On June 25, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two 5-4 decisions on free speech with each contradicting the other. One expanded it while the other restricted it. And the same five justices were in the majority both times.
Tuesday the high court reversed a 2003 ruling and reduced some of the advertising restrictions of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that the restrictions on the TV advertisements that air weeks before an election amounts to censorship unless they urge a vote either for or against a particular candidate.
This was a good decision. After all, the primary purpose of the First Amendment is to protect political speech. It is the other ruling that troubles me.
The second ruling restricted the free speech rights of a high school student. The court said school principals could punish students who hold up signs that favor the use of illegal drugs.
It seems that the student, Joseph Frederick held up a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. The principal, Deborah Morse suspended him even though he was not on school property. He then sued her for violating his First Amendment rights.
He won in a federal appeals court, but lost in the Supreme Court. Some of the justices said they would have voted differently had the banner carried a political or social message.
Well, isn’t that special. The high court is splitting hairs. With these rulings it has become more difficult to know where the line is drawn. Where free speech starts and where it ends.
Now we have to attack the rest of those damn amendments.
The California Curmudgeon
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
THE MELTING POT OF INDIA
The melting pot of India is not the same as the melting pot of America. India’s has to do with the melting of India’s coins. Indian coins are being smuggled into neighboring Bangladesh by the millions where they are melted down and turned into razor blades. Officials say that it is creating a huge shortage of coins in many parts of India.
A one rupee coin can be melted down and turned into five to seven razor blades. This makes each melted rupee coin worth 35 rupees.
To deal with the coin shortage, some tea gardens in the north-eastern state of Assam have resorted to issuing cardboard coin-markers to their workers. These markers are the same size as the real coins and they have the denomination marked on them. They can be used for buying and selling within the gardens.
Even though this practice is illegal, the managers of the gardens say they have to use the markers because there are hardly any Indian coins left in circulation in the area.
The paramilitary Border Security Force (BSF) has been deployed on the India-Bangladesh border to check the smuggling.
"We are aware of our coins going across the border in some quantities and we will do our best to stop it," senior BSF official SK Datta told the BBC.
The mints have even tried to help by scaling down the metal content of the coins, but that has not stopped the shortages. And the Reserve Bank of India, India’s central bank has distributed nearly six million rupees to help overcome the shortage, but they are just gobbled up by the smugglers with a tip of the hat to the bank.
Beggars who are lucky enough to garner some of the coins are quite pleased because they can sell them to shopkeepers for a bit of a profit.
I just read where copper in the U.S. is selling for a little over $3 a pound. I wonder how many pennies it takes to make a pound.
The California Curmudgeon
A one rupee coin can be melted down and turned into five to seven razor blades. This makes each melted rupee coin worth 35 rupees.
To deal with the coin shortage, some tea gardens in the north-eastern state of Assam have resorted to issuing cardboard coin-markers to their workers. These markers are the same size as the real coins and they have the denomination marked on them. They can be used for buying and selling within the gardens.
Even though this practice is illegal, the managers of the gardens say they have to use the markers because there are hardly any Indian coins left in circulation in the area.
The paramilitary Border Security Force (BSF) has been deployed on the India-Bangladesh border to check the smuggling.
"We are aware of our coins going across the border in some quantities and we will do our best to stop it," senior BSF official SK Datta told the BBC.
The mints have even tried to help by scaling down the metal content of the coins, but that has not stopped the shortages. And the Reserve Bank of India, India’s central bank has distributed nearly six million rupees to help overcome the shortage, but they are just gobbled up by the smugglers with a tip of the hat to the bank.
Beggars who are lucky enough to garner some of the coins are quite pleased because they can sell them to shopkeepers for a bit of a profit.
I just read where copper in the U.S. is selling for a little over $3 a pound. I wonder how many pennies it takes to make a pound.
The California Curmudgeon
Monday, June 25, 2007
CHENEY, THE FLIM-FLAM MAN
So now our glorious vice president wants to have things both ways. He wants to still enjoy executive privilege, but he doesn’t want to be bound by the secrecy rules of the executive branch so he has ruled that he is really part of the legislative branch because he has to vote with them in the event of a tie.
First off, if the vice president isn’t part of the executive branch why does he run on the same ticket as the president? You can’t vote for one without the other.
I wonder if Cheney has really thought this out. If he is not part of the executive branch then he should no longer be entitled to executive privilege and investigators can look anywhere they want. His meeting with all the heads of energy will no longer be protected. His visitor logs will now be available to the investigators.
In addition his office should no longer be funded by the executive branch and he should no longer be offered the protection of the Secret Service. Senators don’t get such protection.
And how about Air Force Two? He shouldn’t be able to use that because it belongs to the executive branch. Also no more driver to pick him up and take him to the White House either.
But suppose everyone is flim-flammed and accepts that he is part of the legislative branch? Then he cannot withhold information from legislators under the separation of powers doctrine. And if, as he says, he is fundamentally a member of the Senate, they can now bring him up on Senatorial ethics charges. He can be subpoenaed, and if he refuses to appear, he can be arrested. I’ll bet he didn’t think about that.
There will probably be no uproar about this. Believe it or not, most folks not only don't know what's going on, deep down they don't really care. The scandals have become so frequent in the Bush administration that people have become jaded to anything that seems to smell coming from Washington D.C.
I think this factor is what Cheney is counting on. This complacency of the American people. The vast majority is focused on supporting their families and having a little fun out of life. So go ahead people, sit back, remember how it used to be, and then remember how you did nothing.
Insanity is a curious thing to watch, especially when it seems to be running rampant in our government. What’s more interesting though is that Cheney believes, and expects us to believe that this new ruling of his means he is exempt from the following the rules of either branch, when actually he should be subject to both.
