Barbarians in Pakistan

No trial, just execution.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — In a gruesome public spectacle, Taliban-linked militants Friday executed two Afghan men accused of spying for the United States, slitting their throats and parading their severed heads before a cheering crowd

Snip:

The dual execution was brutal even by the fundamentalist code that prevails in the tribal areas, which lie largely beyond the jurisdiction of the Pakistani government. The killing of accused spies is not unusual, but their public parading is a rarity.

Government oil leases sit unused

The House of Representatives ( we still call them that even though they no longer represent the will of the people) actually took a rather bold move that would require companies (sitting on federal oil leases) to drill for oil or forego future oil leases.

I did not know that companies held these things. It would seem normal that if you buy a thing you would use it. But apparently, the oil companies are buying them and holding them.

I wonder if the ANWR leases and the Florida Coastal oil drilling is all about the lease and not about the drilling?

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected legislation that would have required energy companies to develop oil and natural gas supplies on federal leases they have held for years or be denied future drilling access on government acres.

The House of Representatives almost made it law. They had more than half but not the required two-thirds vote ( 223-195).

What did our really intelligent White House say?

“Congress should be allowing firms to find oil where it will produce the least expensive gasoline for the American driver,” the White House said.

AS IF, the role of Congress is to calculate the cheapest production costs for oil companies and award oil leases into areas that reason. Pshaw.

How much land is sitting idle waiting for oil companies to drill?

 Democrats said companies hold millions of undrilled acres in federal leases and the legislation would have pushed firms to develop those potential energy supplies.

Some Conservatives are sick people

Read it here. See it, too.

And none of the USC people will give up their tickets to me. I’d pay fair price. They — they know Ohio State’s gonna slaughter the Trojans. They know that they’re gonna slaughter the Trojans, and therefore they do not want me there at the bloodbath, since it’s probably the last football game we’ll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama. I — I would like to see Ohio State slaughter USC. This is what I’m living for right now.

Snip…

Last week, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said that the “best outcome” of an Obama presidency would be “more embassy bombings, more World Trade Center attacks.”

Sick, sick, sick…

Determining appropriate gun laws

The Volokh Conspiracy has found an article by Gary Barnett that posits how gun restrictions may be viewed in the same manner as the restrictions upon free speech. It’s summarized here. 

 Determining whether a regulation is narrowly tailored . . . is a difficult task. This is where the wisdom embedded within First Amendment law is quite useful. The Supreme Court . . . has already promulgated a feasible approach: if a government restriction results in a substantially adverse effect on the non-target group from effectively asserting their Second Amendment rights, then that restriction would be unreasonable. For example, a trigger lock requirement on a handgun, intended to combat the social harm of accidental firearm use, would most likely have a deleterious effect on an individual’s ability to protect herself effectively against an armed robber. The non-target group, those wanting to exercise their right of self defense, would, for all intents and purposes, be prohibited from effectively acting in self-defense, a constitutionally protected end. Such a requirement would not be narrowly tailored . . . and therefore would be unconstitutional. . . .

Bush takes North Korea off detention

After conquering Iraq and now forcing North Korea to divest itself of nuclear intentions, President Bush has crumbled two legs of the Axis of Evil stool.

I never understood the presidential lumping of North Korea with Iran and Iraq. It has been 50 years since NK invaded anyone. They have no influence in the world that I know of. Yet somehow NK became a problem to be solved.

In any event, there was a lot of hooplah about removing sanctions against North Korea this week because they sent a report to President Bush (who does not read) on NK nuclear activity. Now that they turned in their term paper, President Bush has taken them off of detention. School’s out for the summer in North Korea. Party on, dudes.     

Clothing makes the woman, too.

This is an interesting read.  

From the former Treasure of Baghdad ( now “It’s a New World”) comes an essay about wearing the black abayas and headscarves in a Muslim culture. The repression of women in a Muslim society reminds me of the sects in America that make women subservient to men. 

 I  returned back and saw the cloths are the main scale to distinguish between people and be against all human rights. Some meters of cotton are enough to judge on the women wearing it whether she is good or bad. That woman is good because she wrapped herself well. That one is on her way to be good. She still needs to cover her eyes and follow the path of purity. And regarding that one, God keeps away from her, walks and big parts of her chest are shown.
Cotton and silk… These are the scales of manners for us, as long as everything is happening inside and not shown to public.

Does this sound like a sex offender?

Can a voyeur be a sex offender? I am going to need help with this one. Read the definitions below and then tell me if they apply to this incident.

Here is one definition:  sex offender: n. generic term for all persons convicted of crimes involving sex, including rape, molestation, sexual harassment and pornography production or distribution. In most states convicted sex offenders are supposed to report to local police authorities, but many do not.

Here is another: A person convicted of a sexual offense, such as rape, sexual assault, or lewdness. Some states require sexual offenders to be registered for life. Sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex is an offense in certain states.

In Vermont they say this Slightly edited for brevity, not content)

 The following categories apply:

1.        A person who is convicted of any of the following offenses:

1. sexual assault as defined in 13 VSA ss3252;
2. aggravated sexual assault as defined in 13 VSA ss3253;
3. lewd and lascivious conduct as defined in 13 VSA ss 2601;
4. sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult as defined in section 1379 of 13 VSA.
5. an attempt to commit any offense listed in this subdivision.

