Lawyers rule...

Funniest Video I've seen in a LONG time

Lawyers rule...

Basically these two are about to have sex, but they stop to get "protection" in the form of a Sexual Consent form.

They also have representation.





This is worth the three and a half minutes for a few good laughs.

Stay Tuned...

Things that are wrong with America v. 4

Its taken me a while, but we finally got to FOX NEWS.

There is obviously something missing from the image I found and that would be the tag line.

We report, you decide.

Fair and Balanced

You see how, if they say that its fair and balanced, it clearly is.

It also implys that other networks are not fair, or not balanced.

Brilliant.

How about the "We report, you decide" tag.

They are right.

They report what they want you to know.

You decide to take the side that you were presented because its all you were presented.

Fox News has three distinct types of viewers.

Category 1 Fox News Viewers:

Fox News is their only source of news.

Fox News represents their political views.

Fox News provides them with a world view that validates their way of life.

They are oblivious to the fact that what comes out of Sean Hannity's mouth is not always true.

They are oblivious to the notion that Fox news is truly the voice of the right.

They belive that CNN is the liberal media.

They are generally lower middle class.

They are white.

They are not educated beyond high school and some college.

They vote Republican.

Category 2 Fox News Viewers:

They are democrats.

They watch Fox News for two reasons: (1) It infuriates them and allows them to blindly support the left in an effort to keep people like this out of power, and (2) It provides a rare glempse into the psyche of the enemy.

They don't believe a word that comes out of Sean Hannity's mouth.

They yell at Bill O'Reilly.

They generally spend their Fox News viewing time comparing it to what they read in the New York Times or watching CNN.

They are generally middle/upper Middle class.

They are generally well educated.

They are not easily racially profiled.

Category 3 Fox News Viewers:

This is the most dangerous group of viewers.

Fox News represents their political views.

Fox News provides them with a world view that validates their way of life.

They are Republicans.

They are fully aware that Fox News is neither fair, nor balanced.

They recognize the one-sided reporting because they take the time to read other news sources.

They are thrilled to see Fox "spin" the daily news because it helps assure that Category 1 viewers vote with the G.O.P.

They have a passing interest in the truth.

They believe that news is a form of entertainment, and that Fox is free to express the news as they see fit "within the facts"

They are willing to let the "within the facts" thing go sometimes, when its good for the party.

They are upper middle class, and upper class.

They are very well educated.

They are white.

They have voted straight ticket Republican since Regan ran against Carter.

Its a nasty set of circumstances.

Category 2 viewers are distrusted by the Category 1 viewers, and therefore have no chance of having rational conversation with them in hopes of helping them from Plato's Cave.

Category 2 viewers aren't powerful enough to compete with Category 3 viewers when put in head-to-head matchups for the toss-up Category 1 viewer.

Category 1 viewers listen to Category 3 viewers because Category 3 viewers represent who Category 1 viewers wish they were. They believe that by agreeing with Category 3 viewers, they too will become Category 3 viewers in time.

Category 3 viewers are out to protect their interests. Fuck Category 2 and Category 1 viewers.

Clearly yesterdays little labeling incident was a good indication of the type of network we're dealing with here.

Can you imagine what a Category 1 viewer in the I-4 corridor of Florida might think when the ONLY news they see this week is this:



Exactly the kind of "mistake" that the Category 3 viewers and G.O.P. friends of Fox want these limited news viewers to see.

[In trashy central Florida voice]
Wow, look 'sis, another Democrat caught in a sex scandal, I'm sure glad that we vote for the good christians in the Republican party!
[End trashy central Florida voice]

I've been accused of being a "liberal elitest" and I'm going to go out on a limb and say this post won't dispell that notion...

I am not here to say that CNN gets it right, or that N.P.R. is the way to get your news, or that the Jew York Times is the premier source of un-biased information.

All I am saying here is that Fox News is fucked up and it continues to amaze me that they are legally allowed to broadcast.

I'm becoming unfocused, best to cut this off before I get totally disjointed.

You see what Fox News does to me?!?

God I hate them.

Stay Tuned...

Thanks Everybody!

I just wanted to take a minute and thank you, the reader.

I wrote in this blog for a while in the spring, and I had an audience of a few classmates that were as bored in Parker's Torts class as I was.

Bored enough to read what I had to say.

I suppose I can thank Facebook for the exposure, but I want to thank all of you who have taken the time to tell me you're reading.

I chalk it up to the same boredom my classmates were subject too, but it is still really cool to know I have some kind of audience.

I'll do my best to keep you entertained and informed!

Thanks for all the feedback, and thanks for reading!

Stay Tuned...

Its like watching your civil liberties slowly die...

