Basic Fairness

The task of the mind is to produce future, as the poet Paul Valery once put it. A mind is fundamentally an anticipator, an expectation-generator. It mines the present for clues, which it refines with the help of the materials it has saved from the past, turning them into anticipations of the future. And then it acts, rationally, on the basis of those hard-won anticipations. 

Daniel Dennett, Kinds of Minds  


I read the news today, oh boy.  About a lucky man who made the grade.  Well, OK,  he didn’t.  And I really don’t know about anyone being lucky in this instance.  

A man, Johannes Mehserle, a police officer who shot another man, Oscar Grant at point blank range, put a bullet in his back and killed him, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, which is punishable for up to, I believe, 4 years in prison. He could have been found guilty of second degree murder, with a possible sentence of 25 years in prison, but was not. Oscar Grant may have been a great many things, but one thing he wasn’t; someone who needed to be either shot or tasered while some knelt on his neck. 

Do I blame the man who did the shooting for killing the man in question? Hell yes.  You pulled the trigger, you committed a murder.  End of statement.  Do I think he wanted to kill the man in question? That I don’t know, he clearly didn’t want to have a meaningful in depth conversation with the man, that much is clear.  Was his pulling the trigger a voluntary motion? It would kind of have to be, wouldn’t it? 

I guess I don’t know enough about the justice system.  How is it possible for this to be involuntary manslaughter?  If I were of a more sarcastic frame of mind at the moment I would ask if  the shooter was shooting against his will.  Since I’m not though, let’s be serious and ask, how is the act of drawing a weapon to do grievous bodily harm to another, to a man already pinned to the ground, involuntary? Even a taser here would have been overkill, unless you think it’s OK to use a weapon on defenseless people, who are being knelt on.  

More on this later. 


Thursday’s Links: 

Officer guilty in killing that inflamed Oakland 

Oakland police report no arrests despite protests 

Issa; Steele is ‘not my leader’ 

Appeals court, 2-1 rejects Obama plea on drilling moratorium 

Same sex marriage law unconstitutional 


Viddy of the day:  Darrell Issa, Republican from California, talking about the focus of the Republican party and Michael Steele.  He is not kind to the chair of the Republican National Committee.   He does a hell of a lot to distance the party and Mr. Steele. So much for party unity. 


[L]et your self go. If you can approach the world’s complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. 

Daniel Dennett; Breaking the Spell 


More legal stuff. 



The defense of marriage act, the act of congress that states, nay, defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman, has been struck down as unconstitutional.  The ruling, passed down by Massachusetts state judge Joseph Tauro, states that not only does the law encroach upon personal rights, by excluding certain benefits to gay couples that straight married couples can have, it compels the state to discriminate against its own citizens.  

These two cases make a clear statement that the court will not tolerate the creation of second class marriages or tolerate the continued existence of second class citizens, who would only be second class because of the judgment of the federal government’s defense of marriage act. 

This is also going to be a doozy of an argument about the 10th amendment, that great friend of the far right, and just how much power the government has to tell people how exactly to live their lives, insofar as making it clear that one group can get benefits that another group cannot solely on the grounds of their sexuality.  And while that sounds like the argument for the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, and it is, it also has strength as a 10th amendment argument, due to the simple fact that the federal government, by enacting DOMA, stepped heavily on the rights of the states to make their own laws, in an area where there was no previous encroachment by the federal government. 

And anytime, in this day and age, when it seems that the personal protections afforded by the bill of rights are eroding away daily and have been for years, a victory for them feels especially refreshing. But you know how these things go, so this last sentence should come as no surprise. 

The case will be appealed.   


A final  aside:  Justice is about bringing order to the world, order of a moral and ethical variety, and resolving disputes where there is a dispute about the ethical order in the world.  Justice is, in those terms, what people in the world seek for themselves, and only occasionally for everyone.  

When justice seems invisible in the system, or if there is a seeming breach of it in that system or when it seems absent in the world in which we live, we are right to stand up and speak out against the lack of justice.  We are right sometimes to raise our fists in anger and fight for justice, when the injustice is severe enough.  