Just because I am a citizen of California doesn’t mean that I don’t have to obey the laws of the nation.
In your gut, you know he's nuts!
The California Curmudgeon
First off, if the vice president isn’t part of the executive branch why does he run on the same ticket as the president? You can’t vote for one without the other.
I wonder if Cheney has really thought this out. If he is not part of the executive branch then he should no longer be entitled to executive privilege and investigators can look anywhere they want. His meeting with all the heads of energy will no longer be protected. His visitor logs will now be available to the investigators.
In addition his office should no longer be funded by the executive branch and he should no longer be offered the protection of the Secret Service. Senators don’t get such protection.
And how about Air Force Two? He shouldn’t be able to use that because it belongs to the executive branch. Also no more driver to pick him up and take him to the White House either.
But suppose everyone is flim-flammed and accepts that he is part of the legislative branch? Then he cannot withhold information from legislators under the separation of powers doctrine. And if, as he says, he is fundamentally a member of the Senate, they can now bring him up on Senatorial ethics charges. He can be subpoenaed, and if he refuses to appear, he can be arrested. I’ll bet he didn’t think about that.
There will probably be no uproar about this. Believe it or not, most folks not only don't know what's going on, deep down they don't really care. The scandals have become so frequent in the Bush administration that people have become jaded to anything that seems to smell coming from Washington D.C.
I think this factor is what Cheney is counting on. This complacency of the American people. The vast majority is focused on supporting their families and having a little fun out of life. So go ahead people, sit back, remember how it used to be, and then remember how you did nothing.
Insanity is a curious thing to watch, especially when it seems to be running rampant in our government. What’s more interesting though is that Cheney believes, and expects us to believe that this new ruling of his means he is exempt from the following the rules of either branch, when actually he should be subject to both.
Just because I am a citizen of California doesn’t mean that I don’t have to obey the laws of the nation.
In your gut, you know he's nuts!
The California Curmudgeon
Thursday, June 21, 2007
DINING AT THE TROUGH
A new study by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-partisan activist group, recently found that 96 members of Congress (55 Republicans and 41 Democrats) used their positions to financially benefit family members or entities owned by family members in the past six years by diverting $5.1 million in campaign funds.
Former Democratic Speaker of the House Tom Foley hired his wife to be his chief of staff and put his mistress on both the public and campaign payroll at the same time. Other members put their wives, husbands, girlfriends and boyfriends on the public dole.
At least 71 (all Republicans. Yeah!) paid their children, who ranged from school-age to college-age, to do whatever kids are supposed to do to collect their allowance, only these 71 Republicans didn’t have to use their own money.
It is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members as employees on their official staff, but for some unknown reason it is not illegal to hire them with campaign funding. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would not like for the money I donated to help my candidate to get elected to go into some relative’s pocket such as:
• Ron Paul arranged for $163,890 to be given to his daughter.
• Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Democrat from California, who diverted $285,481 in campaign funds to her husband's firm, Collins & Day.
• Dan Burton skimming $143,900 in payments to his daughter.
The practice of putting relatives on your payroll is an old one in Washington. The practice is so widespread that lawmakers dismiss it with a nod and a wink and laugh at legislative attempts to ban payments to family members from campaign funds.
Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Mike Castle, R-Del., introduced a bill this month that would prohibit congressional candidates from paying their spouses with campaign funds and require campaigns to disclose family relationships with close relatives on the payroll. I’m sure they know that their bill has no chance because Congress hardly ever approves legislation that curtails their ability to abuse the system.
I’ll bet these are some of our representatives that vote against any form of welfare for poor people.
The California Cermedgeon
Former Democratic Speaker of the House Tom Foley hired his wife to be his chief of staff and put his mistress on both the public and campaign payroll at the same time. Other members put their wives, husbands, girlfriends and boyfriends on the public dole.
At least 71 (all Republicans. Yeah!) paid their children, who ranged from school-age to college-age, to do whatever kids are supposed to do to collect their allowance, only these 71 Republicans didn’t have to use their own money.
It is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members as employees on their official staff, but for some unknown reason it is not illegal to hire them with campaign funding. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would not like for the money I donated to help my candidate to get elected to go into some relative’s pocket such as:
• Ron Paul arranged for $163,890 to be given to his daughter.
• Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Democrat from California, who diverted $285,481 in campaign funds to her husband's firm, Collins & Day.
• Dan Burton skimming $143,900 in payments to his daughter.
The practice of putting relatives on your payroll is an old one in Washington. The practice is so widespread that lawmakers dismiss it with a nod and a wink and laugh at legislative attempts to ban payments to family members from campaign funds.
Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Mike Castle, R-Del., introduced a bill this month that would prohibit congressional candidates from paying their spouses with campaign funds and require campaigns to disclose family relationships with close relatives on the payroll. I’m sure they know that their bill has no chance because Congress hardly ever approves legislation that curtails their ability to abuse the system.
I’ll bet these are some of our representatives that vote against any form of welfare for poor people.
The California Cermedgeon
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
OUR IMPERIOUS GOVERNMENT
A while back I know I told you about the Taj Mahal-type American Embassy we are building in Baghdad and since then I have wondered why hasn’t anyone of importance written more about it. Not because of what I wrote, but because of what I read.
It’s a multi-billion dollar, self-contained city that is as big as Vatican City. This along with 15 self-contained military pods that our government is building will be able to support as many as 30 to 50 thousand U.S. troops for a long time, probably 20 or so years. “Think of it as Viet Nam,” said Bush
This stealth Embassy will cost the U.S. taxpayer a billion dollars a year with its main objective to preserve U.S. economic interests in Iraq’s oil.