See, Ben is angry too. Trust me, you wouldn't like Ben when he is angry...

John Yoo has a new book out, War By Other Means.

Yoo was an attorney for the Bush Administration before recently leaving office to pursue other options.

One of those options apparently, is signing lucrative book deals.

Today, in Arizona, President Bush will sign into law a new set of [cue 1984 references] "Homeland Security" regulations.

700 miles of fences to be constructed along the Mexican border in a conveniently located "toss up" state of Arizona.

More importantly, there are changes being made to our "Enemy Combatant" procedures.

If you are a U.S. Citizen, you can be secretly arrested as an "Enemy Combatant".

Once this happens, you will be detained at one of our fine, club-med'esque facilities in the Caribbean. Cuba maybe?

Don't worry American, you will get your day in court. Kind of.

You will get an opportunity to have a "hearing" in which you may make your argument that you are not an Enemy Combatant.

Yoo claims that this is all very similar to our Criminal Procedure.

There are a few differences:

1. You will not have an opportunity to review the evidence against you if it is classified.
- This is a matter of National Security. Its always classified.

2. You will not have an opportunity to post bail while you await your "hearing"

3. If, at this hearing, you are determined to be an Enemy Combatant, you will have no right to a trial.

4. The only way you can get a full trial is if the President or Secretary of Defense decides to grant one.

5. You can be held without trial, as a U.S. Citizen, until the "End of Hostilities"
- This refers the "War on Terror" -- Not the war in Iraq, so you're in for the long haul.

This seems to discard any Civil Rights that have been established under the U.S. Constitution.

Thats okay, I think these "Amendments" were really just kind of...guidelines...suggestions if you will.

Like this archaic notion - The 5th Amendment:

- "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger."

- "No person...shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

(emphasis added)

That stuff is silly though, right?

I'd sacrifice that for...um...the opportunity to feel safe when I go to the local Wal-Mart.

Wait, I don't feel safe there, and it has nothing to do with 9-11 and Terrorist!

There is another Amendment, pejoratively called the "Sixth" which has some interesting things to say:

- "The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

- "The accused shall enjoy the right...to be informed of the nature and cause of action."

- "The accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with witnesses against him."

What happens if someone is innocent.

Are we willing to put an innocent U.S. Citizen in a secret military prison for an indefinite amount of time without a trial?

Yoo, being the talking-head that he is explains:
(Note: this is a take from a series of statements in his interview on N.P.R. [national politburo radio] this morning)

- Inevitably, innocent people will end up in jail.

- In war, sometimes there is collateral damage, sometimes we will strike the wrong target, or in striking a target innocent people will be killed.

- The same thing happens in our Criminal Justice system.

- Its not a good outcome, and we could do better, but it would be too expensive.

You see, one of the biggest problem with interpretation of the Constitution is trying to ascertain the "intent" of the writers.

That is not a problem on the issue of American Citizens right to a trial...

I know its cliche, but there is a very good reason that Ben Franklin, a founding father and an author of the U.S. Constitution, said these words:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If people believe we are safer because of these changes, they are living in a state of denial and delusion.

If you want to know what the "intent" of the founding fathers was, we are fortunate to have a DIRECT QUOTE on the matter.

You want more?

Alexander Hamilton, in 1788 said the following:

"The friends and adversaries of the plan of the constitutional convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon trial by jury; the former regard it as a valube safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government"

Mr. Franklin and Mr. Hamilton were right.

We 'ought be cautious how much we are willing to give up to preserve are "way of life"; Otherwise we will one day find ourselves without that "way of life" not by the hands of Terrorists, but by the hands of our own Government.

And you can quote me on that.

Stay Tuned...

Stop "Bringing Sexy Back", seriously.

Look, its not funny.

Justin Timberlake sounds like a woman in the song.

Its not cute to say "X is bringing sexy back"

You're not Stuart Scott.

You're not Linda Cohn.

You're not the [Adult Swim] writing staff.

Those are the only people who have my blessing to break out "sexy back" and still be funny.

Stop doing it.

Rex Grossman is not bringing sexy back.

Mark Foley is definitely not bringing sexy back.

and Justin Timberlake will never bring sexy back with that pitch, bitch voice.

The only person who consistently brings sexy back...

Me.

In this blog.

A few times a day.

Take 'em to the bridge.
(and throw them off)


Stay Tuned...

Party of Morals v. 2

No joke, I'll be brief.

Former Rep. Mark Foley has the audacity now, at his time of great shame, to turn around and accuse the CLERGY of molesting him when he was a child.

So...this party of morals, who's vocal base is church-going, bible toting conservatives watches one of their own not only go down as a result of a sexual misconduct scandal but then turn around and pass the buck to the church.