These are only two cases of injustice that America has seen and lived through.  One a very personal breach on the part of a young police officer, the other a very impersonal breach towards an entire group of people.  The ones who were done wrong here did no wrong except live their lives.  

For Oscar Grant, nothing can be done.  The young man is dead, and no amount of talk or action or legislation or apologies will bring him back to life.  A prayer for his family is about the best we can do.  

For the GLBT community that has been hard done by here, there are things we can do. Stand up and make it known that, no matter what else goes on in the world, we will not allow any members of our citizenry to live as second class citizens, that any benefit that I can receive, all can receive.  If the government can hand out benefits, and it is clear that it can, it must not give to one group, and not to another.  That injustice is very much against the very fabric of our nation, and all that it stands for.  

“With Liberty, and Justice, for all” means something, something vitally important.  Stand up for it. 


 Updates from the job front tomorrow.  That’s all from me America.  Go to sleep.


It would be nice if…

       …I could find a job before I go completely broke.460px-palmercarpentera

    Been looking for a while.  I send out e-mails.  I write to companies, I go to agencies.  Nada.  Can’t seem to catch a break.  I am probably going to have to declare bankruptcy soon.  Gonna wait a few more weeks before I make that decision.  It’s not that I am unwilling to declare bankruptcy because there is some stigma attached to it.  I just want to give it a few more weeks,  just to see if my bad luck breaks.  It can’t last forever. 

    Rains eventually give way to sun.  Darkness gives way to light.  The bad days cannot last forever, the sun will shine again, and it will shine sooner than later.  I just need to seek it out.  If i go to a negative balance on my bank account and have creditors beating down my door, i will feel the same way.  Concerned? Yer damn right, but I won’t lose my positive viewpoint, it is about all I have.  That and the love of my wife, a woman who has even more faith in me than I do.

    That does make it a bit easier to deal with.  Life is, like me, and most everyone else, far from perfect.  I won’t let that stop me from getting what I need to keep a roof over my head, heat and power on, and food to keep us strong.


    It would be nice if Rudy Giuliani would just shut up.  I heard him, not once, but twice talk this morning about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with both Stephenopolous and Fox news Sunday.  He said that it was a mistake to try him here in New York.  He said that it shows an over concern with the rights of terrorists.  He said having the trials here showed a lack of concern for the rights of the public. He says that granting a trial here in New York is granting the wishes of the mastermind of 9/11.  He called him a soldier and said he should face a military tribunal.

    Rudy is missing the point, and it really is a simple one.  WE WANT JUSTICE.  A military tribunal for a man who is part of an extra-national terrorist organization would lend strength to all the bad guys. If we do an end around on the justice system to get this guy, then he’s won.  He got us to circumvent our own normal legal procedures to fight him.   There is some legal precedent against trying people in similar circumstances in military tribunals.  You are a former prosecutor, Rudy, maybe you know the history of this.  There have been a great many military tribunals in this 467px-Rudy_Giulianination.  A few have even tried civilians.  Several times in fact, and in war, with an enemy on our land, the U.S. Supreme court found those military tribunals UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  We are a nation of Laws, Mr. Giuliani, and there are two very important Supreme court precedents that is important here.

     Ex Parte Milligan is one, and let me put in blockquotes, a piece of an article in wikipedia which is the main point of my argument here. 

Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is only constitutional when there is no power left but the military, and the military may only validly try criminals as long as is absolutely necessary.

     Yes, I get that the bastard isn’t a citizen, but that point is covered by the second Scotus precedent, Hamdan V Rumsfeld decision which stated  that a “Military commission to try Plaintiff is illegal and lacking the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.”  It would do critics of the decision to try KSM here well to read up on this case.

    Rudy, how exactly is it showing a lack of concern for the rights of the public by holding a trial in New York, when that crime was committed in New York?  I think it makes sense to say that it would show a lack of concern if we didn’t hold the trial here.  Why? Because crime victims have rights.  Those rights include knowing what is going to happen to the person accused of the crime committed against them or their kin.  You would take that away from the families of the victims of 9/11 by throwing the veil of a military tribunal over this case.