Does this sound like we are ever going to leave Iraq?
In the last election the Americans told the government that we wanted our troops out of Iraq, but no one in the chain of command seemed to be listening and it doesn’t seem that any plans have been made for us to leave.
If the Bush Bunch can manage to establish a permanent presence in Iraq, to protect our oil interests, Congress is going to find it near impossible to force a withdrawal of our fighting troops as the Pentagon has no plans for totally withdrawing.Ever!
Last year Congress voted to add an amendment to a bill that would declare that America could not create permanent bases in Iraq. To the surprise of not too many, this declaration did not end up in the final bill.
Does this sound like we are ever going to leave Iraq?
The California Curmudgeon
It’s a multi-billion dollar, self-contained city that is as big as Vatican City. This along with 15 self-contained military pods that our government is building will be able to support as many as 30 to 50 thousand U.S. troops for a long time, probably 20 or so years. “Think of it as Viet Nam,” said Bush
This stealth Embassy will cost the U.S. taxpayer a billion dollars a year with its main objective to preserve U.S. economic interests in Iraq’s oil.
Does this sound like we are ever going to leave Iraq?
In the last election the Americans told the government that we wanted our troops out of Iraq, but no one in the chain of command seemed to be listening and it doesn’t seem that any plans have been made for us to leave.
If the Bush Bunch can manage to establish a permanent presence in Iraq, to protect our oil interests, Congress is going to find it near impossible to force a withdrawal of our fighting troops as the Pentagon has no plans for totally withdrawing.Ever!
Last year Congress voted to add an amendment to a bill that would declare that America could not create permanent bases in Iraq. To the surprise of not too many, this declaration did not end up in the final bill.
Does this sound like we are ever going to leave Iraq?
The California Curmudgeon
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
WELL SHUT MY MOUTH
Recently the Pentagon sent a memo that placed restrictions on who can testify before Congress. It wants to prevent officers under the rank of colonel, enlisted men and career bureaucrats from appearing in front of oversight committees or having their remarks transcribed.
Actual given testimony would be restricted to high-ranking officers and civilians appointed by the president. If field-level officers or enlisted personnel could be deemed appropriate by the Department of Defense, they could participate in briefings for members of Congress, but the proceedings could not be recorded.
Any officers who were allowed to testify had to be accompanied by an official from the administration, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his top-level aides.
To me this smells a lot like the Bush administration trying to get all their ducks in a row to protect its corrupt ass.
Some Democrats see the move as another attempt by Bush to limit information and bog down investigations of the Iraq war.
Several lawmakers have said that if these guidelines prevent their efforts to get information from the military, they would issue congressional subpoenas which can compel anyone to appear and testify.
These guidelines were tested several days after the Pentagon’s memo when during the testimony of three Army officers Defense Department lawyers tried to stop the recording of their testimony.
Democratic Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and Republican W. Todd Akin of Missouri both insisted a transcript would be kept.
The lawyers stormed out and repeated letters to the Pentagon for an explanation of these guidelines have gone unanswered.
The secret government of Bush loses one to the people.
The California Curmudgeon
Actual given testimony would be restricted to high-ranking officers and civilians appointed by the president. If field-level officers or enlisted personnel could be deemed appropriate by the Department of Defense, they could participate in briefings for members of Congress, but the proceedings could not be recorded.
Any officers who were allowed to testify had to be accompanied by an official from the administration, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his top-level aides.
To me this smells a lot like the Bush administration trying to get all their ducks in a row to protect its corrupt ass.
Some Democrats see the move as another attempt by Bush to limit information and bog down investigations of the Iraq war.
Several lawmakers have said that if these guidelines prevent their efforts to get information from the military, they would issue congressional subpoenas which can compel anyone to appear and testify.
These guidelines were tested several days after the Pentagon’s memo when during the testimony of three Army officers Defense Department lawyers tried to stop the recording of their testimony.
Democratic Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and Republican W. Todd Akin of Missouri both insisted a transcript would be kept.
The lawyers stormed out and repeated letters to the Pentagon for an explanation of these guidelines have gone unanswered.
The secret government of Bush loses one to the people.
The California Curmudgeon
Monday, June 18, 2007
TANKS A LOT AND SEMPER FI
In February of 2005 the marines in Iraq made a “priority 1 Urgent” request for 1.269 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (MRAPS) with “V” shaped undersides that deflects blasts from roadside bombs.
Roadside bombs cause 70% of American casualties in Iraq and these MRAPS can reduce those casualties by two-thirds.
Instead of the MRAPS asked for, the marines sent them armored Humvees. The humvees have less protection than the MRAPS and were definitely not what was requested or needed.
The Marines finally got around to sending the MRAPS to Iraq in May of 2006. Even then they sent only 185 of them.
This has become a top priority with Defense Secretary Robert Gates who wants to know what happened and started an investigation into the matter.
The new request is for 7,774 (how do they come up with these weird numbers?) MRAPS and Congress is spending $8.4 billion to fill this order.
Although these MRAPS are protected from blasts from beneath the vehicle, it is not protected on the side against explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) which have been used against U.S. forces since 2005.
MRAPS are not new. They have been used by other countries for years. Why not this country?
Senator Joe Biden Democrat from Delaware asked at a May news conference “How many people have perished in the meantime?”
The California Curmudgeon
Roadside bombs cause 70% of American casualties in Iraq and these MRAPS can reduce those casualties by two-thirds.
Instead of the MRAPS asked for, the marines sent them armored Humvees. The humvees have less protection than the MRAPS and were definitely not what was requested or needed.
The Marines finally got around to sending the MRAPS to Iraq in May of 2006. Even then they sent only 185 of them.
