year old artist to jail for not breaking any law, because his police department overreacted and wasted a million dollars feeding a media frenzy and terrorizing the population of his own city. That's a cowardly act of self-preservation, and were he not threatening the life of an innocent young man it would be laughable.

Let's get a few facts straight on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force sign fiasco:

1. Attorney General Martha Coakley needs to shut up and stop using the word "hoax." There was no hoax. Hoax implies Turner Networks and the ATHF people were trying to defraud or confuse people as to what they were doing. Hoax implies they were trying to make their signs look like bombs. They weren't. They made Lite-Brite signs of a cartoon character giving the finger.

2. It bears repeating again that Turner, and especially Berdovsky, did absolutely nothing illegal. The devices were not bombs. They did not look like bombs. They were all placed in public spaces and caused no obstruction to traffic or commerce. At most, Berdovsky is guilty of littering or illegal flyering.

3. The "devices" were placed in ten cities, and have been there for over two weeks. No other city managed to freak out and commit an entire platoon of police officers to scaring their own city claiming they might be bombs. No other mayor agreed to talk to Fox News with any statement beyond "no comment" when spending the day asking if this was a "terrorist dry run."

4. There is nothing, not a single thing, remotely suggesting that Turner or the guerrilla marketing firm they hired intended to cause a public disturbance. Many have claimed the signs were "like saying 'fire' in a crowded theater." Wrong. This was like taping a picture of a fire to the wall of a theater and someone freaked out and called the fire department.

It should be noted that these same devices were placed in 14 other cities weeks before the Boston incident and no one even made a peep. If this is further evidence that this is really much ado about nothing, then I don't know what is. This either means the rest of the country is a prime target for Al-Queda since we were caught with our pants down, or we (Outside of Beantown) have enough common sense to say this does not look like anything suspect and therefore we should not call in the bomb squad over nothing. It so clearly looks like a cartoon image, and I seriously doubt someone looking to do harm, would take the time to design a pretty interface. But hey. maybe that is just me.

And the great thing is, for just $1000, you too can own an authentic Mooninite Aqua Teen Hunger Force Neon Sign from Ebay

Dave Barry's Super Bowl Security

Dave Barry's Super Bowl Security - Super Funny, here is an excerpt

• WHEN TO ARRIVE: All persons attending the game MUST arrive at the stadium no later than 7:45 a.m. yesterday. There will be NO EXCEPTIONS. I am talking to you, Prince.

• PERSONAL BELONGINGS: Fans will not be allowed to take anything into the stadium except medically required organs. If you need, for example, both kidneys, you will be required to produce a note from your doctor, as well as your actual doctor.

• TAILGATING: There will be no tailgating. This is to thwart the terrorists, who are believed to have been planning a tailgate-based attack (code name ''Death Hibachi'') involving the detonation of a nuclear bratwurst capable of leveling South Florida, if South Florida was not already so level to begin with.

• TALKING: There will be no talking.

• PERMITTED CHEERS: The National Football League, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the CIA and Vice President Cheney, has approved the following three cheers for use during the game: (1) ''You suck, ref!'' (2) ''Come on, (Name of Team)!'' (3) ``You suck, Prince!''

• AIR TRAFFIC: Any aircraft attempting to fly into or out of South Florida on Sunday will be shot down by the U.S. Air Force. Asked if this would apply to commercial flights, security officials replied, ``Hey, this is the Super Bowl.''

Links of the Day - February 6, 2007

Office Surfer - by the Kung Fu Monkeys, a good old fun surf song by a few friends

Libby get Amnesia - This seems like the Reagan defense "I don't remember"

Leahy Tries Again With Data Privacy Bill - He might not be able to keep his trap shut, but he is certainly doing what he can to protect my privacy and for that I salute him

Court Rules GPS tracking isn't unlawful - This is very concerning and a VERY bad precedent

Libertarians getting noticed by the parties and here - Seems like my ideologies are being recognized by both parties, it is good to be noticed, now how are they going to cater to our demands to limit government, restrain of federal power and protection of my civil liberties?

Defending Dr. Sloan

I am not sure why I have nothing else on my mind right now besides television, but I guess we are in that lull for sports after the Super Bowl and before pitchers and catchers report next week, nothing new or exciting is happening politically and we are in a sweeps month, so maybe that is it. Either way here goes.

Something in last week's episode of Grey's Anatomy has been bothering me and I cannot get it out of my mind. So I figured I would just get it off my chest now. It was probably hearing that song How to Save a Life by the Fray, this morning at the gym or just general management principles that I deal with in my every day professional life, but I think Mark "McSteamy" Sloan made the correct call not to enter the OR last week, with the posinious blood patient.

Just to refresh your memory and to quote TV Squad

Speaking of Sloan... what a weasel. Every attending -- and possible Chief candidate -- does their part to deal with Toxic Blood Girl and almost get poisoned as a result. Heck, Derek and Burke even donned space suits and did abdominal surgery -- not either of their specialties -- to keep the woman alive, and Addison and all the interns took their turns in there without protection. Sloan? The emeffer begs off. What are the odds that he's going to become Chief, by the way? Maybe Sloan and Dwight Schrute can get together and compare ass-kissing notes.

Where I do think he looked selfish by bagging on entering the ER, a great move to make him look complete arogant and cocky by the writers, from a management perspective he made the right call. Anyone in managment, or who is responsible for other people, should know that you cannot jeopordize your entire staff for your project or initiative. This is the same principle as not putting all your eggs in one basket. I realize this is fiction, but lets suspend reality and presume this is a real hospital, based upon past experience of watching this show, the possibility of another train wreck is pretty high, and having one uneffected surgeon is a pretty astute observation by McSteamy.