   And that isn’t an “over concern” for the rights of terrorists, it shows an over concern for the rights of hard working, red-blooded American citizens.  And as for the statement in the video he makes about some being tried before military tribunals?  That would be, as I recall, because those people are actual enemy combatants,actual Taliban fighters.  These individuals were in armies we are at war with, and as a consequence, they get tried in front of a military tribunal.  

   It doesn’t matter either way.  KSM is dead meat on a stick regardless of where he is tried. Let “WE THE PEOPLE” who were attacked that fateful day, have our day of justice in a court of law. And if you REALLY don’t want Mohammed tried here, you need to change the constitution so that it is proper and constitutional to try him in a military tribunal. 


     That’s about it from me for tonight.  Later!

Today’s Nuggets via wikiquote:  Lose this day loitering, ‘Twill be the same story Tomorrow — and the next more dilatory. Then indecision brings its own delays, and days are lost lamenting overdays! Are you ernest? Seize this very minute! What you can do, or dream you can — begin it! Courage has genius, power and magic in it. Only engage, and the mind grows heated. Begin it, and the work will be completed.  Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

For those who need consolation no means of consolation is so effective as the assertion that in their case no consolation is possible: it implies so great a degree of distinction that they at once hold up their heads again.  Friedrich Nietzsche

Latest edit 1:55am edt 11/16/09

Anagram: State Of Mind/ A Deft Monist

      John Allen Muhammad is dead, and that is good.  The state of Virginia executed the man a little while ago for killing ten people several years ago.  You remember him, don’t you? the D.C. Sniper ring any bells?  ?  The Bible says thou shalt not kill, and this guy decided to kill indiscriminately.  The state has the right to protect itself, and it’s citizens from dangers like the one this man represented to society.   Good to see justice done here.

      I may normally be a fairly liberal individual, but dammit, when people lose their minds and start indiscriminately killing people like this nutbag did, the death penalty is not only proper, it is necessary.  I do believe in mercy and doing good for people even if they won’t or don’t do good for you, but there is a line that I think must not be crossed, and this man crossed it.  Any clearly violent threat to society must be dealt with as swiftly and surely as possible.

    Which opens up a larger debate.  If we deal with violent criminals, who are a clear and present danger to society when they are caught, in this manner, are there others who should be treated in a similar manner?   Is there a justification for the death penalty for other crimes?   And an oldie but a goodie, what is justice?


    Are there others who should be treated in a similar manner? Well, yes, when put that simply.  The moral principle determining just conduct would almost by nature call for such, and “moral principle determining just conduct” is an actual dictionary definition of the word justice.  The problem I run into is the sentencing actually used.  I don’t see moral principle, when application of law can be as willy nilly(a technical term, surely) as this system is.  Any code made is made by men, flawed, less than perfect. This will therefor by dint of that make an imperfect system of judgment, which will judge some less harshly and hit others harder than one would think necessary, but we can do better than this.



    An example here of what i am talking about.  Reading this pdf, you can have a field day making points about how unjust our system can be.  The average sentence for Postal fraud is 34.8 months, just short of 3 years.  The average sentence for Burglary? 5 months less.  Another example? OK.  Motor vehicle theft 129.8 months average, just short of 11 years.  First degree murder? 134.7 months,  only a few months more. 

  We, as a nation need to look a little with a more critical eye at sentencing guidelines, don’t ya think? Along with maybe a look at what we deem the worst crimes.  Because when we put almost the same price on blood as a car, we’ve gotten something wrong.  And if we’ve gotten that wrong, and that one seems a no-brainer to me, what else are we doing wrong?

     How can you expect Americans to respect the concept of justice, of us having a “moral principle”, when we have such a skewed concept of justice, where these numbers can even exist, let alone make sense to anyone, if they even do?

     But this is at best a tiny piece of the puzzle.


   When is the death penalty justified?   Some circumstances almost cry for the death penalty, like the Muhammad/DC Sniper case.  Serial killers.  A killer with multiple homicides to his name.  Take into account the suffering of the victims families, not to mention the victims.  We treat a killer better, by letting him(or her) live, than the family of the victim and the victim for what reason exactly?  Family members must suffer with the knowledge that person who killed their loved one will live for years and years without the death penalty in such cases. 