This has become a top priority with Defense Secretary Robert Gates who wants to know what happened and started an investigation into the matter.
The new request is for 7,774 (how do they come up with these weird numbers?) MRAPS and Congress is spending $8.4 billion to fill this order.
Although these MRAPS are protected from blasts from beneath the vehicle, it is not protected on the side against explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) which have been used against U.S. forces since 2005.
MRAPS are not new. They have been used by other countries for years. Why not this country?
Senator Joe Biden Democrat from Delaware asked at a May news conference “How many people have perished in the meantime?”
The California Curmudgeon
Friday, June 15, 2007
THE CORPORATE STATES OF AMERICA
In case you hadn’t noticed, the U.S. government is for sale. It’s for sale to the highest bidder and for that price you get the entire Congress, with the president thrown in free.
The corporations have taken over our country. Politically connected corporations are now seizing day-to-day operations of the government for their own profit. This has come from the outsourcing of public functions to private contractors. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and the Bush administration is only too happy to oblige.
Government contracting has boomed under the Bush regime. The use of outside sources has increased 86% since good ol’ boy George has been in office. This contractor giveaway now totals nearly $400 billion a year. That’s billion, folks, with a “B”.
That $400 billion is what we are paying extra to contractors hired to do the work that the government is supposed to do. I wonder how much extra it would cost us if Bush managed to privatize our Social Security System.
The privatization of our government has been on the right wing Heritage Foundation’s things-to-do list since before Bush was selected as president.
On January 10, 2001 the foundation put out their domestic agenda called “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel”. It was a virtual roadmap showing how the Bush Crime Family could seize control of every government agency and use it for its own good. In appointing personnel to top positions, they stressed loyalty over expertise.
When first explained, privatization sounds good. After all, we all know that a business is run much more efficiently than is our government, but the bad thing is that businesses thinks only of their bottom line and not the good of the country.
The corporate community supplies support for our troops in Iraq. Cheney’s old firm Halliburton is the largest to do so. Its military contracts have increased by 600% under the hand of Bush and Company.
Even then Halliburton wasn’t happy. They resorted to gas-price gouging, delivering contaminated food and water and a lot of over-billing. Out of $10 billion in waste and over charges, Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of that.
Halliburton was given lucrative no-bid contracts from FEMA for the rescue and rehabilitation of New Orleans. The money flowed like wine, but none of the billions seemed to get to the trouble spot of New Orleans.
Is it any surprise that Halliburton’s profits have increased 368% since Bush came to the office?
Lockheed-Martin is no slouch either. This defense contractor is receiving more federal funds than the Department of Justice.
These huge profits are the reason the government has no accountability or public scrutiny as part of this privatization drive of theirs. It is all about serving the interest of the corporations.
Actually when I look back, I think I was wrong – America is not for sale.
It has already been sold.
The California Curmudgeon
The corporations have taken over our country. Politically connected corporations are now seizing day-to-day operations of the government for their own profit. This has come from the outsourcing of public functions to private contractors. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and the Bush administration is only too happy to oblige.
Government contracting has boomed under the Bush regime. The use of outside sources has increased 86% since good ol’ boy George has been in office. This contractor giveaway now totals nearly $400 billion a year. That’s billion, folks, with a “B”.
That $400 billion is what we are paying extra to contractors hired to do the work that the government is supposed to do. I wonder how much extra it would cost us if Bush managed to privatize our Social Security System.
The privatization of our government has been on the right wing Heritage Foundation’s things-to-do list since before Bush was selected as president.
On January 10, 2001 the foundation put out their domestic agenda called “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel”. It was a virtual roadmap showing how the Bush Crime Family could seize control of every government agency and use it for its own good. In appointing personnel to top positions, they stressed loyalty over expertise.
When first explained, privatization sounds good. After all, we all know that a business is run much more efficiently than is our government, but the bad thing is that businesses thinks only of their bottom line and not the good of the country.
The corporate community supplies support for our troops in Iraq. Cheney’s old firm Halliburton is the largest to do so. Its military contracts have increased by 600% under the hand of Bush and Company.
Even then Halliburton wasn’t happy. They resorted to gas-price gouging, delivering contaminated food and water and a lot of over-billing. Out of $10 billion in waste and over charges, Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of that.
Halliburton was given lucrative no-bid contracts from FEMA for the rescue and rehabilitation of New Orleans. The money flowed like wine, but none of the billions seemed to get to the trouble spot of New Orleans.
Is it any surprise that Halliburton’s profits have increased 368% since Bush came to the office?
Lockheed-Martin is no slouch either. This defense contractor is receiving more federal funds than the Department of Justice.
These huge profits are the reason the government has no accountability or public scrutiny as part of this privatization drive of theirs. It is all about serving the interest of the corporations.
Actually when I look back, I think I was wrong – America is not for sale.
It has already been sold.
The California Curmudgeon
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
THE ALL MIGHTY FRED THOMPSON
Oooooooh, watch out Republicans, Fred Thompson is coming to get you. Aren’t you scared?
I guess you are supposed to be if you are a presidential wannabee.
Who is this mighty Fred Thompson anyway? He is a lawyer, he used to be a Senator then he was a character actor on TV and now he is going to run for president. I’d say there was a lot to be scared of there.
There are some Republicans who are not afraid, but they do wonder if Freddy baby is passionate enough. The Republicans are so afraid of losing the White House like they did the House and Senate that they will only vote for someone who they think desperately wants it.”
I’m not sure Fred Thompson really wants to spend another eight years in Washington D.C.
He once said, referring to his time in the U.S. Senate "I often say after eight years in Washington, I longed for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood."