Also, to continue this train of thought (notice any themes) had this been a real hospital, I am sure that Seattle Grace would have more than 5 attending surgeons on staff, or on call at the time of this crisis. So lets assume for a moment that this hospital does have only have these doctors available, then Sloan absolutely made the the correct call, because he is right, he is the only remaining senior attending who has not been effected by the toxins and someone needs to be level headed and able to take control of this or the next situation.

Was it selfish, probably. Was it the right decision, absolutely. But hey, that is just me

Excellent Heroes Tonight

I won't give too much information away for those readers who TiVo the show, but tonight's episode of Heroes Kicked Ass. Here are some of the highlights:

- Thankfully no whining or crying from Suresh, he was not in this episode
- Bummer for Niki, but Ali Larter is hot either way, it sucks to be her shrink
- Casting George "Sulu" Takei as Hiro's father was brilliant
- Thankfully no whining or crying from Matt, he was not in the episode
- Great job by Hiro, saving the family business
- Having Sulu get into a car with the license plate of NCC 1701 was even more brilliant
- The mother and daughter reunion, should have been more dramatic, less anti-climatic
- Lots of whining and crying from Peter, though the revelation at the end has to be significant
- Finding out who Claire's real father was priceless

Does anyone have any ideas on why Hiro's power seems to have diminished or gone away? No other hero (good or bad) seems to have any problem with their power, except when they are near the Haitian. Anyone got any ideas? I doubt it has anything to do with this sword, though he does look like a bad ass with the slick hair and sword drawn.

How many times can Horn Rim Guy (HRG) have the Haitian wipe his wife's memory clean? The memory cleaning does seem to be having some long term effect on Mrs. Bennett, remains to be seen if the Haitian only has a limited number of times that he can clean the slate. Now I believe that might be some value to be able to clear my wife's memory once in a while, it is not something I would necessarily want to do all the time, basically because if she ever found out what I was doing, she would be pissed.

I like the invisible man, but I had suspicions off him not being all he seemed, it would have been too easy. His smarmy British attitude is refreshing, but obviously a bit deceptive. Good to know he might actually help Peter, but not in the way we expected.

Where is radioactive man? And is he the Caveman in the Geico ads? Also is the weird German guy in white in the VW ads, Steve Buscemi's kidnapping partner from Fargo?

Links of the Day - February 5, 2007

It is pretty sad that nothing in the news has inspired me recently, too much damn work.

Maine Revolting against Real - ID Act of 2005 and New Mexico- This was stupid law in the first place

How to win as a Republican in 2008 - I would vote for a candidate who takes these positions

Apple and the Beatles Come Together and make nice - Talking bout a revolution, 8 Days a week

Senate Republicans Block Iraq Resolution - Seems like Politics as Usual here

"Constitution Just a G-ddamned Piece of Paper"

Carol's Place for Peace, pointed me to this piece from Capitol Hill Blue by Doug Thompson.

If any of this actually occurred, then it is both shocking and disgusting, and actually shows the contempt that this tyranical wanne be has for our system of government which has done a pretty good job of paving the way for more than 200 years. Also if this did actually occur and some of the sources were verifyable, then why did the mainstream media not pick up on this atrocity?

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution. "

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!

"I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper.

"The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

The only thing outdated here Mr. Gonzalez your interpretation of the proceeding legal matters. How in the world is this man considered to be our country's top lawyer and is supposed to represent and defend the constitution, not actually rip it apart as an outdated document that only applies piece meal to whateve cause is convinient based upon his political agenda. Not a great day for our democratic republic indeed.

Joe Biden is a dud and why fringe candidates run

Sorry I have been busy the past few days, and unable to rant much. Hopefully I can make some time moving forward.

This started off as a response to Tisha's comment about Delaware Senator Joe Biden being a dud, and it started to run into a little more, so here goes:

Biden seems to have a perpetual case of athletes foot. This man is incapable of keeping his mouth shut. On his first day as a candidate, in an off-handed way he tried to compliment Obama Barack and wound up insulting any fringe or mainstream African-American who has previously run for president in the past. I am shocked that this guy didn't just say "Gosh, I screwed this up in 1988, and you would have thought I would know how to pay a political compliment, but since I can't I am both announcing my interest in obtaining the democratic nomination for president, while also withdrawling from the race, since I am clearly incapable of controlling my own mouth. So thank you for coming" How interesting would that press conference have been?

Anywho, at 64 years old this man is so out of touch with the main stream, and so out of touch with the general voting population that I believe he has little or no chance of actually winning the nomination. So what exactly is hoping to do? Lets face the fact that Delaware, is a fine state where we have vacationed, where my cousins live and is better than New Jersey but it has only 3 electoral college votes. Too few to make any real difference in a tight race. Does he actually think that he can make a difference and win? Or is he just another political meglomaniac who's mother told him he can be anything he wants to be and now feels the needs to waste money by trying to get his message out there.

I just don't seem to understand why so many of these fringe candidates are even in the primary race to begin with. Christopher Dodd, The Senior democratic Senator from Connecticut jumped into the fray a few weeks ago. I think Dodd has done a fine job here in Connecticut, but he is poorly known outside of his own state, and not know outside of the northeast. It was reported over the weekend that Dodd has raised, wait for it....a whopping $4.9 Million dollars. That is a (joke) drop in the bucket of what is expected to cost the eventual 2008 winner closer to $100 Million.

Do these fringe candidates actually believe they have a chance to win in 2008? Are they looking to gain some influence at the convention? Do they want what could be the easiest job in the country, the vice-president? I don't understand. I still believe that the current front-runners, won't be leading the pack this time next year when we actually (or at least if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire) start voting. The ultimate candidate from one or both parties probably is sitting in the back row, watching the early birds begin to beat the living snot out of each other, taking notes and waiting for the right time to actually join the fray.

But hey, maybe it is just me.