2.        A person who is convicted of any of the following offenses against a victim who is a minor:

1. any offense listed in subdivision (1) above;
2. kidnapping as defined in 13 VSA ss2504(a)(1)(d);
3. lewd and lascivious conduct with a child as defined in 13 VSA ss2602;
4. white slave traffic as defined in 13 VSA ss 2635
5. sexual exploitation of children as defined in 13 VSA ss 2822-2828 chapter 64;
6. procurement or solicitation as defined in 13 VSA ss 2632(a)(6); or an attempt to commit any offense listed in this subdivision; except that for purposes of this subdivision, conduct which is criminal only because of the age of the victim shall not be considered a criminal offense if the perpetrator is under the age of 18.

So where does voyeurism come in? Should a voyeur be listed the rest of their life as a sex offender? It cheapens the word for goodness sake.

What do you think?

Supreme Court agrees with ReasonableCitizen

I never thought that would happen. But it did. Did you read my article? Today the Supreme Court threw out the comma! Hoorah! 

Ok, I was brief and did not pontificate as they did, but we both reached the same conclusion that the Comma was the damn problem.

Here is what the Supreme Court said:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Here is what I said:

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

That damn comma is the source of all of our problems. The one between ‘arms’ and ’shall’.  

What is that comma doing there? Why doesn’t this read …”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? (Without a comma)

You and I would understand that clearly: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Why? “Because a well regulated miltia is necessary to the security of a free state.”  Anyone with a pre-1970 high school English education knows this.

Fortunately, for all Americans, the US Supreme Court received its high school education before 1970. Thank the Good Lord for that!

Sure, the Supreme Court goes on for 157 pages with their opinion. That’s because the people who actually read Supreme Court decisions are educated beyond their intelligence. When this happens, one must carefully plant each logical step or else people get confused. Like the judges that voted against the decision. I would like to think they will now read the 157 pages of the winning side but instead they will likely go bowling.

The good guys score one this time but it was a narrow escape. 5-4. 

   

Telecom Immunity: Criminality cannot be government policy

The Bush Administration has performed criminal acts for  seven years now. From torture and illegal wiretaps to awarding no-bid contracts and faking information to undertake pre-emptive wars, the present Administration has not been ‘Presidential’ by any standards.

Criminality is not a policy option. Yet the Bush Administration has enshrined the concept into mainstream America.  Our government is officially criminal when it does not obey the laws of the land and the Constitution of the United States. When the government enables business involvement in criminal actions, it is a sign that honorable and responsible government has dissolved. And when the members of government seek to protect themselves and their cohorts from criminal prosecution with laws, they are mocking ‘we the people’ with the very law they have undermined for over seven years.

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer’s ‘negotiations’ with the telecoms seeks to immunize the telecoms from criminal actions and behaviors. This act by itself removes any doubt that corporations can commit illegality at the President’s request. It is amazing to know that rest of the Congress will support it. The truly shocking part is that the opposition party that holds a majority in Congress supports it. The pigs and the farmers are now living together and running the farm jointly. We should be afraid.

If Congress can spend more time talking about steroids than criminality and more time on brain dead Florida women than illegality, we have a corrupt government that is playing to the crowd instead of tending to the Nation’s business. It is time to hold them accountable for their actions. Impeachment is an option. Shunning is an option. Protesting is an option. What is your method for presenting Pelosi, Bush, and Cheney with your indignation? 

I call for all citizens to support Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Russ Feingold in their efforts to forestall this bill.

Here are the Senators that voted against cloture on this bill: (h/t Glenn Greenwald)

  The 15 Senators voting to block the bill: Biden (D-DE) – Boxer (D-CA) – Brown (D-OH) – Cantwell (D-WA) – Dodd (D-CT) – Durbin (D-IL) – Feingold (D-WI) – Harkin (D-IA) – Kerry (D-MA) – Lautenberg (D-NJ) – Leahy (D-VT) – Menendez (D-NJ) – Sanders (I-VT) – Schumer (D-NY) – Wyden (D-OR).

Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Byrd and McCain were all missing.

Will the US media ‘non-report’ both Dodd’s and Feingold’s speeches in Congress? Probably. But you can  bet that the Greenwald has it all. (Watch Feingold’s video to see a statesman in action.)

 Do something today about this.   

 

A Man with Integrity: Russ Feingold

To paraphrase others: He was against it before he was against it completely.

He is still against it.  And he is intending to filibuster it. Telecom Immunity should be filibustered.

Go, Feingold!

“This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name,” declared Feingold and Dodd. “We strongly urge our colleagues to reject this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation and oppose any efforts to consider this bill in its current form. We will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

“If the Senate does proceed to this legislation, our immediate response will be to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. We hope our colleagues will join us in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by opposing retroactive immunity and rejecting this so-called ‘compromise’ legislation.”

 I urge you to call your Senators and tell them to support Sen. Feingold and oppose Telecom Immunity.