I wonder if he would accept the presidency on the condition that the first year was just an audition.
And as one parting cheap shot, I’ll say that Fred Thompson has on multiple occasions pronounced "nuclear" correctly.
The California Curmudgeon
I guess you are supposed to be if you are a presidential wannabee.
Who is this mighty Fred Thompson anyway? He is a lawyer, he used to be a Senator then he was a character actor on TV and now he is going to run for president. I’d say there was a lot to be scared of there.
There are some Republicans who are not afraid, but they do wonder if Freddy baby is passionate enough. The Republicans are so afraid of losing the White House like they did the House and Senate that they will only vote for someone who they think desperately wants it.”
I’m not sure Fred Thompson really wants to spend another eight years in Washington D.C.
He once said, referring to his time in the U.S. Senate "I often say after eight years in Washington, I longed for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood."
I wonder if he would accept the presidency on the condition that the first year was just an audition.
And as one parting cheap shot, I’ll say that Fred Thompson has on multiple occasions pronounced "nuclear" correctly.
The California Curmudgeon
Monday, June 11, 2007
PARIS IN THE SPRINGTIME
I have tried and tried to avoid writing about Paris Hilton, but I just can’t do it.
Paris is a celebrity by birth and contributes nothing to society (society balls don’t count). She has had the way smoothed for her all of her life. All the bumps in her path were ironed out, all the valleys filled in and she just went merrily along the path of her monied life.
All of a sudden in September 2006 a big obstacle popped up in her path – she was arrested for drunk driving. It was later knocked down to a charge of reckless driving and she pleads “no contest”. As is customary in cases such as this, Hilton's license was suspended by the California DMV.
Sometime after her license suspension Paris apparently thought that she had waited long enough for a rich girl, and decided to drive without her license. She was caught three times behind the wheel before someone, on February 27, charged her with violating her probation and sentenced her to jail for forty-five days. She took the verdict like a child and cried.
I can’t imagine what she did for Los Angeles County Sheriff, Lee Baca (actually, yes I can), but he changed the punishment to House Arrest with no restrictions other than she had to stay within a 3,000 to 4,000 foot area for the rest of her sentence.
If it weren’t for her need of attention she might still be out and throwing parties at her lavish 2,700 square foot house with booze and friends and whatever, but she just had to issue a written statement thanking the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for their fairness and professionalism.
Anyway, she was again taken before the court and told that she must serve her sentence in jail. “Mom, it’s not right,” she pleaded tearfully to her mother.
It was painful to watch. A young woman, begging her mother, the person who should have taught her right from wrong, to help her.
A lot of adults who are Paris’ age and younger were taught by their parents that they were faultless. Everything they did was praised as if they had really done something that deserved such accolades.
Is all this the result of her upbringing? What makes Paris think that the rules don’t apply to her?
Perhaps her time in jail will be the ultimate blessing in disguise, since this is probably the first instance in which she's actually faced an unpleasant consequence for any of her actions.
It is also probably the first time in her life that someone made her do something she didn’t want to do.
THIS JUST IN:
Paris has found God and says she is now a different person. "I'm not the same person I was," she said in a collect call she made to her mother, who just happened to be talking to Barbara Walters on the other line.
"I know now that I can make a difference, that I have the power to do that. I have been thinking that I want to do different things when I am out of here. I have become much more spiritual. God has given me this new chance.
"My spirit or soul did not like the way I was being seen and that is why I was sent to jail. God has released me."
It usually takes years for a prisoner to get religion. Hilton's conversion appears to have taken place with remarkable speed.
I wonder what Paris’ party pals will think about this.
The California Curmudgeon
Paris is a celebrity by birth and contributes nothing to society (society balls don’t count). She has had the way smoothed for her all of her life. All the bumps in her path were ironed out, all the valleys filled in and she just went merrily along the path of her monied life.
All of a sudden in September 2006 a big obstacle popped up in her path – she was arrested for drunk driving. It was later knocked down to a charge of reckless driving and she pleads “no contest”. As is customary in cases such as this, Hilton's license was suspended by the California DMV.
Sometime after her license suspension Paris apparently thought that she had waited long enough for a rich girl, and decided to drive without her license. She was caught three times behind the wheel before someone, on February 27, charged her with violating her probation and sentenced her to jail for forty-five days. She took the verdict like a child and cried.
I can’t imagine what she did for Los Angeles County Sheriff, Lee Baca (actually, yes I can), but he changed the punishment to House Arrest with no restrictions other than she had to stay within a 3,000 to 4,000 foot area for the rest of her sentence.
If it weren’t for her need of attention she might still be out and throwing parties at her lavish 2,700 square foot house with booze and friends and whatever, but she just had to issue a written statement thanking the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for their fairness and professionalism.
Anyway, she was again taken before the court and told that she must serve her sentence in jail. “Mom, it’s not right,” she pleaded tearfully to her mother.
It was painful to watch. A young woman, begging her mother, the person who should have taught her right from wrong, to help her.
A lot of adults who are Paris’ age and younger were taught by their parents that they were faultless. Everything they did was praised as if they had really done something that deserved such accolades.
Is all this the result of her upbringing? What makes Paris think that the rules don’t apply to her?
Perhaps her time in jail will be the ultimate blessing in disguise, since this is probably the first instance in which she's actually faced an unpleasant consequence for any of her actions.
It is also probably the first time in her life that someone made her do something she didn’t want to do.
THIS JUST IN:
Paris has found God and says she is now a different person. "I'm not the same person I was," she said in a collect call she made to her mother, who just happened to be talking to Barbara Walters on the other line.
