Stop Frame

I tried to read Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (pdf here ). Needless to say, I got a terrible headache. The more complicated the judicial reasoning -- the more twists and turns a Court makes to support its ruling -- the more likely it is that the Court is going astray. In Plessy the Court went on and on about equal protection, rights, policies, etc., and then declared that separate was, indeed, equal. That decision stood for over 50 years, until Brown v. Board of Education said, "Er, no, no it isn't." By comparison (not just to Plessy but to ther lousy Court rulings), Brown is inspirational in its brevity. I thought of that as I read the majority's reasoning that a Federal statute lawfully enacted by Congress didn't mean what it said, it actually meant something else, which conveniently allowed the Court to proceed. US Supreme Court jurisdiction is subject to regulation by the Congress (see US Constitution, Article III). Ex Parte McCardle is the classic case, and the fi...

I mean, haven't you ever wondered? If Roe is "settled" law, if a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is clear and given in the US Constitution, why does it remain the #1 hot button political issue? Because Roe is not settled law. Because such a right doesn't exist in the US Constitution. Oh, and because abortion supporters are chickenshits. Oh, and anti-abortion members of Congress are also chickenshits. Am I being blunt? Roe is not settled law because no judicial decision ever is. During recent Senate hearings, we kept hearing about "super precedents". There is no such thing. Stare decisis , the rule of precedents in our judicial system, is a guideline and nothing more. Any past decision is subject to challenge if either the underlying facts or law have changed. For example, in Roe , one of the underlying facts had to do with viability, when a fetus could survive outside the mother's womb. Anyone keeping an eye on the medical science kno...

Now this is funny.

Your Linguistic Profile: 75% General American English 10% Dixie 5% Upper Midwestern 5% Yankee 0% Midwestern What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

I may be late to the party, but still...

I give up, I surrender. Once upon a time I might have had the energy or inclination to put up with all of this, but not now and not today. Maybe if I strike it rich and can spend a week or so tinkering with an operating system (ah, the days of old...sans riches, that is) I'll give it another go. But for now... Bye bye, Ubuntu . Bye bye, Linux . Obviously I'm more in love with the concept of Linux (in all its assorted flavors) than with the reality of living with Linux (in any of its assorted flavors). I frankly loved working with the WindowMaker interface (window manager, in technical terms), but that's all. What brings me to this conclusion was Ubuntu Linux Dapper Drake, v6. I had previously tried Breezy Badger (v5) and was impressed but not won over. But with Dapper, Beta 2, I really got excited. Somewhere along the line I tried a live CD and everything just worked. Cool. I used Partition Magic to open up some room on my laptop and installed the beta. Everything just wor...

Find your own pose !

Truly, I'll finish this and be done with The Dixie Chicks. This, however, was all just too juicy to pass up. For the London Telegraph, The Chicks gave an interview . If they have expressed similar things in the US media, I haven't seen it. Again, we see the massive expression of their, er, bravery.... The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison. So, what The Chicks did had nothing to do with promoting their career. So all those appearances for Rolling Stone , Entertainment Weekly , et al, had nothing to do with promoting their career. I get it. They speak with courage, others exploit. Sure. Maybe they are familiar with the phrase: Good for the goose, good for the gander. Their accusation flies both ways. If we are to take their cri...

Quote: If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America.... DNC Chair Howard Dean on NBC's 'TODAY', 13 June 2006. It is instructive to note: 1) The bit about being indicted for perjury comes from an unsupported story that TruthOut published a month ago. Their “report” was that the special prosecutor was about to indict Rove for perjury and lying to investigators (essentially the same charges already filed against Scooter Libby). This bit, “[i]f Karl Rove had been indicted” is beyond sheer speculation and is utterly meaningless. Rove wasn't indicted so speculating about wh...

Amazing. We’re still in a brouhaha about the Dixie Chicks. Though most of the public comments have been made by their lead singer, Natalie Maines, she keeps being represented as lead spokescritter for The Chicks, so I’ll just keep referring to them as The Chicks. Thus.... They can say what they want, but they are not immune from criticism. They can sing what they want, but some of the lyrics of their new song just sound like whiny little bitch monkey talk. They are not “brave” and I feel like gagging any time I see the words “Dixie Chicks” and “brave” used in the same sentence, where “brave” refers to “Dixie Chicks”. Barf! See? Over on MSNBC I read an article by some guy about “red state liberals” and how if you’re offended by The Chicks you just need to get over it because it’s what he and his have had to put up with for years, well six years. At least. Oh puh-leez! What’s most offensive about The Chicks is precisely what’s wrong with this article. It’s this never-ending pity p...