   Tis cruel indeed, for the victims, and for a society that must live with the knowledge that the worst elements of society will live for years, on their dime.  There are people in jail who deserve better than what they are getting, but cases like the DC Sniper, or the Fort Hood shooter are a bit below and beneath the usual criminal. 

       I saw a picture in a news story earlier today (sorry for no link, I closed down the window and couldn’t find the story again(damn my penchant for deleting temporary files)) that had several people outside the Virginia prison where Mr. Muhammad was, protesting the death penalty.  That one I don’t get.  I can understand protesting some death penalty cases, mind you. There are such things as miscarriages of justice, and those deserve protest.  This isn’t one of them.   In many cases I am against the death penalty, just not here. 


     I could do more, but I’m getting ready to call it a night.  So, that’s it from here.  Later!

Today’s nuggets, via wikiquote:  Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up.  Henry David Thoreau

We ought always to deal justly, not only with those who are just to us, but likewise to those who endeavor to injure us; and this, for fear lest by rendering them evil for evil, we should fall into the same vice.  Hierocles

In the eyes of mercy, no one should have hateful thoughts. Feel pity for the man who is even more at fault. The area and size of mercy is limitless. Yamamoto Tsunetomo

People aren’t afraid of being dead, they’re afraid of getting dead.  George Carlin

Anagram: Incomplete Story/ Contritely Mopes

       This is a video from a few days ago.  I have been looking for actual video footage showing vote counts as they happened, but either they aren’t on youtube, or more likely, I just cannot find them.  I did however run into a spot here on wordpress that shows a 45,000 vote drop for one of the  minority candidates, and makes that the basis for a simple argument.  The numbers changed, went down a fair bit over a period of several hours, a truly odd thing to happen, this therefore means that those votes must have been stolen. And while i can definitely get behind this concept, i think this does need a rethink, at least for a moment on several levels.

       Mistakes can occur, and two screen shots do not and cannot from my perspective, give the entire story.  What happened between the time on 800px-Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_Columbiathese screen shots? Was there any acknowledgement of a miscount at any point? Nothing about that was said, no information given.  Is there proof, beyond the picture, that those votes were stolen and not merely miscounted? I cannot, do not and will not think anything positive here about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but 45,000 votes is merely a symptom.  Millions of votes had to be stolen for the results to come out the way Iranian state television and the council said it did. 

    I do in fact think that the election was rigged.  I have heard, and have no reason to doubt, that interior minister and  billionaire Sadegh Mahsouli, did in fact interfere with the election results to give Ahmadinejad the victory.   The problem I have with the above premise, that the picture is proof of the actual theft, is that it is incomplete and poorly thought out.  Mir Hossein Moussavi according to official counts, lost the election by over 13,000,000 votes.  The theft in the above mentioned wordpress article mentions only a dip of 45,000 votes, and no drop in votes for Moussavi.  There is a story that touches more deeply on the actual technique involved.     

    Let’s look at some journalism for a minute.  This story by the New Yorker gives no definitive proof.  This story, however, from the New York Times several days ago, is more definitive, and if correct would be a be the slam dunk that this story really needs.   Having someone show his ministry ID card and say they didn’t count the votes, they just wrote down “the name and the number”.  That is just plain amazing Chutzpah on the part of those who did this. Having an interior ministry employee say they had been planning on stealing the election for some time, purging those people of “doubtful loyalty” is the icing on the cake.

     The young man in the wordpress story got a little bit too excited over a picture which may well have been a mistake.  There are much more serious things going on here than a simple television mistake, which until someone proves otherwise, is all that that was.   Does anyone seriously think that Iranian television, and the interior ministry, and Mister Ahmadinejad would be dumb enough, or careless enough to plant the proof of theft right under the noses of the entire nation? Nonononono, these men are a great deal smarter than that.

    That’s about it from here, with the exception of a second viddy, and a few quotes.

     A viddy from Russia today, talking about the likelihood of a change happening in Iran, and Iran both from the Russian and international perspective.  A very valid point made in the final seconds of this video.  Moussavi will not be much different from Ahmadinejad on the nuclear question.  That is something to keep in mind as this story continues to unfold.