"I know now that I can make a difference, that I have the power to do that. I have been thinking that I want to do different things when I am out of here. I have become much more spiritual. God has given me this new chance.
"My spirit or soul did not like the way I was being seen and that is why I was sent to jail. God has released me."
It usually takes years for a prisoner to get religion. Hilton's conversion appears to have taken place with remarkable speed.
I wonder what Paris’ party pals will think about this.
The California Curmudgeon
Sunday, June 10, 2007
BIG OIL IS PUMPING US DRY
Why does gasoline cost so much?
All the so-called experts are only too happy to explain that it is merely supply and demand. But it is not that easy, my friend.
Isn’t there supposed to be some sort of correlation between the price of crude oil and the cost of gas at the pump? Typically gas prices move roughly together with crude oil prices, but for the last year or so gasoline prices have soared at a far faster rate than the cost of crude oil.
By some measures, the cost of gasoline is rising nearly five times as fast as crude oil. In 2007, gasoline prices, as measured by the AAA, are up about 31 percent while West Texas crude oil is up only 6.4 percent.
Some people are accusing Big Oil of price gouging, but, Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association said "The gas price is up not because of excessive profit margins, not because of gouging, it is not because oil companies are anti-competitive, It is a market that is doing what a market does when there is a shortage of supply."
Judy Dugan, research director with Oil Watchdog, a consumer group, disagrees. "This is shocking," she said. "Given that the cost of refining is pretty stable, the only thing that comes out of that disconnect between crude and gasoline is enormous profits for the oil companies."
To lessen the gasoline supply somewhat Big Oil has “unplanned down time” and “unexpected problems” in bringing the downed refineries back on line. Consumer groups say that Big Oil is manipulating this down time.
The domestic refining industry has come together, allowing operators to not build additional refineries and run existing ones at full throttle thus causing accidents and outages the nation has experienced over the last year or so.
"They have no interest in building spare capacity because that would undermine their pricing power," said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America. “The refining industry hasn't even tried to build new refineries and has instead closed 50 since the 1990s rather than make investments to make them comply with pollution laws.
Even as big oil companies such as Exxon Mobil are continuing to report record profits each quarter, gasoline prices have still continued to rise, mostly with little real justification.
Not too long ago, the nation was in an uproar, screaming and hollering over rising gas prices, and the fire was further fueled when Exxon Mobil posted its earnings. They had gained the largest profits ever in its history. But the outrage about the rising gas prices was soon abated, people have now gotten used to being screwed by the oil companies and besides, we all have to drive.
The California Curmudgeon
All the so-called experts are only too happy to explain that it is merely supply and demand. But it is not that easy, my friend.
Isn’t there supposed to be some sort of correlation between the price of crude oil and the cost of gas at the pump? Typically gas prices move roughly together with crude oil prices, but for the last year or so gasoline prices have soared at a far faster rate than the cost of crude oil.
By some measures, the cost of gasoline is rising nearly five times as fast as crude oil. In 2007, gasoline prices, as measured by the AAA, are up about 31 percent while West Texas crude oil is up only 6.4 percent.
Some people are accusing Big Oil of price gouging, but, Joe Sparano, president of the Western States Petroleum Association said "The gas price is up not because of excessive profit margins, not because of gouging, it is not because oil companies are anti-competitive, It is a market that is doing what a market does when there is a shortage of supply."
Judy Dugan, research director with Oil Watchdog, a consumer group, disagrees. "This is shocking," she said. "Given that the cost of refining is pretty stable, the only thing that comes out of that disconnect between crude and gasoline is enormous profits for the oil companies."
To lessen the gasoline supply somewhat Big Oil has “unplanned down time” and “unexpected problems” in bringing the downed refineries back on line. Consumer groups say that Big Oil is manipulating this down time.
The domestic refining industry has come together, allowing operators to not build additional refineries and run existing ones at full throttle thus causing accidents and outages the nation has experienced over the last year or so.
"They have no interest in building spare capacity because that would undermine their pricing power," said Mark Cooper, research director for the Consumer Federation of America. “The refining industry hasn't even tried to build new refineries and has instead closed 50 since the 1990s rather than make investments to make them comply with pollution laws.
Even as big oil companies such as Exxon Mobil are continuing to report record profits each quarter, gasoline prices have still continued to rise, mostly with little real justification.
Not too long ago, the nation was in an uproar, screaming and hollering over rising gas prices, and the fire was further fueled when Exxon Mobil posted its earnings. They had gained the largest profits ever in its history. But the outrage about the rising gas prices was soon abated, people have now gotten used to being screwed by the oil companies and besides, we all have to drive.
The California Curmudgeon
Saturday, June 09, 2007
BIG OIL GREASES THE WHEELS OF GOVERNMENT
This past Friday the 3,500th American soldier was killed in Iraq. Thirty-five hundred of our young men and women have had their lives yanked from them in a senseless and unnecessary war.
Why are we there? How long are we going to stay? These are just two questions to which I would like the answers.
As near as I can figure there are many reasons why we are there: OIL, weapons of mass destruction, to dispose of Saddamn, OIL, free the Iraqi people, revenge for the 9/11 attacks, to bring democracy to the Middle East, OIL, to get a presence in the Middle East and OIL.
Did I mention OIL? Iraq has the second largest oil field in the world and our neo-cons want it. And our Big Oil wants it. Oh dear, what to do.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between our neo-cons and Big Oil. Insiders said this planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
In March of 2003 - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered, but they were wrong. There were two plans, two conflicting plans.
On one side we had the neo-cons at the Pentagon and on the other side we had Big Oil and the US State Department “pragmatists”.
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained from the US State Department was in part drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants and Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion.