This is typical of the G.O.P.

First its "I didn't do anything wrong."

Then its "I did it, but it wasn't my fault."

This party lacks any form of responsibility:

Fiscal Responsibility?

NOPE

Personal responsibly?

NOT IN HERE

Responsible Foreign Policy?

WE WOULD PREFER ARMAGEDDON, BUT ONLY BECAUSE WE MISS JESUS

Responsible Domestic Policy?

HEALTH INSURANCE IS OVERRATED...

Responsible Sexual Practices?

ONLY WITH LITTLE BOYS...

Come on people, pay attention.

Don't let them do this again!

Q: Why don't republicans use bookmarks?

A: They prefer to bend over their pages

(thanks Furrow)

Stay Tuned...

Party of Morals?

Former Rep. Mark Foley

Hmmm...lets look at G.O.P. as of late...

The most obvious is the "gentleman from Florida" Former Rep. Mark Foley.

This guy is a class act.

Some of his finer work:

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet...but likely Friday
Teen: ok...ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

In another exchange released Monday, the page apparently was uncomfortable with Foley's alleged advances:

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb...then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat...we drink...who knows...hang out...late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here...im not sure what I would be comfortable with...we'll see

But come on, not all immoral G.O.P. actions involve sex.

Lest you forget Tom DeLay?

Rap Sheet:

1. $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions
2. Unlawful political advertising,
3. Unlawful contributions to a political committee
4. Unlawful expenditures such as those to a graphics company and political candidates.
5. Illegal Corporate Campaign Contributions
6. Money Laundering
7. In 1999, DeLay was privately reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee after he pulled an important intellectual property rights bill off of the House floor when the Electronics Industries Alliance hired a former Democratic Congressman, Dave McCurdy.
8. Jack Abramoff
9. Misuse of Federal Investigative Agencies

Jack Abramoff needs his own category though:

Exhibit A: Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon (a former Tom DeLay aide) conspired to bilk Indian casino gambling interests out of an estimated $85 million in fees. The lobbyists also orchestrated lobbying against their own clients in order to force them to pay for lobbying services. These practices were the subject both of long-running criminal prosecution and hearings by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Exhibit B: On August 11, 2005, Abramoff and his partner, Adam Kidan, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on fraud charges arising from a 2000 deal to buy SunCruz Casinos from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis. Abramoff and Kidan are accused of using a fake wire transfer to make lenders believe that they had made a $23 million down payment, in order to qualify for a $60 million loan.

Exhibit C: In 2002, Abramoff was retained under a secret contract by the Guam Superior Court to lobby against a bill proposing to put the Superior Court under the authority of the Guam Supreme Court. On Nov. 18, 2002, a grand jury issued a subpoena demanding that the administrator of the Guam Superior Court release all records relating to the contract. On Nov. 19, 2002, U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black, the chief prosecutor for Guam and the instigator of the indictment, was unexpectedly demoted and removed from the office he had held since 1991. The federal grand jury investigation was quickly wound down and took no further action. In 2005, Public Auditor Doris Flores Brooks initiated a new investigation of the Abramoff contract which is continuing.

As you can see, this is quite the cast of characters.

This is all without addressing the Bush Administration head on, although DeLay and Abramoff were both key players in the White House.

I just bought Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial: Bush at War III which I look forward to reading.

Just another thought. If you were going to identify one of the two major parties, Democrats or Republicans, and say that one of them was heavily involved with the Oil Industry who would you say that is?

Republicans?

I agree.

Now, If you were going to say which party has the most to lose in this election, the incumbent power (G.O.P.) or the minority party (Democrats) who would you say?

Republicans?

I agree.

Now, if you were going to say which party would be most negatively effected by high gas prices come November, which would you say?

Republicans?

I agree.

Maybe that's why I saw gas at $2.06/gallon today.

I hope Americans are paying attention, otherwise we will be fooled again.

Fool me once...shame on me.

Fool me a fourth time...fuck we're dumb.

You want morals?

Democrats stand for the following: (G.O.P. methods in parentheses)

1. Human Rights
- (see also Abu Graib)
2. Living Wage
- (see also G.O.P. resistance to increased minimum wage)
3. Responsible Environmental Policy
- (see also current Automotive Emissions standards)
4. Sending our soldiers into harms way only for a just cause
- (see also Iraq)
5. Higher Education
- (see also Bush Administration cuts to Federal Scholarships)
6. Balanced Budget
- (see also Record Deficit)
7. Helping the less fortunate
- (see also Budget cuts to homeless shelters and Medicare programs)
8. K-12 Education
- (see also OrwellianNo Child Left Behind program)

Vote for the party that will make you proud.

Not the party that scares you the most.

Stay Tuned...