   I’ll be back with a second blog later, if possible.  Later!

Today’s Nuggets, Via wikiquote:  Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.  Frederick Douglass

We ought always to deal justly, not only with those who are just to us, but likewise to those who endeavor to injure us; and this, for fear lest by rendering them evil for evil, we should fall into the same vice.   Hierocles

Anagram: Shoot The Computer/ Recompute, Hotshot

      Before I get to Politics, a personal aside.   It’s been awhile since I’ve had serious issues with this or any computer.  Usually I keep it clean and virus free, and running lean and mean, but lately the damn thing has been running slow and crashing like crazy.  I don’t know whether it’s a virus/worm/whatever, or I have to fix something in my settings, or something just needs to be updated or changed, but it has affected everything I do here.  My job search has been affected, as has my blogging, both here and at,  my downtime computer game playing, everything.  Went through a scan on bitdefender and it found…nothing.  I’ve altered the settings on my free AVG to look at everything, which i was surprised to find it wasn’t originally set to do.  

    Enough whining, onto politics!

       Ted Stevens got hosed. Big time.  I have read several stories, from places as varied as the Washington post, politico, and the Anchorage  800px-judgestoolsdaily news about how Ted Stevens was screwed by overzealous prosecutors who held back a key piece of testimony from the #1 witness in the Stevens trail. Bill Allen, whose testimony was damning at the trail, had in fact prior to giving his testimony spoken at a witness interview and told a different tale about a crucial piece of evidence, introduced at trial as Government Exhibit 495.  The Torricelli note, it seems, would have corroborated then Sen. Stevens story, injuring the prosecutions claim of malfeasance, and shown that on some level, Mr. Stevens in fact wanted to make a good accounting for himself and make sure that everything was done on the level.

     There ain’t no Justice.  It looks very much like the prosecutors, in their zeal to prosecute a big name , and in the process make a big name for themselves, forgot about the one thing they were supposed to remember.  Prosecuting is not about jailing people, or throwing the book at anyone.  It is about making sure that right is done, and that those who do ill are punished in a manner that fits the crime.  It looks very much like the request that Attorney General Eric Holder made to drop all charges in this case will be granted by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the judge who worked this trail.  This does not mean that anyone necessarily thinks ted is 100% innocent, but what it does say is that fairness counts, and former Sen. Stevens case was handled in a manner that was egregious, unfair and improper. 

     The next step here is investigation and possible prosecution of the prosecutors of this case.  I hope they receive real justice, something former Sen. Stevens was denied here.

      I almost feel the need to apologize, In part because when this case first broke into the news, I was all over Mr. Stevens.  I raked him over the coals but good.  I did him no injustice, i simply wrote what i felt about what i knew, which was clearly not everything. 

      That’s it for me for now, except for a second video and a few quotes.

     Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking as keynote speaker to the ABA, speaking about the rule of law and freedom.  The most important part, in regards to today’s subject, happens at about the 3:00 mark, but the entire video is well worth watching.

That’s it for me.  Later!



Today’s Nuggets, Via wikiquote: If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.  Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it… What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.    Learned Hand

Anagram: Macaroni And Cheese/Earaches And Income

       How do Folks, and Welcome to the Monday edition. 

       I read a story, and later heard the same story on TV about an AP story that both intrigued and angered me.  The story suggested that the banks that have gotten Bailout money are unwilling to say exactly what they are doing with the money they have gotten and where it’s gone.  Here’s a video on it, from Hardball with guest host Mike Barnacle and Jim Cramer:

    Wait…what?  If I went to a bank and took out a loan, you damn well know that they would ask me questions as to how i was going to spend the united_states_dime2c_reversemoney.  But they, AFTER receiving billions of dollars from us, have decided they don’t have to answer our questions about where the money went.  As a matter of fact, from at least one bank the statement went one step further then that.  A spokesman for JP Morgan chase said that they not only haven’t given an accounting of what they’ve done with the money, they won’t. we gave them $25,000,000,000 and they won’t tell where the money has gone.  We need to go in and get this money back. 