How long will we stay? I have no idea, but given the facts that the U.S. feels a need to have a commanding presence in the Middle East, and also needs to monitor the oil production and is almost finished building the largest Embassy in the world in Iraq, I don’t think we are planning on leaving anywhere in the foreseeable future.
While greedy men in over-stuffed suits fight over the profits of the Iraqi oil, our young men and women on the streets of Iraq are fighting to live another day.
Years ago a bumper sticker asked “How did our oil get under their sand?” I would still like to know the answer to that.
The California Curmudgeon
Why are we there? How long are we going to stay? These are just two questions to which I would like the answers.
As near as I can figure there are many reasons why we are there: OIL, weapons of mass destruction, to dispose of Saddamn, OIL, free the Iraqi people, revenge for the 9/11 attacks, to bring democracy to the Middle East, OIL, to get a presence in the Middle East and OIL.
Did I mention OIL? Iraq has the second largest oil field in the world and our neo-cons want it. And our Big Oil wants it. Oh dear, what to do.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between our neo-cons and Big Oil. Insiders said this planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
In March of 2003 - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered, but they were wrong. There were two plans, two conflicting plans.
On one side we had the neo-cons at the Pentagon and on the other side we had Big Oil and the US State Department “pragmatists”.
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained from the US State Department was in part drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants and Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion.
How long will we stay? I have no idea, but given the facts that the U.S. feels a need to have a commanding presence in the Middle East, and also needs to monitor the oil production and is almost finished building the largest Embassy in the world in Iraq, I don’t think we are planning on leaving anywhere in the foreseeable future.
While greedy men in over-stuffed suits fight over the profits of the Iraqi oil, our young men and women on the streets of Iraq are fighting to live another day.
Years ago a bumper sticker asked “How did our oil get under their sand?” I would still like to know the answer to that.
The California Curmudgeon
Thursday, June 07, 2007
THE FEAR OF FLYING
If anything is different after 9/11, it’s air travel, as passengers endure long lines and extra security checks at airports.
My wife and I just returned from a flight to Lancaster, California for a granddaughter’s graduation and had a chance to once again to go through the collective punishment of airport security. Stand in line, show your ID, stand some more, take off your shoes, take off your jewelry, take your computer out of its case, put all metal objects in the container and slide it to the gaping mouth of the scanning machine. This is the way airport security subjects each law-abiding passenger to collective punishment while presenting almost no deterrent to a determined suicide-killer.
It is a futile exercise designed to provide the illusion of security, not the real thing. The millions of dollars spent on superficial charades such as airport passenger screening is merely pablum for the masses intended to soothe politically motivated hysteria.
It's also unpleasant. Passengers must virtually disrobe, stripping off jackets, jewelry, belts and usually shoes to pass through metal detectors. Some passengers have complained of having their persons immodestly searched by hand, in full view of other passengers.
People don’t care because it helps fight terrorists
As my wife and I like to travel a lot, we have gone through this little absurdity many times. On three or four occasions either my wife or I have been pulled out of line and given the body scan routine. We are both white, in our seventies and look nothing like the typical terrorist. Young Muslim people have done all the attacking and bombing, so wouldn’t it make sense that it would be more productive to look to those people for body scans? In some cases racial profiling can be a good thing.
Haven't you ever wondered if at least some of the airport security measures aren't part of a secret government program to see how much humiliation the flying public can take before it rebels? How long before some fed up patriot stands up and yells, "I want to be somebody! I want to wear shoes! I want to smell good!"
There is a reason for all of this big show of security and that is because the Bush administration governs by fear. They keep the people in a constant state of agitation. They keep everyone frightened so that we will all look to the president for protection and know that daddy will protect us.
Certainly the government wants you to feel that daddy will protect you so they set up these elaborate security measures at all the airports and every time there is a terrorist threat, this security increases. The longer the security lines, the safer the public is supposed to feel.
People don’t care because it helps fight terrorists.
While TSA agents swarm around passengers and their carry-on baggage, and check-in baggage is scanned, there is commercial cargo being loaded into the hold of the very same plane you will be flying in without any systematic inspection.
An estimated 2.5 million tons of un-inspected commercial cargo moves through airports nationwide every year. No federal agency monitors this cargo or who's sending it. Your luggage is inspected, but the commercial cargo is not. I guess no terrorist would ever think of putting a bomb in the commercial cargo.
The House has refused to require inspections of all cargo shipped on passenger airline flights. The argument is that technology is not available, and it would be too costly to the airlines. It is estimated that it would take $700 million and the hiring of 9,000 additional inspectors to examine cargo thoroughly on passenger flights at the nation's largest airports.
And did you know that there is no behind-the-scenes security. When airport personnel leave their jobs, their security badges are not necessarily collected and the combinations on the doors leading to the tarmac and the airplanes are never changed.
With the airports laden with the heavy security coverage you would think that other potential targets would increase their security, but they haven’t. Chemical plants are basically unguarded and easy to infiltrate. Nuclear facilities have very relaxed security (There are at least 200 keys to vital areas of nuclear power plants that are missing and no one knows who has them) and port security is almost nil. (Only 1% of cargo containers are inspected).
It seems that the security forces are always working in the past. Airport security seems to forever be looking backwards. Before 9/11, they looked for bombs, guns, and knives. After 9/11 it was small blades and box cutters. Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane and suddenly we all have to take off our shoes. And after that liquid plot a while back, we're stuck with a series of nonsensical bans on liquids and gels.
Some one plants a bomb in his shoes and everyone has to remove their shoes in the inspection line. If a terrorist developed a panty-bomb would TSA start making all women get undressed?
People don’t care because it helps fight terrorists
Do you feel any safer now that the TSA is going through your bags?