    When we give a few billion dollars to the Automakers, the congress hemmed and hawed about the Failed business model and how they had better give us a better car and a better business model.  You know, accountability.  That is a good thing.  The question here is, where is the accountability for the Banks in question? The questions were amazingly simple.  Where’s the money.  What are you doing with it? That kind of thing.  But they would not answer.

    We need to hold these bankers feet to the fire.  We need to bring these people up to the hill and grill them as mercilessly as the automakers were grilled, who were grilled for the money a great deal harder than Paulson, Bernanke and the Bankers were for nearly a trillion dollars.

     We CANNOT allow the other half of the tarp to be spent until we KNOW exactly where OUR money has gone, what it has been spent on, and what the business plan is.  We want to look at the books.  We want our money to make money, and if it isn’t being spent the way we want it being spent, we should get it back!  Hold the Banks to the same high standard that we have just held the automakers to.

 The Spirit of '76  I used to be for the Bailout.  I thought they were going to do things right.  I thought they were going to help AMERICA.  But they haven’t, they’ve taken the money, hidden it away, and refused to speak to us about it.  This is Bullshit.  

      This is a plea to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the rest at Banking committees in the House and the Senate.  Hold these people accountable, don’t just say “We’ll give you the money if you help the Mortgage Industry”. 

     That’s not enough.  Not even close.

     I want, and we the people want, to know what happened to the first half of the money before we even BEGIN to think about how the second half gets doled out.  To be honest, I don’t think we should give it out at all.  It’s our money. Let’s just keep it and be done with this crap now. 

    If the banks don’t want to answer our questions, then they don’t get any more money. It should be that simple. Let’s hope the people in Washington grow a set and start to think of the people and not just the businesses. 

     A video, a few quotes and I am done.

   The Bailout was supposed to stabilize our Financial system.  Here’s a simple question.  It’s a few months later.  How much more stable are we? How much better off are we now that we have given Billions in Bonuses to Wall street millionaires and billionaires while we lose jobs, homes and equity like there’s no tomorrow? Are we better off now? I don’t think so.  Do you?

   That’s It for me.  Later!

Today’s Nuggets, Via Wikiquote:   If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted.    Karl Popper

In a free society a large degree of human activity is none of the government’s business. We should make criminal what’s going to hurt other people and other than that we should leave it to people to make their own choices.   Barney Frank

Anagram: All The Laws But One/Hellbent as Outlaw

       I Liked the Anagram that came from the latest book that I’m reading so much that I just had to make it today’s title.  It’s, I would guess, what some would call a dry read. I’ve never been a fan of Stephen king or anyone who writes less dry stuff tho, so that should not come as a surprise to anyone who knows me.  I tried reading Stephen King once.  It was crap, Not even “grade A” crap.  I got about 3 paragraphs in and said to myself “This is Horseshit!!!” Then again, maybe it’s because I’m not a big fan of Stephen king movies.  Who knows.  Just FYI, the title was “Green Mile”. I Heard the movie won an award. 

       The Book I’m reading “All The Laws But One” is a book about Civil Liberties in Wartime, Habeus Corpus, and profiles people important to the shaping of the current view of Habeus, from Abraham Lincoln, William Seward, and Chief Justice Taney, to Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.  Yes. It’s a dry read, but I like that kinda thing.  That’s just me.  BTW, if yer interested, the book was written in 1998 and was written By Former Supreme court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

     And me a moderate Democrat, reading a book by the Justice who gave the Dissenting opinion of Roe V. Wade as an associate Justice of the Supreme court….And liking it.  Maybe I should go read some of Antonin Scalia’s works… Hmmmm…..


   Let’s see…What else…OH YEAH!  I’m busy at work, so this is about it, except for the video, which, since this is such a dry blog, I’ll keep that way.   An excerpt from the PBS Series: The Supreme Court.

That’s It for me!  Later!

Today’s Nuggets, By William H. Rehnquist, Via Wikiquote:  The framers of our Constitution came up with two major contributions to the art of government. The first was the idea of an executive not dependent on the political support of the legislature. The second was the idea of the judiciary independent of the executive and legislative branches.

No amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.