None of the airplane security measures implemented because of the September attacks: no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews have had any effect on the real security of our country.
My flying experience since 9/11 leads me to believe that passengers are less afraid of terrorists than they are pissed off with all the delays, parking restrictions, questions, identification checks, frisking and bag searching.
If we're catching scads of terrorists, someone tell me and I'll shut up, but from where I sit, it just looks like people are being cruelly hassled in order to provide the illusion of security, the illusion that the authorities are doing something to combat the terrorist menace.
The Transportation Department's inspector general office conducted undercover tests at 32 airports after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and found screeners missed knives 70 percent of the time, guns 30 percent of the time and simulated explosives 60 percent of the time.
This smoke-and-mirrors security system has worked well to provide the illusion of airport safety with the public living in fear of another terrorist attack and that’s just the way the government wants it. A fearful public is an obedient public.
And people don’t care because it helps fight terrorists.
The California Curmudgeon
My wife and I just returned from a flight to Lancaster, California for a granddaughter’s graduation and had a chance to once again to go through the collective punishment of airport security. Stand in line, show your ID, stand some more, take off your shoes, take off your jewelry, take your computer out of its case, put all metal objects in the container and slide it to the gaping mouth of the scanning machine. This is the way airport security subjects each law-abiding passenger to collective punishment while presenting almost no deterrent to a determined suicide-killer.
It is a futile exercise designed to provide the illusion of security, not the real thing. The millions of dollars spent on superficial charades such as airport passenger screening is merely pablum for the masses intended to soothe politically motivated hysteria.
It's also unpleasant. Passengers must virtually disrobe, stripping off jackets, jewelry, belts and usually shoes to pass through metal detectors. Some passengers have complained of having their persons immodestly searched by hand, in full view of other passengers.
People don’t care because it helps fight terrorists
As my wife and I like to travel a lot, we have gone through this little absurdity many times. On three or four occasions either my wife or I have been pulled out of line and given the body scan routine. We are both white, in our seventies and look nothing like the typical terrorist. Young Muslim people have done all the attacking and bombing, so wouldn’t it make sense that it would be more productive to look to those people for body scans? In some cases racial profiling can be a good thing.
Haven't you ever wondered if at least some of the airport security measures aren't part of a secret government program to see how much humiliation the flying public can take before it rebels? How long before some fed up patriot stands up and yells, "I want to be somebody! I want to wear shoes! I want to smell good!"
There is a reason for all of this big show of security and that is because the Bush administration governs by fear. They keep the people in a constant state of agitation. They keep everyone frightened so that we will all look to the president for protection and know that daddy will protect us.
Certainly the government wants you to feel that daddy will protect you so they set up these elaborate security measures at all the airports and every time there is a terrorist threat, this security increases. The longer the security lines, the safer the public is supposed to feel.
People don’t care because it helps fight terrorists.
While TSA agents swarm around passengers and their carry-on baggage, and check-in baggage is scanned, there is commercial cargo being loaded into the hold of the very same plane you will be flying in without any systematic inspection.
An estimated 2.5 million tons of un-inspected commercial cargo moves through airports nationwide every year. No federal agency monitors this cargo or who's sending it. Your luggage is inspected, but the commercial cargo is not. I guess no terrorist would ever think of putting a bomb in the commercial cargo.
The House has refused to require inspections of all cargo shipped on passenger airline flights. The argument is that technology is not available, and it would be too costly to the airlines. It is estimated that it would take $700 million and the hiring of 9,000 additional inspectors to examine cargo thoroughly on passenger flights at the nation's largest airports.
And did you know that there is no behind-the-scenes security. When airport personnel leave their jobs, their security badges are not necessarily collected and the combinations on the doors leading to the tarmac and the airplanes are never changed.
With the airports laden with the heavy security coverage you would think that other potential targets would increase their security, but they haven’t. Chemical plants are basically unguarded and easy to infiltrate. Nuclear facilities have very relaxed security (There are at least 200 keys to vital areas of nuclear power plants that are missing and no one knows who has them) and port security is almost nil. (Only 1% of cargo containers are inspected).
It seems that the security forces are always working in the past. Airport security seems to forever be looking backwards. Before 9/11, they looked for bombs, guns, and knives. After 9/11 it was small blades and box cutters. Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane and suddenly we all have to take off our shoes. And after that liquid plot a while back, we're stuck with a series of nonsensical bans on liquids and gels.
Some one plants a bomb in his shoes and everyone has to remove their shoes in the inspection line. If a terrorist developed a panty-bomb would TSA start making all women get undressed?
People don’t care because it helps fight terrorists
Do you feel any safer now that the TSA is going through your bags?
None of the airplane security measures implemented because of the September attacks: no-fly lists, secondary screening, prohibitions against pocket knives and corkscrews have had any effect on the real security of our country.
My flying experience since 9/11 leads me to believe that passengers are less afraid of terrorists than they are pissed off with all the delays, parking restrictions, questions, identification checks, frisking and bag searching.
If we're catching scads of terrorists, someone tell me and I'll shut up, but from where I sit, it just looks like people are being cruelly hassled in order to provide the illusion of security, the illusion that the authorities are doing something to combat the terrorist menace.
The Transportation Department's inspector general office conducted undercover tests at 32 airports after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and found screeners missed knives 70 percent of the time, guns 30 percent of the time and simulated explosives 60 percent of the time.
This smoke-and-mirrors security system has worked well to provide the illusion of airport safety with the public living in fear of another terrorist attack and that’s just the way the government wants it. A fearful public is an obedient public.
And people don’t care because it helps fight terrorists.
The California Curmudgeon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)